Linux

I used Manjaro for about 6 months, never used AUR or made any real modifications to my install (except for troubleshooting), and had to fully reinstall 2 times and fix config issues on files I've never touched a handful of times in that 6 months because a standard update broke everything. I then went on to use EndeavourOS for a year and never had a single issue the entire time I used it, so my problems were not related to Arch, it was Manjaro. Similar stories are constantly echoed about Manjaro, and I have a hard time believing that the entire Internet is astroturfing a Linux distro for no reason. I, as a quite experienced Linux user of over a decade, have never tried any distro that has been anywhere close to as bad as Manjaro. I've had an install brick itself once outside of Manjaro, and that was due to an obscure hardware bug that got through QA. I've never had to spend as much time fixing a distro as I did with Manjaro, and it was on a laptop that I only used for browsing and schoolwork. I didn't even bother to change the wallpaper because I only had it there to try out. So no, nothing that happened was related to the packages I installed, the (nonexistent) changes made to configs, or the use of the AUR. That was a perfectly normal Manjaro install breaking itself for absolutely no reason. You can feel free not to trust my anecdotal evidence, but almost everyone I've seen in this community who has said they've used Manjaro has echoed similar stories. This isn't a unique or rare experience.

EndeavourOS has great value to users new to Arch that don't want to set everything up from scratch. It is basically vanilla Arch without the setup hassle of vanilla Arch. I don't see why that wouldn't have value, and I don't really understand why you'd recommend Manjaro over it. The 2 week freeze that Manjaro does on packages doesn't actually help stability. It does nothing at best, and makes things worse in most other cases.