manjarno VS Arch-Installer

I don't know how much up to date it is, but https://github.com/vizs/manjarno

Almost all distros would run fine on that sort of hardware. If you're coming from Windows, I'd say go for something KDE or Cinnamon-based like Fedora KDE/Cinnamon, openSUSE, Mint Cinnamon, Mageia or Kubuntu. I wouldn't use Manjaro, the people behind it don't seem very trustworthy.

Here are a couple of reasons - The main one, in my opinion is letting their SSL certificates lapse twice - and recommending that users get around it by changing their clocks, which is kind of a nono. There was also a recent scandal about the use of treasury funds

It's not even truly arch based. They maintain their own repo. https://github.com/vizs/manjarno

Manjaro is made by devs that have no clue what they're doing. Delaying packages without checking them is not stable, it's idiotic. They have caused more vulnerabilities than they have solved. Full explanation as to why Manjaro should not be used: https://github.com/vizs/manjarno

Avoid using Manjaro, it's pretty untrustworthy. https://github.com/vizs/manjarno It's much more unstable and prone to problems than Arch or EndeavourOS.

here's a document on why not to choose manjaro. It's outdated but most points are still valid.

No, manjaro LITERALLY isn't arch. https://github.com/vizs/manjarno

I used to love Arch as well. I have even written installer scripts (before the introduction of the new arch installer). But whenever I faced issues completely unique to me it's much much harder to fix because of lack of debugging symbols on Arch. Arch is probably the only distribution that doesn't have debugging symbols. Again, the issues I mentioned were mostly unique to my hardware and setup (very few people could reproduce the same issues only after I posted in forums). I don't know what magic openSUSE maintainers do, but I have always found it to be the most reliable.

Hope this helps.

Here you go.