Obviously Mabox names is made from two parts Ma(njaro) + (Open)box.
However Manjaro has received some negativity lately for instance how their team handles their finances, how long the packages are tested before they are transferred to stable, how different Manjaro is with Arch and this can lead to breakages especially when considering utilizing AUR.
I 'd like to know what Mabox devs think about it. I know there is a reason why you chose Manjaro over Arch, but what if Manjaro goes down the tubes, is it possible to just change to regular Arch?
I am just a regular user, but I’d like to interject for a moment. What you referring to as Manjaro(arch based) is actually Manjaro(arch neighbor). It uses the same packaging system and aurs, but for the most parts they are completely different.
Arch has it’s customizability and minimalism(DIY). And Manjaro have, stability and utilization(original set of tools and features)
They are like Ubuntu and PopOs. They are developed, by different devs, with different views, structure and people with their own preferences. Even tho they have same repositories and both (sorta) Debian based, they are different enough to not compare them in the matter of “Father, child”, but “Brothers” who are distinct from one another.
Also, most of Manjaro criticism sounds like trolling that got of hands. Devs might be humans sometimes, and make mistakes, and packages may be old. But, if you don’t trust the dev, you can contribute yourself to the code or to userbase. And change from with time your packages will appear (near arch’s bleeding edge too).
So in summary, Manjaro is not Arch/Linux, but Manjaro/Linux
As soon as I read the first line of your second paragraph I knew it was going to be related to the first video because, coincidentally, I watched it too several days ago. In fact, I made myself a similar but broader question:
How feasible (meaning, what packages and configs) would you need to replicate Mabox in any other distro like Arch or Debian?
I’m going to tail my question here because it’s related and also very interested in the developer’s answers.
I’m busy right now and haven’t had time to watch the videos you have linked. I suspect, almost certain, that these are clikbaits for earning money - like 90% of junk Linux videos on YT. Maybe I will watch this weekend, if I have nothing more interesting to do. Maybe even comment on them.
Or maybe I Invest my time and energy on something more interesting and productive - like working on next Mabox
Recreating Mabox-like experience on the basis of pure Arch can be a huge amount of work.
It depends on what you like about Mabox and what you want to recreate.
Sources are available at git.maboxlinux.org.
You have the necessary configuration files in ~ or / etc / skel
If you are considering Debian as a desktop (really?). Better install BunsenLabs. They have a nice Openbox, tint2, jgmenu + some great tools, which forks are also in Mabox (like Theme Manager for example).
BunsenLabs is a great distro. I have used it since its inception. I was Crunchbang and Crunchbang++ user for years.
I switched over to Mabox ~8 months-ish ago only because I became inpatient to wait ~2 years b/w releases (This is just because Debian releases every ~2 years).
I have two computers new intel 10th gen with Mabox, old intel 7th gen with BunsenLabs. I customized both desktops too similar to tell the difference at first glance.
So, like @napcok said, if you like Openbox, tint2, jgmenu and overall lightness of Mabox, I highly recommend you to try out Bunsenlabs.
But, I warn you if you decide to install it on a bleeding edge hardware, you may spend nights and weekends Googling searching for a solution just to get that ISO installed on a bare-metal bleeding edge hardware.
I mentioned those two as broad examples. Mabox is now in all my computers but I also use a customized MX Linux as portable tool set. This one looks much better for that project.
