Hacker News Reader

Distros like Manjaro have been on the receiving end of criticism regarding security updates, but how worse is it really compared to the more mainstream distros? I, as a layman, see no difference.

View on HN

Didn't Manjaro suggest rolling your system date back because their certificate were out of date?

Sometimes it's not what went wrong, it's your approach to fixing it.

Well, no excuse for something like that. That's bad. I'm wondering generally though, after it reached some maturity (let's say 2016+ Manjaro), what's the difference in security of that distro compared to something like Debian? Is a distro like Arch more secure than any other? And do you need to be a Linux guru to be "safe" as a desktop user? Or does it really not matter that much at all to the casual user? Again, I'm a layman, genuinely interested in this topic. As you might have inferred, I've recently switched from Debian to Manjaro, and Debian was my first "home" Linux.

I think it's about what tools you use day to day. If, for example, you have SSH installed on your machine but don't have sshd enabled, then you could care less how outdated it is. Nobody is exploiting you through it if it's not running. If all you use your workstation for is browsing and text editing, then it's safe to assume you want those two applications to be as secure as possible. You can then look at, for example, what browser version the distro of your choice ships and judge it from that. Firefox, as an example, releases quite often and a distro that doesn't keep up with those updates gets a minus point from me. This is my personal view at things and may not sit with everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com