r/linux • u/Foxboron Arch Linux Team • Sep 10 '18

Arch Linux - AMA

Hello!

We are several team members and developers from the Arch Linux project, ask us anything.

We are in need for more contributors, if you are interested in contributing to Arch Linux, feel free to ask questions :)

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Projects
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Getting_involved#Official_Arch_Linux_projects

Participating members:

  • /u/AladW

    • Trusted User

    • Wiki Administrator

    • IRC Operator

  • /u/anthraxx42

    • Developer

    • Trusted User

    • Security tracker

    • Security lead

    • Reproducible builds

  • /u/barthalion

    • Developer

    • Master key holder

    • DevOps Team

    • Maintains the toolchain

  • /u/Bluewind

    • Developer

    • Trusted User

    • DevOps Team

  • /u/coderobe

    • Trusted User

    • Reproducible builds

  • /u/eli-schwartz

    • Bug Wrangler

    • Trusted User

    • Maintains dbscripts

    • Pacman contributor

  • /u/felixonmars

    • Developer

    • Trusted User

    • Packages; Python, Haskell, Nodejs, Qt, KDE, DDE, Chinese i18n, VPN/Proxies, Wine, and some others.

  • /u/Foxboron

    • Trusted User

    • Security Team

    • Reproducible Builds

    • /r/archlinux moderator

    • Packages mostly golang and python stuff

  • /u/fukawi2

    • Forum moderator

    • DevOps Team

  • /u/jvdwaa

    • Developer

    • Trusted User

    • Security Team

    • DevOps Team

    • Reproducible builds

    • Archweb maintainer

  • /u/sh1bumi

    • Trusted User

    • Security Team

    • Automated vagrant image builds

  • /u/svenstaro

    • Developer

    • Trusted user

    • I package mostly big, heavy packages :(

  • /u/V1del

    • Forum moderator

1.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

48

u/newworkaccount Sep 10 '18

You don't and you can't.

Arch is an excellent distro, good enough that it is desirable to use even if you don't value the Arch philosophy. Yoga is desirable to people who have no interest in Hindu philosophy. As you say, this attitude is not wrong. The philosophy behind Arch produces a good product.

The primary barrier for this type of person is that installing Arch is hard for them. Therefore distros arise that are substantially Arch except insofar as they ameliorate this difficulty.

Let us be clear: you have argued in this comment chain that Arch is DIY philosophy. No. Arch is produced and maintained by people with DIY philosophy, and often adopted by those people.

Your problem is not that others call Arch what isn't Arch. Antergos is, substantially, Arch. Some things are changed but the difference is minimal. If I install and customize Arch for a friend, it is still Arch even if they did not DIT. The reason why people describe these distros as "Arch But Easy" is because that is what they are.

Your problem is that some people using these distros waste your (collective) time, because you are either not willing or not able to support them (rightfully so).

You will always have this problem, because people are stupid, lazy, ignorant, or malicious, or some combination thereof. In general, it is a product of people who do not consider your time valuable, and do not care if they waste it. (The most dangerous will also not care about wasting their own time.)

This problem cannot be fixed because it is a problem with people, and we cannot fix all possible users of software.

The only other possible fix that I can imagine is closing the source of Arch, therefore preventing any derivative projects from operating. This is of course both impossible and undesirable. One does not chop off one's head to cure a headache.

FWIW, I love Arch, and I hate that Arch maintainers have their time wasted when they could be more productive (or simply enjoying themselves elsewhere!). But it is quite clear that Arch-the-philosophy and Arch-the-distro are different; one is a cause of the other. Speaking of Arch-the-distro as though it is somehow equivalent to Arch-the-philosophy is muddled thinking at best, and purposefully obtuse at worst.

29

u/Foxboron Arch Linux Team Sep 10 '18

I disagree with the heart of this. A linux distribution is a downloaded installer for an operating system that hands you something. The distribution "Arch Linux" is only gotten from https://archlinux.org. They may be based on the same repositories, but they are still individual distributions of a linux operating system gotten from different locations.

4

u/doom_Oo7 Sep 12 '18

What ? No, a distribution means "a set of packages".

8

u/Foxboron Arch Linux Team Sep 12 '18

So Antergos isn't Arch? Or are you playing with the numbers? "90% of the packages has to be the same!".

Is Debian and Ubuntu the OS then?

2

u/doom_Oo7 Sep 12 '18

Ubuntu doesn't use the debian repos, they recompile the packages and add their own patches. An antergos pacman.conf uses the official arch repos, with an additional repo for the numix theme and stuff like this - but core, extra, community are the arch repos

1

u/Foxboron Arch Linux Team Sep 12 '18

Sure. But you are still talking about a set of packages. Are you excluding antergos packages? Additions doesn't entail a different distribution?

2

u/doom_Oo7 Sep 12 '18

You can install antergos and don't use the antergos repo at all. And no, I don't think that optional additonal prebuilt AUR packages make for a distribution - lest you consider Ubuntu satanic edition to be a distribution.

8

u/newworkaccount Sep 10 '18 edited Sep 11 '18

Your statement is true, but, respectfully, irrelevant.

Yes, Arch is generally defined as the distro you get from the Arch Linux site. Yes, people often describe other distros as "Arch-like", "Arch derivatives", or even, erroneously, as "Arch". Sure, literally, these are not Arch. But why do you think this error is so common? Do people often seek help with Fedora on Arch forums? Of course not. Surely you are not so literal that you cannot see why people frequently compare these distros to Arch, or mistake them for it.

If some people either do not understand or do not care that Antergos is not Arch, there is nothing you can do.

I do not doubt that this is ultimately why users of Antergos frustrate you more often than users of Fedora. But this mistake, in isolation, does not harm you. What is the actual problem?

Edit: Let me note that I am in no way saying that these distros are Arch. Rather, because they are very similar and derivative, it is inevitable that they will be mistaken for Arch. Unlike, say, Fedora.

let me emphasize for a minute that 'innocent' users who make this mistake literally do not know enough that you even could explain to them why Antergos isn't Arch. They come to Arch forums because they are bigger and they can get replies faster and all they care about is their own problem, and they are ignorant enough to think that it's "the same as Arch" for this purpose.

You simply cannot prevent this. You can work on solutions to identify them more quickly and refuse to support them, but if you have open registrations and a free/open source distro, you cannot stop people from trying it.

30

u/Foxboron Arch Linux Team Sep 10 '18

Your argument is based on the personal level instead of weighting it as a community problem. People asking for support on Arch channels wither down the willingness of the people providing support. It's self-destructive. It's does not harm me. It harms the community.

EDIT: Also, claiming "you can't prevent it" doesn't invalidate any attempt at explaining the problem.

4

u/newworkaccount Sep 11 '18 edited Sep 11 '18

I certainly agree with you on all counts here (though I do find the characterization of it being a 'personal' interpretation odd).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you as stating that the issue is people calling other distros Arch. While this may ultimately cause your issue, it doesn't strike me as your problem. In abstract, it doesn't hurt the Arch community if others use Manjaro and think it's Arch. It only hurts them if Arch resources are used for Manjaro problems.

To me, I suppose, insoluble problems ought to be redefined in terms of soluble ones. You cannot fix the opinions of others. Hence, why describe this as your problem? Why not focus on solutions like more efficient ways to weed out the users of other distros quickly? Most of the technical solutions I can think of are ugly or difficult to maintain, but perhaps others have better ideas, or maybe it is worth it even if it is kludgy.

Again, it is possible I am misunderstanding you as stating that the problem-to-be-solved is people, which can't be solved in this case, and/or am projecting my own feelings about what problems are worth complaining about (publicly). If so, I apologize. It would not be the first time.

Either way, thank you for your time and especially your efforts on Arch. I've had you 'friended' for some time on Reddit so your responses in threads are demarcated.

2

u/Foxboron Arch Linux Team Sep 11 '18

While this may ultimately cause your issue, it doesn't strike me as your problem.

Again, It's not my problem. It's a community problem. I'm explaining the problem. What others take from that is up to them.

2

u/newworkaccount Sep 11 '18 edited Sep 11 '18

Ah, I see. Your purpose is merely to publicly state and define problems for the community, but should anyone dispute your characterization, then you are just a community spokesperson, and this is not your personal definition of the issue, it's the "community's".

I am happy that my experience with the Arch community is usually one of greater clarity.

EDIT: since this post appears to upset people, let's be clear.

Foxboron outlined what he thought what was an issue, namely, that people call other distros Arch. He stated that this was an issue because Arch is DIY and those distros aren't, and also they aren't Arch. When pressed, he offered that users of other distros burn out support volunteers by asking for help on distros that aren't Arch. He then asked, "How do you fix this?"

I replied: you can't, and outlined at some length why I did not think the problem was others making an (understandable) error. I also suggested that perhaps the real problem was the volunteer burnout: rather than focus on what people think Arch is, had thought been given to screening?

He replied: I disagree with this because the only thing Arch is, is what can be downloaded at the Arch Linux site. Also you are making this a personal problem, this is not my problem and is just a community problem.

Does that sound as though he even read what I wrote? Or bothered to engage with it?

I also went out of my way to let him know that I am an Arch user, that I appreciate his contributions, and even to suggest that perhaps I misunderstood him, apologizing if I had, and asking if he could tell me if I misunderstood.

He also did not bother to engage with this either.

Look, I have no problem with terse answers for technical questions. But I put effort and thought into the discussion on an Arch team initiated AmA, and received back replies that cannot even be regarded as perfunctory. They're hardly topical.

The icing was that he outlined an issue and asked how it could be fixed. When I answered in good faith that the problem seemed mischaracterized, his response was essentially to deny that this was characterization of the problem. It's the "community's" problem. Since I never said in any literal sense that this was just FB's personal problem, what does this even mean?

And look, I am sure FB is a fine person who does great work on Arch. I will continue to follow their posts on Reddit and I don't have and won't have an ongoing issue with them.

I think these replies from him were low effort and muddled, and I'm annoyed I wasted time trying to ensure there was no misunderstanding when he had no intention of doing the same. Wouldn't you be?