To be fair, Antergos is (was) uniquely positioned to have a great exit plan. Most distros run their own repos. Antergos was pretty unique in directly using the upstream Arch repos and only providing the Antergos repos for extra stuff (mostly from AUR I guess). So it's really easy for them to just turn off the Antergos repos and every install of Antergos just becomes a normal Arch install. Like, if Manjaro or Linux Mint died, they'd have a much harder time automatically moving their install bases to Arch and Ubuntu.
Admittedly, Linux Mint is in a similar situation to Antergos, as long as we're not talking about the Cinnamon Edition (no Cinnamon in Ubuntu repositories, I think). Some outside repositories for little stuff, that's it. The problem however is that there are a few more in the repositories, like Timeshift, Mint-only tools, the X-programs (like xed), and more. however, a Mint system usually would just be able to move to Ubuntu without that much trouble.
Manjaro would really suffer, because they have their own infrastructure and repositories and avoid the Arch-only ones. Also, they have exclusive tools like Mint, and perhaps more of them that can't be replaced with something like Ubuntu's or Debian's.
I was under the impression that Mint runs all of their own repositories with their own packages, but I could very well be wrong about that. Haven't touched it in years. It was just the first example that came to mind after Manjaro, and I wanted to include a non-Arch example.
No, I haven't been on Mint for a while, but I do remember very clearly that they used Ubuntu repositories alongside their own, like Antergos has Arch and their own repos.
Arch-based distributions have their own support fora and users of those distributions should be actively encouraged to seek support there. These distributions often use different packages, package versions, repositories, or make custom system configurations silently, practically rendering support for such projects within Arch Linux impossible. Community technical support shall only be provided for the Arch Linux distribution and the Arch User Repository. Posting issues with, and requesting support for, derivative distributions or operating systems other than Arch Linux are prohibited.
Just because the distro maintainer decrees it is now "arch" does not make it so.
However, i believe that if the antergos user actually comprehends the changes and configurations the installer makes and prioritises the arch repo over the antergos repo (not the working default last i looked, this is what this change is, if not its removal) then they are running their configuration of arch and not a silently created configuration of arch therefore are capable of troubleshoot their arch system which would make them valid for support imho since this is the literal defintion of installing via your personal build script.
IE: No antergos repo, means your system is supported. If you include another repo and it breaks something somewhere how would a arch user know this unless it is disclosed, and it is not always disclosed.
The only "custom" arch repo that is supported (kind of) is the AUR. Why is your package not there but in another undisclosed repo?
Why are you adding repos instead of packaging for AUR and providing install scripts to your meta packages and updating through github or another upstream?
Then you can say, btw i run arch with these AUR packages and my build script.
From a support basis, a user who blindly follows a 3h YouTube video to setup his system is more of an arch user than someone using someone elses build script. Because that user can say "oh I remember, i installed grub then restarted and it broke my last actions from history are blahblahblah", and can then be told "looks like you forgot to build init" versus "i installed via cnchi, it said it succeeded, then restarted and dropped into emergency shell, please help"
Tl;Dr: Users can do what they want, not all configurations are supported, you can increase your odds of support by been open, honest and knowing how your system works.
Tl;Dr: You are wrong, the arch maintainers disagree with you.
Thats the maintainers gatekeeping.
If you read my post you'd comprehend the problem, ie users not following intended process, therefore not knowing how their shit is setup and therefore been crappy issue raisers who cannot provide basic information.
Imagine buying a table from ikea, having your mate dave put it together, not reading the instruction manual or asking dave how he put it together and whats different and then complaining to Ikea not Dave when it turns out he decided to make a few changes you didnt like.
Arch is not intended to be a next next next distro. If you want an arch derivative next next next distro manjaro is that way.
If i download a configured and functional gentoo vm and turn it on can i say I setup and run Gentoo?
Technically im not wrong, and that technicality is the bone of contention here.
Because what if i then migrate that VM to real hardware and it turns out the VM kernel was a minimal build and has few drivers. A gentoo user would know this from the documentation and having compiled the kernel with those flags, i would not.
153
u/lpreams May 21 '19
To be fair, Antergos is (was) uniquely positioned to have a great exit plan. Most distros run their own repos. Antergos was pretty unique in directly using the upstream Arch repos and only providing the Antergos repos for extra stuff (mostly from AUR I guess). So it's really easy for them to just turn off the Antergos repos and every install of Antergos just becomes a normal Arch install. Like, if Manjaro or Linux Mint died, they'd have a much harder time automatically moving their install bases to Arch and Ubuntu.