Arch derivatives ; the wall.

exidux · 2015-02-01 23:09:21

Arch linux is built with software using GNU, GPL, and other open license types.
But when it comes to Arch derivatives you can clearly notice fans of this great system having
the tendency to oppose to, or spread a slight resent towards them (the derivatives).

By all means Arch is part of the linux world based around free sharing and altering of software,
thus Arch should be a verry good base for others to build upon.

So what drives an arch fan or user towards pure arch, or makes you somewhat opposed to derivatives ?
This is open to a broader approach to discuss or share your opinion.

Note ;
Thank you moderator for the second chance, i have rewritten this.

Last edited by exidux (2015-02-03 17:43:32)

Trilby · 2015-02-01 23:15:28

-- removed concerns with original post as all have been well addressed in a revision --

Last edited by Trilby (2015-02-03 19:07:19)

fukawi2 · 2015-02-02 03:53:51

I concur with Trilby, your actual question does not make sense.

Alad · 2015-02-02 07:01:22

I can only speak for myself, obviously, but what I've seen with "people hating on" in software is because others modify their work, with less or more worth, then people use the modified work, but if something breaks complain to the original creator. That's incredibly frustrating.

clfarron4 · 2015-02-02 08:05:20

Alad wrote:

I can only speak for myself, obviously, but what I've seen with "people hating on" in software is because others modify their work, with less or more worth, then people use the modified work, but if something breaks complain to the original creator. That's incredibly frustrating.

For me, this is it in a nutshell.

I know of a certain popular Arch derivative (which I won't name) which ships a kernel with AUFS patches and BFS as the default scheduler, out-dated X server and graphics driver packages, along with god knows what patches to other packages as well, yet people come here for support because they claim that "they are essentially using ArchLinux".

Erm... Just off that, they should be able to tell that they're not using ArchLinux, but something based on it. Oh well.

Trilby · 2015-02-02 12:37:03

If the question here is about derivative works, I see two varieties. In one, those who make the derivative project contribute nothing novel or meaningful, but yet they slap their branding and their name all over someone else's work. With most open source licenses this is legal, but it doesn't mean it should be done.

I had this happen with a project of mine a while back. I made a tiling WM based roughly on TinyWM. I gave a lot of credit to the author of tinyWM as the basis, even though in the transition from tinyWM's ~50 lines of code to my WM's ~1000 lines of code almost nothing of the original even remained. Then some boob took my WM, and removed all the tiling components and turn it back into a floating WM. Except this didn't get back to those efficient 50 lines of code - instead it was rat's nest of kludges and big chunks of code remained that either would never execute or would do nothing useful at all. The author of that derivative put in nothing novel: no ingenuity, no invention, but they spent a good bit of effort on branding it as their own.

On the flip side, a derivative work can really add something new. I have no affiliation with the project, and admittedly what I do know is pretty limited, but of the arch derivatives, I've been fairly impressed with chakra. If for no other reason, their website documentation gives a good background on what open source software is all about. It seems like it would be very accessible to people coming from the proprietary OSs. I also have heard their devs make good contributions to the KDE projects. Also, there is nothing snarky about their documentation. I recently had to look up another derivative distro that will remain nameless - their entire website was packed with vile hatred of archlinux, our community, our wiki, our developers, etc. Why they based their distro on arch just baffles me.

thiagowfx · 2015-02-02 13:08:35

Coincidentally, I found a discussion about this yesterday. It is about a derivative of another derivative of Arch. I think there are some interesting points in there -- but you may want to focus on the general discussion, not on individual opinions, as it was a bit of a controversial thread

Last edited by thiagowfx (2015-02-02 13:09:35)

fsckd · 2015-02-02 15:35:23

Arch Linux ARM is a derivative distro. You'd be hard pressed to find an Arch user who doesn't like them.

exidux · 2015-02-03 17:45:10

Trilby wrote:

What isn't complete nonsense here (incomplete sentences) is either trolling or bikeshedding. In either case, it does not need to be here. Get a blog (the first entry can even be about the fanatic mod who closed your thread).
~~Closed. Binned.~~
EDIT: I'll retract any suspicion of trolling, your other posts on the forums seem genuine and productive. But just the same this thread was never going to go anywhere useful.
EDIT 2: reopened upon appeal from O.P. Exidux, please revise the last sentence to make your actual question clear. That is an incomplete and nonsensical question as it is currently written.

Thank you, i have rewritten the entire opener with a focused mind, after i had more sleep.

fukawi2 · 2015-02-03 22:08:50

Several years ago I started the ArchServer project (to build a server distro based on Arch/pacman) and I felt it was received quite well. I do concur that the community is sometimes "less welcoming" to other derivatives, and I can't explain why the variation there.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2015-02-04 11:50:12

exidux wrote:

So what drives an arch fan or user towards pure arch, or makes you somewhat opposed to derivatives ?

I use Arch because it allows me total control over system configuration and forces me to learn about it.

The derivatives do not do this and work against the Arch Way IMO.

The only reason I can see for using a derivative is because you want the latest software but do not have the time (or inclination) to fiddle with it endlessly.

Of course I have absolutely no social life whatsoever and most other users are not so afflicted...

ewaller · 2015-02-04 17:06:29

Allow me to come at this from a different angle. It is of zero interest to me what distribution anyone chooses to use. It is not a competition -- Arch is here for the use of anyone who chooses to use it, but I don't care if people want to run Mangaro, ArchBang, chakra, et. al. Arch Arm is also a different distribution that supports a different Architecture. Personally, I use Arch, Arch Arm and Gentoo,

I am also a moderator here. The major reason we enforce the Arch Linux Support Only policy is because these are the Arch Linux forums. By definition, forks and derivatives of Arch are different. The extent to which they are different varies and it is not our obligation to track the divergence of every Arch based project out there. As moderators, one of our charters is to keep these forums focused on technical issues surrounding Arch. Information here is to be correct for Arch Linux. Any attempts to include exceptions, workarounds, fixes, patches, or even documentation for other distributions would lead to confusion and ambiguity for those who are using Arch. In all fairness, Arch Linux fits the bill for providing these finite resources; yet everyone is welcome to use these resources to research problems and issues regardless of the distribution they choose. It is not even a prerequisite to use Arch to be welcome to post here. All we ask is that questions be about pure Arch systems. The experts on derivatives truly are not here -- if one is not running Arch, question the experts on the forums for the chosen distribution.

Last edited by ewaller (2015-02-04 17:07:36)

helix · 2015-02-04 20:14:53

I agree that Arch Linux developers cannot have the responsibility for changes and modifications made by developers of Arch Linux based/compatible distros. But I also think that some of their ideas should be adopted officially by Arch Linux, as long as they don't break the Arch way. I'm sure many of these developers would be happy to put their effort and productivity to Arch itself, if they were given the chance, and mentain projects that Arch developers may not be able to, due to lack of time.

nullified · 2015-02-04 20:23:03

helix wrote:

But I also think that some of their ideas should be adopted officially by Arch Linux, as long as they don't break the Arch way.

Do you have any examples of something like this?

helix · 2015-02-04 20:31:47

nullified wrote:

helix wrote:
But I also think that some of their ideas should be adopted officially by Arch Linux, as long as they don't break the Arch way.
Do you have any examples of something like this?

The idea of an official ncurses based installer for example, like the old AIF installer that was dropped back in 2012.

Last edited by helix (2015-02-04 20:33:04)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2015-02-04 20:35:17

helix wrote:

The idea of an official ncurses based installer for example, like the old AIF installer that was dropped back in 2012.

I wouldn't want that at all -- the current `pacstrap` method is the best installation paradigm of all IMO, the flexibility it offers is un-matched.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2015-02-04 20:35:46)

alphaniner · 2015-02-04 20:39:31

helix wrote:

The idea of an official ncurses based installer for example, like the old AIF installer that was dropped back in 2012.

The 'idea' of an ncurses installer was/is not the issue. AIF was dropped because no one was maintaining it.

helix · 2015-02-04 20:41:30

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

helix wrote:
The idea of an official ncurses based installer for example, like the old AIF installer that was dropped back in 2012.
I wouldn't want that at all -- the current `pacstrap` method is the best installation paradigm of all IMO, the flexibility it offers is un-matched.

I prefer pacstrap method myself too. All I'm saying is that an extra option for an alternative installer in the form of an curses based installer, wouldn't give the feeling of a less KISS distro, at least to me.

helix · 2015-02-04 20:49:05

alphaniner wrote:

helix wrote:
The idea of an official ncurses based installer for example, like the old AIF installer that was dropped back in 2012.
The 'idea' of an ncurses installer was/is not the issue. AIF was dropped because no one was maintaining it.

Right, noone was mentaining it. But this was in 2012, now almost 3 years later this is a situation that may have changed. I believe this because I have seen at least one of these distros offering such an installer.

From my point of view, the more developers/mentainers we have, the better for us.

Last edited by helix (2015-02-04 20:54:31)

progandy · 2015-02-04 21:04:38

helix wrote:

Right, noone was mentaining it. But this was in 2012, now almost 3 years later this is a situation that may have changed. I believe this because I have seen at least one of these distros offering such an installer.
From my point of view, the more developers/mentainers we have, the better for us.

Edit: There isn't any indication that the creators of those forks even want to contribute to the official installation project.

If you want an installer, it isn't enough to write some code that mostly works and then abandon it to the arch devs. Find someone who is willing to write and maintain an installer that works on all x86_64 and x86 platforms. I don't see any motivation to do just that, most installers I have seen were abanoned after a few months when the developer lost interest. You cannot include an official installer when maintenance is at best questionable.

PS: An installer should also document the steps required to recreate the installation process by hand or you will find not many people willing to help with (configuration) problems.

Last edited by progandy (2015-02-04 21:06:42)

ANOKNUSA · 2015-02-04 23:46:55

helix wrote:

But I also think that some of their ideas should be adopted officially by Arch Linux, as long as they don't break the Arch way. I'm sure many of these developers would be happy to put their effort and productivity to Arch itself, if they were given the chance, and mentain projects that Arch developers may not be able to, due to lack of time.

The flaw in this is that what separates Arch itself from Arch derivatives are the top-level choices that go into each of them, which themselves stem from differences in priorities and values. Manjaro and ArchBang and Antergos exist precisely because the creators of each of those distros disagreed with the typical interpretation of the Arch Way adhered to by users and the Arch developers. Anyone can contribute to Arch by way of improving documentation or helping out on the forums and mailing lists or writing PKGBUILDs for the AUR. Yet it isn't mere contributions that the creators of derivative distributions want: it's executive control over the project itself.

If a graphical installer or default desktop environment is important enough to someone that they're willing to create their own Linux distribution to get it, I think it's a fairly safe assumption that their contributions aren't going to be accepted by the core Arch developers who don't care one bit about such things. Hell, there are packages in the AUR right now written from scratch by core Arch developers that won't make it into the official repositories.

Allan · 2015-02-05 02:22:45

fukawi2 wrote:

I do concur that the community is sometimes "less welcoming" to other derivatives, and I can't explain why the variation there.

The main reason that some derivatives are seen in a good light while some are not is usually their initial approach to the community. There was a distribution with the slogan "Arch Done Right!"... as you can imaging, that went down really well! And it had a bright orange colour scheme.

Also there is a question of whether the "distribution" is doing anything beyond what a wiki page could do. Those that are genuinely providing something new are seen in a better light that those that just reuse Arch work while adding their branding.

Finally, contribution back to Arch is important.

frank604 · 2015-02-05 03:45:23

I'd like to think Arch, and it's resources (wiki, aur, forums) perform well in reaching their goals. There isn't any hostile/ill-will feelings to anyone who uses another distro/arch-derivative. Or at least not many of us care. We have our own interests and priorities to give that trail of thought any consideration. I do see resentment from someone who is using an arch-derivative coming to the forums and being found out about it. They will argue that they are "essentially using arch" and should receive support from this community. One of the latest dustbin thread shows their contempt. I feel bad for the moderators who have to prune the threads and close off numerous non-arch threads on our forums to maintain the integrity of information shown to the public. A simple search in the dustbin with keywords 'manjaro' alone is staggering.

TheSaint · 2015-02-05 03:57:27

I think that a graphical installation helps on finding answer on the web. This is the most lack in Arch. For example, even there's no links (web browser) in the base & base-devel groups.
Perhaps is an old model of doing thing, but nowadays the informations are constantly searched on the Internet. Furthermore the web pages are increasingly adding flash applets that won't disclose the containing text even in links.

Solving Arch problems are cumbersome, some time. It take to run the iso, try the proposed clue from the forum, copy the result and go back to where we can use a web browser to send the report.
Several time I proposed to use a derivate, rather than Arch iso, just to overcome this drawback.

jasonwryan · 2015-02-05 04:31:05

frank604 wrote:

One of the latest dustbin thread shows their contempt..

Heh. That is nothing. This is a (heavily redacted) email from someone (not the above linked poster) to a mod who closed their thread:

angry from the internets wrote:

Wow you're a n______ for closing that thread. It would have taken your pompous
ass just as long to reply with the information I needed as to tell me to
basically f____ off because I wasn't using your favorite distro. F_____. I
was having the same problem as was being discussed. Thanks for your help.
N_______. I hope your dog f____ your wife and gives her cancer. N_____.

Arch Linux

#1 2015-02-01 23:09:21

Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#2 2015-02-01 23:15:28

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#3 2015-02-02 03:53:51

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#4 2015-02-02 07:01:22

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#5 2015-02-02 08:05:20

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#6 2015-02-02 12:37:03

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#7 2015-02-02 13:08:35

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#8 2015-02-02 15:35:23

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#9 2015-02-03 17:45:10

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#10 2015-02-03 22:08:50

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#11 2015-02-04 11:50:12

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#12 2015-02-04 17:06:29

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#13 2015-02-04 20:14:53

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#14 2015-02-04 20:23:03

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#15 2015-02-04 20:31:47

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#16 2015-02-04 20:35:17

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#17 2015-02-04 20:39:31

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#18 2015-02-04 20:41:30

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#19 2015-02-04 20:49:05

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#20 2015-02-04 21:04:38

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#21 2015-02-04 23:46:55

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#22 2015-02-05 02:22:45

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#23 2015-02-05 03:45:23

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#24 2015-02-05 03:57:27

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

#25 2015-02-05 04:31:05

Re: Arch derivatives ; the wall.

Board footer