Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

joelbryan · 2009-09-12 20:17:11

Pierre wrote:

joelbryan wrote:
Pierre wrote:
It looks like a (half) rebranded install CD. It even uses our repos.
Well be my guess, AFAIK, ArchLinux is bound to the rules of GPL, are you saying that ArchLinux is a commercial linux distribution.
I have no idea what you mean. And I never said you are violating any license. Afaik none of our own code has the advertising clause. But only parts of what we call Arch is GPL.
However, you shouldn't be surprised that people are making fun of your project. You came here with a newly created account and just copy&paste a meaningless marketing posting. This all looks quite strange and it just seems you have just remastered the install CD than creating a complete distro.
So asking what the difference between Arch and your distro is, is of course a valid question. So please enlighten us.
joelbryan wrote:
Kahel OS is simply GNOME + ArchLinux, We package it, make it easier for new users to use a GNOME-based i686 Linux distro that is based on rolling-release and we name it Kahel OS.
Do you have a repo to show us your changes? I mean that should be the point about posting this thread here: sharing what you have changed to achieve different goals than Arch.
PS: If we don't get real answers here I just count this thread as spam and will close it.

All the distro-specific changes are in git://github.com/joelbryan/Kahel-OS-Desktop.git

you can download the source code by doing:

git clone git://github.com/joelbryan/Kahel-OS-Desktop.git

ugkbunb · 2009-09-12 20:20:48

I do not think anyone is agaisnt your basic premise of bundling arch with gnome and making it easier for people to install... their qualms are with your how your misrepresent your project and fail to give credit where credit is due... Take a look at http://www.chakra-project.org/ -- They have been welcomed wholeheartdely on these forums and the reason being is because they did not act like they were inventing something new but rather building upon Arch. I imagine if you were to edit your webpage and give credit to Arch and make it clear that your distro is not the first rolling released developed distro then most likely most people would be rather supportive of your initiative.

r3d3ye · 2009-09-12 20:27:11

Apologize if my first post sounded to be a "marketing blah". However, we are not pretending to be like "heya we pretend that we're this great new distribution that is 'based on arch'" We are just happy to share our simple contribution and be part of Arch Family. This time using GNOME."... We are in fact, simply happy. If just one person appreciates, that's good. If nobody does, that's why we are here, we are here to find out.

I think however sincere and appreciative the article is, one should expect rejection, comments and/or adverse reviews about it. And in all its intents and purpose, this process is what is good about freedom and the value of Open Source. The good thing is we are open to suggestions in all its form.

One major reason of posting is to show our appreciation and gratitude to Archlinux and its developers. If we all read along the lines, we bestow respect.

Why does someone keep on saying that we do not give credit to Arch linux. Well in fact in my posting "ARCH Linux" has been acknowledge as our based distro and without ARCH linux, KAHEL OS would not be possible. It was in a single sentence with the website. To quote " Kahel OS is based on Arch Linux. http://www.archlinux.org. "

@Runiq. It could be that as you said "The Arch forums aren't exactly the best place if you want to bring Open Source to users who aren't yet experienced with it." But for us, it is a good place to start and gather opinions and comments for improvement.

@dhave: What if I'm lazy, but not ignorant? Do I qualify?
The statement is dependent on the perception of the reader. IF we are PRO linux and FOSS, I know you already know the answer.

@Peasantoid. What do you mean by Die? Are you insinuating that we stop believing and doing our passion and stop contributing to the community?
We welcome idea and improvements. We are new in this forum but we appeal to you to please practice expressing your thoughts in a way that can be generally understood so that we can respond as well.

As for the Kahel OS Website, the website is three-days old and we hugely thank you for all the comments as that is something that we need as we are in the process of finetuning it. Existing content of IT will give you an idea. What else to expect? Forum,WIKI,IRC,BUG Tracker,Changelog among others.

Again, my sincere apologies and we hope to get more inputs for improvement. Thank you Arch Linux and to the developers.

Pierre · 2009-09-12 20:27:35

joelbryan wrote:

All the distro-specific changes are in git://github.com/joelbryan/Kahel-OS-Desktop.git
you can download the source code by doing:
git clone git://github.com/joelbryan/Kahel-OS-Desktop.git

So, I am right to say that Kahel-OS is just Arch + some custom configuration files? You don't provide any pacakge yourself but instead replace our copyright and name with yours by functions http://github.com/joelbryan/Kahel-OS-De … e.function

ugkbunb · 2009-09-12 20:29:08

imho that post goes along way... glad to have you aboard... wish you the best on your endevaours.

r3d3ye · 2009-09-12 20:32:23

ugkbunb wrote:

imho that post goes along way... glad to have you aboard... wish you the best on your endevaours.

Thank you for this very warm welcome.

Pierre · 2009-09-12 20:37:56

Maybe you should have advertised you work as "preconfigured Arch" and not start with "Do it right" (which implies that we are doing it wrong) and what a great distro you just build which is just plain Arch. That's why you got this reactions.

joelbryan · 2009-09-12 20:46:51

Pierre wrote:

joelbryan wrote:
All the distro-specific changes are in git://github.com/joelbryan/Kahel-OS-Desktop.git
you can download the source code by doing:
git clone git://github.com/joelbryan/Kahel-OS-Desktop.git
So, I am right to say that Kahel-OS is just Arch + some custom configuration files? You don't provide any pacakge yourself but instead replace our copyright and name with yours by functions http://github.com/joelbryan/Kahel-OS-De … e.function

What do you intend to arrive at this discussion? Can you be more specific? So we will not speculate. Are you looking for something special that we need to do?

Am I getting the impression now that it is bad for us to base our Kahel OS from Arch Linux?

We use standard Arch Linux initscripts, and we did not replace the copyright information.

r3d3ye · 2009-09-12 20:47:56

Pierre wrote:

Maybe you should have advertised you work as "preconfigured Arch" and not start with "Do it right" (which implies that we are doing it wrong) and what a great distro you just build which is just plain Arch. That's why you got this reactions.

With all due respect, If you are not doing IT right, then we should have not based Kahel OS from Arch Linux.

V for Vivian · 2009-09-12 20:58:17

Dear Kahel OS people,

Please keep in mind that this marketing wishi-washi blathering in your posts and on your website can, from a technical view, easily be confused with misleading advertising, self-praise, lies and worse. That's not the language we are used to. Apart from that you have not given us very much information about your project. I personally think if someone is suitable for the assumably identical installation process there is no point in having a preinstalled GNOME environment.

Regards,
Viv

edit: Oh, I forgot. I think orange is an aesthetically very challenged color.

Last edited by V for Vivian (2009-09-12 21:18:09)

Pierre · 2009-09-12 21:01:42

joelbryan wrote:

we did not replace the copyright information.

Well, how would you explain what this function does then:

printhl() {
 
TITLE="Kahel OS Enterprise Linux (Desktop Edition)\n"
WEBSITE="${C_H2}http://www.kahelos.org"
AUTHOR1="Copyright 2009 Meric Mara"
AUTHOR2="Copyright 2009 Joel Bryan Juliano"
 
case $1 in
  "Arch Linux\n" )
  printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${TITLE}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
  "${C_H2}http://www.archlinux.org" )
  printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${WEBSITE}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
  "Copyright 2002-2007 Judd Vinet" )
  printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${AUTHOR1}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
  "Copyright 2007-2009 Aaron Griffin" )
  printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${AUTHOR2}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
  * ) printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${1}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
esac
}

But this is going a little offtopic. I just wanted to give an example why you did not get a warm welcome here. I think its pretty easy to understand what people criticize here: It's the gap between what you advertise/sell and what you are actually doing.

joelbryan · 2009-09-12 21:11:43

Pierre wrote:

joelbryan wrote:
we did not replace the copyright information.
Well, how would you explain what this function does then:
printhl() {
 
TITLE="Kahel OS Enterprise Linux (Desktop Edition)\n"
WEBSITE="${C_H2}http://www.kahelos.org"
AUTHOR1="Copyright 2009 Meric Mara"
AUTHOR2="Copyright 2009 Joel Bryan Juliano"
 
case $1 in
  "Arch Linux\n" )
  printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${TITLE}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
  "${C_H2}http://www.archlinux.org" )
  printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${WEBSITE}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
  "Copyright 2002-2007 Judd Vinet" )
  printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${AUTHOR1}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
  "Copyright 2007-2009 Aaron Griffin" )
  printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${AUTHOR2}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
  * ) printf "${C_OTHER}${PREFIX_HL} ${C_H1}${1}${C_CLEAR} \n"
  ;;
esac
}
But this is going a little offtopic. I just wanted to give an example why you did not get a warm welcome here. I think its pretty easy to understand what people criticize here: It's the gap between what you advertise/sell and what you are actually doing.

I think you should thoroughly review before passing any judgment.
Again to reiterate "We did not modify, and replace your initscript that contain the copyright information."
Thank You.

bender02 · 2009-09-12 21:19:07

joelbryan wrote:

I think you should thoroughly review before passing any judgment.
Again to reiterate "We did not modify, and replace your initscript that contain the copyright information."
Thank You.

If you intend to play with words...
Imagine you start selling ipods... just that you wrap it in a box saying "The Great New Product, copyright Me", and put stickers on the apple logo on the ipod itself. You'll be in jail for doing this for quite a long time.

Rasi · 2009-09-12 21:20:14

you should have a look at the chakra project and will realize whats different between your project and theirs. They mention arch linux and are not even trying to tell people its a different distribution. The text on your webpage does tho.

While this project might be great for arch users that want a ready-to-go gnome desktop you should advertise it like just this: a distro that tries to make the arch+gnome experience easier to set up.

All this marketing crap on your webpage sounds very dubious - you shouldnt use such language in a community project.

.:B:. · 2009-09-12 21:28:10

I must say I really like the cockiness with which you walk in, declare with overt arrogance you have a superior Linux solution to offer on the forum of the very distribution you based yours on (or nicked stuff from, depends on how you read it), and then are baffled by the up-front answers this community gives you.

Do you really expect to be welcomed as Jesus Christ resurrected? Seriously.

Get a grip. If two devs look at your stuff and say you stripped Arch copyright notices, you don't say 'oh no we didn't'. They won't say so just because they like to.

tomd123 · 2009-09-12 22:20:36

r3d3ye wrote:

Kahel OS is based on Arch Linux.

Kahel OS is Arch Linux.

There, fixed it for ya.

Allan · 2009-09-13 00:32:50

joelbryan wrote:

Again to reiterate "We did not modify, and replace your initscript that contain the copyright information."

So the changes Pierre pointed out do not actually occur in your distribution... and the screenshot in the pdf available on your documentation page (top of page 4) is not showing Arch initscripts without our copyright info?

techprophet · 2009-09-13 00:44:37

What's with Linux and orange? First ubuntu, now this...

Ranguvar · 2009-09-13 01:36:23

Yawn.

iphitus · 2009-09-13 02:08:35

Why would you need cpufreq in the mkinitcpio modules line? Wierd.
http://github.com/joelbryan/Kahel-OS-De … tcpio.conf

Don't be surprised you're receiving such a negative response from us. I don't mind that you've copied Arch. You're also using our resources by utilising our repositories and packagers. But I don't mind that either.

What I mind is that you do both of those, yet go out of your way to avoid recognising Arch in any form, effectively passing our work off as your own work. It's disrespectful and dishonest. Credit where credit is due please.

Last edited by iphitus (2009-09-13 02:20:45)

Anonymo · 2009-09-13 04:06:01

tomd123 wrote:

r3d3ye wrote:
Kahel OS is based on Arch Linux.
Kahel OS is Arch Linux.
There, fixed it for ya.

I hope not

Anonymo · 2009-09-13 04:07:19

Deleted

Last edited by Anonymo (2009-09-13 04:08:22)

Mardoct · 2009-09-13 04:31:16

If you set up some servers and distribute all the packages yourself, I don't care much if your official position is that Jesus Christ sent you the source code personally. If you use the pre-exisiting arch infrastructure for distributing packages, then I really beleive that you shouldn't even call it Kahel OS. Putting OS in the name seems to imply that not only is it seperate from Arch, it is seperate from Linux. If you call it FillipArch Linux or something, you'd get more respect here.

fukawi2 · 2009-09-13 04:48:47

joelbryan wrote:

Again to reiterate "We did not modify, and replace your initscript that contain the copyright information."
Thank You.

You are replacing the display of copyright information, obscuring the displaying of it from any users you may have.

The spirit of GPL and open source in general is the freedom to take someone else's work and build it into what you want, and be free to pass that on to others in turn.

What is not a valid use of open source is taking someone else's work, rebranding it and then passing it off as your own without giving appropriate credit.

And what is definitely not appropriate is utilising the resources and infrastructure of another project in the process of the above actions. This is what you are doing by using the Arch repositories.

So to conclude:
- You've taken many years of work by Arch devs, and rebranded it as your own without any appropriate acknowledgement in the finished "product".
- You're stealing the resources of Arch Linux's server which is paid for by Arch Devs, and Arch Linux users through donations. I hope you've made a significant donation to Arch Linux to contribute to the running of the servers so Arch Linux isn't financially supporting your rebranding as well.

Acecero · 2009-09-13 04:56:14

techprophet wrote:

What's with Linux and orange? First ubuntu, now this...

Archuntu would be a more appropriate name for this distro. That way Arch would have been credited beforehand.

Arch Linux

#26 2009-09-12 20:17:11

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#27 2009-09-12 20:20:48

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#28 2009-09-12 20:27:11

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#29 2009-09-12 20:27:35

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#30 2009-09-12 20:29:08

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#31 2009-09-12 20:32:23

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#32 2009-09-12 20:37:56

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#33 2009-09-12 20:46:51

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#34 2009-09-12 20:47:56

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#35 2009-09-12 20:58:17

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#36 2009-09-12 21:01:42

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#37 2009-09-12 21:11:43

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#38 2009-09-12 21:19:07

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#39 2009-09-12 21:20:14

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#40 2009-09-12 21:28:10

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#41 2009-09-12 22:20:36

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#42 2009-09-13 00:32:50

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#43 2009-09-13 00:44:37

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#44 2009-09-13 01:36:23

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#45 2009-09-13 02:08:35

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#46 2009-09-13 04:06:01

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#47 2009-09-13 04:07:19

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#48 2009-09-13 04:31:16

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#49 2009-09-13 04:48:47

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

#50 2009-09-13 04:56:14

Re: Kahel OS. Do IT Right.

Board footer