Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

ewaller · 2016-06-13 01:24:01

Hi Wyn, I welcome this opportunity to talk to my counterpart at Antergos. One thing I do wan to emphasis is that we don't ask all members here to be Arch Linux users. Everyone is welcome to read the forums, and we don't object to users of other distributions participating on the forums. We do ask that they be up-front about it, and that any questions be limited to Arch Linux. Our goal is to be the canonical reference for Arch Linux, and we do not feel we can do this and accommodate non-Arch questions.

Last edited by ewaller (2016-06-13 14:22:28)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-06-13 07:18:02

ewaller wrote:

we don't object to users of other distributions participating on the forums. We do ask that they be up-front about it

$ uname -a 
OpenBSD OpenBSD.lan 6.0 GENERIC.MP#2165 amd64

@Wyn: so you do agree then that Antergos is fundamentally different to Arch and seeking assistance on these boards is counter-productive for all parties involved?

MichaelTunnell · 2016-06-13 18:22:49

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

@Wyn: so you do agree then that Antergos is fundamentally different to Arch and seeking assistance on these boards is counter-productive for all parties involved?

What makes Antergos fundamentally different from Arch?

Antergos, at its core, is Arch. Antergos does not modify most packages, 99% are directly pulled from Arch repos.

Antergos provides additional packages to facilitate the theme and extra features provided in the installer such as the option for AUR support by providing Yaourt from the Antergos repo.

Antergos is not a fork and it is not a derivative. I am not sure exactly what to call Antergos, to be honest. Antergos is not a fork and is not a derivative but it is also not "merely an installer" for Arch. It is a separate distro that has a unique structure that as far as I know, at the moment, there isn't a term to accurately describe what it is.

Other distros based on Arch like Manjaro, Chakra, etc are in a different situation because those are forks or derivatives so they are not technically speaking Arch but merely Arch-based. Antergos on the other hand is Arch, technically speaking.

------------

ewaller wrote:

we don't object to users of other distributions participating on the forums. We do ask that they be up-front about it

I completely agree that people should certainly be upfront about what they are using when asking for assistance. One of the reasons I stopped providing support in Arch IRC was because people would come in from Manjaro and yell at others for not helping them and I just got sick of dealing with that.

In Antergos, we do not encourage people to come to the Arch forum or IRC for assistance.

jasonwryan · 2016-06-13 18:29:39

MichaelTunnell wrote:

What makes Antergos fundamentally different from Arch?
...
Antergos provides additional packages to facilitate the theme and extra features provided in the installer such as the option for AUR support by providing Yaourt from the Antergos repo.

You have answered your own question.

MichaelTunnell · 2016-06-13 18:34:57

jasonwryan wrote:

You have answered your own question.

MichaelTunnell wrote:

What makes Antergos fundamentally different from Arch?

That makes it "philosophically" different but the fundamentals of the system/core are the same, in fact they're the same packages.

I disagree that it's fundamentally different but certainly it is different on some aspects. Note: I'm not arguing that they are the same, I'm just pointing out that it's not a fork or a derivative, technically speaking . . . it's something else.

Last edited by MichaelTunnell (2016-06-13 18:35:48)

jasonwryan · 2016-06-13 18:58:20

Yes, it is philosophically different. The inclusion of yaourt, however, makes it technically different as well.

MichaelTunnell · 2016-06-13 19:11:13

jasonwryan wrote:

Yes, it is philosophically different. The inclusion of yaourt, however, makes it technically different as well.

Yaourt is not included by default, it has to be manually selected to be included so fundamentals are still the same. Antergos provides access to the AUR as a option which is very different in philosophy but if someone were to manually build yaourt from a PKGBUILD in Arch the result would be the same as installing a yaourt package from Antergos. They would still be fundamentally the same structure.

This is nitpicky for sure on my part but I just think that it is false to claim Antergos is not fundamentally Arch because it technically is.

Manjaro modifies the Linux kernel so Manjaro is fundamentally NOT Arch. Antergos doesn't do that.

Chakra changes the release structure of packages so Chakra is fundamentally NOT Arch. Antergos doesn't do that.

and the list can go on and on. Every other distro based on Arch has changed something fundamentally that no longer makes it Arch at the core except for Antergos. Antergos has not done anything to make it not Arch at the core.

------

note: with the possible exception of Architect Linux . . . I'm not sure about that one.

Last edited by MichaelTunnell (2016-06-13 19:13:40)

jasonwryan · 2016-06-13 19:15:17

MichaelTunnell wrote:

Antergos has not done anything to make it not Arch at the core.

Except including yaourt as the package manager.

Please stop contradicting yourself. You seem determined to convince yourself (and people reading this) that Antegros is both Arch and not Arch. It is pretty clear that it isn't philosophically and it isn't technically. Your arguments seem to imply because it isn't Manjaro (et al), it qualifies as more Arch-like. More Arch-like still doesn't make it Arch, just as the fact that a tomato is red doesn't make it anymore like an apple...

R00KIE · 2016-06-13 19:55:50

MichaelTunnell wrote:

Antergos, at its core, is Arch. Antergos does not modify most packages, 99% are directly pulled from Arch repos.
Antergos provides additional packages to facilitate the theme and extra features provided in the installer such as the option for AUR support by providing Yaourt from the Antergos repo.

Let me apply that logic to a car analogy: You buy a car, then you modify and tune it. When something breaks you go to the dealership and ask them to honour the warranty and fix it because at it's core it's still the car they sold.

drcouzelis · 2016-06-13 19:56:46

Also, how do you define what Arch Linux is?

To me, Arch Linux is not just the official packages and the exclusion of the AUR, but ALSO the installation process. If you don't install Arch Linux using the Beginner's Guide or the Official Installation Guide, then you aren't running Arch Linux.

In theory, if you understand every detail about the installation and configuration of Antergos then it would be no different from using Arch Linux. In practice, very few (if any) Antergos users would know that information, which makes an Antergos installation different from Arch Linux for philosophical reasons.

If someone used a script to automate the Linux From Scratch installation, would that person still be running Linux From Scratch?

Last edited by drcouzelis (2016-06-13 19:58:12)

satanselbow · 2016-06-13 20:06:23

With the greatest respect to all concerned... I like Tesco's "Malt Wheats"... They are a lot like Nestle Shreddies (TM) in both breakfast philosophy and "knitted by nannas" technicalities... If I have future problems with my preferred "Malt Wheats" I will take my concerns to my local Tesco and expect them to address, rectify and remedy my concerns...

At a guess Nestle would, quite rightly, tell me to fuck off...

oliver · 2016-06-13 20:24:57

R00KIE wrote:

Let me apply that logic to a car analogy: You buy a car, then you modify and tune it. When something breaks you go to the dealership and ask them to honour the warranty and fix it because at it's core it's still the car they sold.

In this scenario, Arch would be the car manufacturer and Antergos would be the dealer. You would go to the dealer because they've added the aftermarket stereo and applied a $200 layer of scotchguard to the seats. You wouldn't go to Chevrolet because your CD got stuck in the caddy.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-06-13 20:25:58

MichaelTunnell wrote:

What makes Antergos fundamentally different from Arch?

The pre-configuration.

dockland · 2016-06-13 20:43:32

As i see it. (borrowing from Gentoo)
I'm the installer.
That makes it Arch Linux for me. (that's the fun part, for mainstream usage i can choose whatever distro there is (almost)) I tried "evolution" a couple of years ago and was basically running Arch, but actually not Arch Linux.
Seeking help here was pointless, i immediately became a "help vampire". It certainly didn't feel like "running Arch Linux"
I haven't tried Antergos, but i'm convinced it's a great distribution. I do like Gentoo/Funtoo, Debian and Open SUSE a lot and use them from time to time every week. So the deal-breaker for me is the philosophical difference

Trilby · 2016-06-13 21:20:04

oliver wrote:

You wouldn't go to Chevrolet because your CD got stuck in the caddy.

Or your iphone got stuck in the tape deck.

fsckd · 2016-06-14 13:36:58

Thanks for stopping by Michael. Glad to see you here. To bring this thread back...

From our rules:

Arch Linux Code of Conduct wrote:

Arch Linux distribution support *only*
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, and make custom system configurations surreptitiously, 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. Issues with, and requesting support for, derivate distributions, or operating systems other than Arch Linux are prohibited.

Antergos falls well within that. Neither the forums nor the IRC channels support Antergos. When Antergos users come to us for support, we turn them away. The thing I am wondering is why do Antergos users feel they can ask support questions in the Arch community and what can be done to prevent them?

And also, this is offtopic to this thread but I want to inform some in the Antergos community (and Arch community) who I know will read this post: It is against the rules of the Arch community to be disrespectful of Antergos. If this rule is being violated, let us know.

MichaelTunnell · 2016-06-14 14:13:07

fsckd wrote:

Thanks for stopping by Michael. Glad to see you here. To bring this thread back...
Antergos falls well within that. Neither the forums nor the IRC channels support Antergos. When Antergos users come to us for support, we turn them away. The thing I am wondering is why do Antergos users feel they can ask support questions in the Arch community and what can be done to prevent them?

I think there is a disconnect between what I was saying and how it was interpreted by people in this thread. Most of the replies were to convince me that Antergos and Arch are different projects and that Antergos users should not be seeking help from Arch support channels. I already stated that I agree with that and already explained we do encourage Antergos users to ask for help in Antergos channels and attempt to discourage people requesting from Arch support channels.

I am not trying to argue that people using Antergos should be able to go to Arch for help. I'm trying to discuss the differences between what Antergos is to Arch vs what other distros are. Antergos is 100% compatible with Arch, other distros can not make that claim.

jasonwryan wrote:

Except including yaourt as the package manager.
Please stop contradicting yourself. You seem determined to convince yourself (and people reading this) that Antegros is both Arch and not Arch.

Here is an example of misinterpretation because at no point did I say Yaourt is "the package manager". I didn't say that and it isn't the package manager in Antergos.

drcouzelis wrote:

Also, how do you define what Arch Linux is?
To me, Arch Linux is not just the official packages and the exclusion of the AUR, but ALSO the installation process. If you don't install Arch Linux using the Beginner's Guide or the Official Installation Guide, then you aren't running Arch Linux.

This is where the portion for the differences of philosophy comes into play.

drcouzelis wrote:

In theory, if you understand every detail about the installation and configuration of Antergos then it would be no different from using Arch Linux. In practice, very few (if any) Antergos users would know that information, which makes an Antergos installation different from Arch Linux for philosophical reasons.

I agree completely, which is why we encourage Antergos users to get support from Antergos channels and discourage the use of Arch channels.

drcouzelis wrote:

If someone used a script to automate the Linux From Scratch installation, would that person still be running Linux From Scratch?

Yes, they would be running Linux From Scratch. They would have not learned anything in doing so but technically speaking they would be running LFS.

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

MichaelTunnell wrote:
What makes Antergos fundamentally different from Arch?
The pre-configuration.

I disagree with that being a fundamental difference. It most certainly is a philosophical difference but not a fundamental to what makes the core the core.

Last edited by MichaelTunnell (2016-06-14 14:32:07)

satanselbow · 2016-06-14 15:12:02

MichaelTunnell wrote:

I disagree with that being a fundamental difference. It most certainly is a philosophical difference but not a fundamental to what makes the core the core.

It is considered a fundamental enough difference for the Ubuntu crowd and it's myriad of diluti-butions.

fsckd · 2016-06-14 16:17:13

MichaelTunnell wrote:

fsckd wrote:
Thanks for stopping by Michael. Glad to see you here. To bring this thread back...
Antergos falls well within that. Neither the forums nor the IRC channels support Antergos. When Antergos users come to us for support, we turn them away. The thing I am wondering is why do Antergos users feel they can ask support questions in the Arch community and what can be done to prevent them?
I think there is a disconnect between what I was saying and how it was interpreted by people in this thread. Most of the replies were to convince me that Antergos and Arch are different projects and that Antergos users should not be seeking help from Arch support channels. I already stated that I agree with that and already explained we do encourage Antergos users to ask for help in Antergos channels and attempt to discourage people requesting from Arch support channels.
I am not trying to argue that people using Antergos should be able to go to Arch for help. I'm trying to discuss the differences between what Antergos is to Arch vs what other distros are. Antergos is 100% compatible with Arch, other distros can not make that claim.

Thanks for replying Michael. I am glad you agree that Antergos users should not bring their support questions to Arch. Ultimately that is what this thread is about. There are Antergos users who come here for help. Just now I had to ban one for lying about whether they use Antergos. This thread is where they ask for support and identify themself as an Antergos user. They posted the same question again and changed Antergos to Arch. The question for us is, what can we do to dissuade this kind of behaviour? These users believe Antergos is Arch and that it is perfectly reasonable to ask their questions here. In reality they are asking in the wrong place. What I would like for this thread is for us to work together and find a way to solve this problem. I really appreciate you and Wyn (and anyone else on the Antergos team) taking the time to consider our concerns and talk to us. Thanks.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-06-16 07:21:22

MichaelTunnell wrote:

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
MichaelTunnell wrote:
What makes Antergos fundamentally different from Arch?
The pre-configuration.
I disagree with that being a fundamental difference.

Well then you clearly don't spend much time attempting to troubleshoot stuff on these boards

Of course the pre-configuration is a fundamental difference -- one of the main reasons I like Arch is that it has no pre-configuration, this is it's main feature for me

If not for the pre-configuration, what exactly is it that you claim that Antergos offers it's users then?

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2016-06-16 07:21:43)

ngoonee · 2016-06-16 08:25:44

At this point there's no real purpose to arguing about what does or does not constitute a fundamental difference, as that obscures the main issue, that of educating Antergos users to use the help channels suitable to them.

olive · 2016-06-16 14:32:40

drcouzelis wrote:

Also, how do you define what Arch Linux is?
To me, Arch Linux is not just the official packages and the exclusion of the AUR, but ALSO the installation process. If you don't install Arch Linux using the Beginner's Guide or the Official Installation Guide, then you aren't running Arch Linux.

If you ask a friend to install Archlinux for you, will you still run Arch? According to your answer, it seems that the answer is NO. So Archlinux is a distribution that can't by definition be installed for someone else. If that is really the position of Archlinux, it should be clarified in the etiquette of the forums. There are install parties when you can have Ubuntu installed for you. Such things is apparently impossible for Archlinux.

Last edited by olive (2016-06-16 14:36:41)

ewaller · 2016-06-16 14:44:45

olive wrote:

If you ask a friend to install Archlinux for you, will you still run Arch? According to your answer, it seems that the answer is NO. So Archlinux is a distribution that can't by definition be installed for someone else.

To be honest, I don't want to spend my time talking to the person who did not install it. They don't know what decisions were made, or why. They don't necessarily know how to find out or fix it either.
Generalizing the concept, I would encourage them to talk to the person who installed it for them for help. Now, if the person who installed it wants to ask questions, fine.

olive · 2016-06-16 17:36:34

ewaller wrote:

olive wrote:
If you ask a friend to install Archlinux for you, will you still run Arch? According to your answer, it seems that the answer is NO. So Archlinux is a distribution that can't by definition be installed for someone else.
To be honest, I don't want to spend my time talking to the person who did not install it. They don't know what decisions were made, or why. They don't necessarily know how to find out or fix it either.
Generalizing the concept, I would encourage them to talk to the person who installed it for them for help. Now, if the person who installed it wants to ask questions, fine.

The main problem with this line is that often (more often in Archlinux than in other distribution), when you fill a bug report to a package that probably is due to upstream, the answer is: fill a report upstream.

But the situation is similar, you are installing a software without compiling it yourself that was often patched (not that much in Archlinux, but we still find patches). Archlinux is doing to upstream packages something completely similar to what Antergos is doing to Archlinux: it precompiles the package and write an installer (pacman) to ease the installation of the package. It also modify it a bit (with patches) for bugs and possibly for better integration in Arch.

Last edited by olive (2016-06-16 17:38:05)

teateawhy · 2016-06-16 17:42:22

olive wrote:

But the situation is similar, you are installing a software without compiling it yourself that was often patched (not that much in Archlinux, but we still find patches). Archlinux is doing to upstream packages something completely similar to what Antergos is doing to Archlinux: it precompiles the package and write an installer (pacman) to ease the installation of the package. It also modify it a bit (with patches) for bugs and possibly for better integration in Arch.

Yes and part of a distribution maintainers job is to deal with his users to save upstream from uninformed bug reports. If you continue your analogy that means Antergos maintainers need to deal with their own users themselves. The maintainers can then report to the archlinux bug tracker if necessary.

Arch Linux

#26 2016-06-13 01:24:01

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#27 2016-06-13 07:18:02

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#28 2016-06-13 18:22:49

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#29 2016-06-13 18:29:39

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#30 2016-06-13 18:34:57

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#31 2016-06-13 18:58:20

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#32 2016-06-13 19:11:13

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#33 2016-06-13 19:15:17

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#34 2016-06-13 19:55:50

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#35 2016-06-13 19:56:46

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#36 2016-06-13 20:06:23

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#37 2016-06-13 20:24:57

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#38 2016-06-13 20:25:58

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#39 2016-06-13 20:43:32

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#40 2016-06-13 21:20:04

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#41 2016-06-14 13:36:58

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#42 2016-06-14 14:13:07

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#43 2016-06-14 15:12:02

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#44 2016-06-14 16:17:13

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#45 2016-06-16 07:21:22

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#46 2016-06-16 08:25:44

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#47 2016-06-16 14:32:40

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#48 2016-06-16 14:44:45

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#49 2016-06-16 17:36:34

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

#50 2016-06-16 17:42:22

Re: Should someone contact antergos regarding their users?

Board footer