Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system (Read 5957 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Is it maybe too soon to talk about the "philosophy" behind artix/devs?

I remember when Arch first came out, the KISS principle, the "let's do a minimalist intervention and let the users do what they will with their system" style was what drew me to it to begin with.  Then over time it became more and more "well we the devs like it this particular way, if you want it different, put it in aur/talk amongst yourselves in the forum."  And we did, and it was fine, because Arch was great, and the changes werent too intrusive.

Then came, of course, gtk3, and systemd and some other things, and the big war between "whatever happened to KISS and do it your way" vs the devs "we only meant that for ourselves, not for users at large, and we like it this way" ways of seeing arch, with many users accusing the devs of backstabbing the community, and so on and on, and a lot of bad blood.  but that's neither here or there now.  We who didnt want systemd forced upon us moved on to other places, and those of us who ended up at manjaro-openrc/arch-openrc are now here.

Where do you artix devs/users stand? I personally liked the original vision - maintaining a tight system base with no hardcoded preferences (like a specific init system, glibc system, etc) or at least the option to break away from the dev's preferred methods, and build from there through community/aur etc, which is how I remember Arch being originally.  I know the devs and maintainers do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of packaging, maintaining, etc and have the most say in how they want their distro to be run, but so does the community no? hence the questions, and hence this thread.  Where do we want this distro to go? do we have a choice? do the devs want it to go in a specific direction?  I'd like to hear your thoughts, all who want to invest time and energy into this new "home".  And perhaps the dev heads can set it down in writing (in time) so we all can refer to it in the future.

And the main reason i want to ask now, when artix is so young, is because we didnt ask this of archlinux early enough, at least not fromt he community standpoint, and perhaps a bit before systemd came along we started asking, and by then it was too late and we were basically told to stfu and take accept what the devs fed us.  And if that's going to be the attitude, I'd like to know ahead of time before investing too much time and energy.

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #1 –
God I now recognise you I started with Arch 2005 but had to register again in 2008.
 I think you are asking the right questions and yes they need establishing now not later as it can then be to late,
I have stayed with arch as in reality I could not find a distro that fitted my needs but Arch has failed and still fails in what I believe.
You should have the freedom to choose and not be intimidated or banned if you do not agree.
I had high hopes for Manjaro but again Manjaro openRC was used just to get popularity not the right reasons. When Artoo made the announcement of Artix well it just clicked I think I was one of the 1st registered forum member if not the 1st after the devs.
I think and hope the Artix team will not let us down but its going to be a ongoing battle with Arch as Arch will not bend a inch to help.

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #4 –
Quote from: mandog – on
God I now recognise you I started with Arch 2005 but had to register again in 2008.
 I think you are asking the right questions and yes they need establishing now not later as it can then be to late,
I have stayed with arch as in reality I could not find a distro that fitted my needs but Arch has failed and still fails in what I believe.
You should have the freedom to choose and not be intimidated or banned if you do not agree.
I had high hopes for Manjaro but again Manjaro openRC was used just to get popularity not the right reasons. When Artoo made the announcement of Artix well it just clicked I think I was one of the 1st registered forum member if not the 1st after the devs.
I think and hope the Artix team will not let us down but its going to be a ongoing battle with Arch as Arch will not bend a inch to help.

i usually keep a low profile on forums and just ask/answer questions if something comes up. 

I've been wary about distros since the arch devs pretty much told long time members to accept their ways or take a hike.  The whole "we never said freedom of choice applied to the community, just to the devs" was the last straw for me. 

I jumped from manjaro/arch-openrc to artix a few days after the announcement, just to make sure it was a serious effort.  I'm probably in the low 20s/30s as far as membership (we're starting to sound like a weird secret club lol)

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #5 –
Number 2?  You newbies :)  I was here before the forum was created.

I was the one banned at Manja for insisting Manja should make it a public declaration that it is now a systemd-only distribution instead of portraying itself as all-init system in distrowatch.  Then a few days later distrowatch eliminated the init system as a primary characteristic in the system's description (top-left summary).

Philosophy?

"there is something VERY fishy about the way developers in Arch, Debian, RH, are defending system-d."

The debate has been beyond "reason" for a long time.  It is like mechanics all around you agreeing you should have a radio beacon installed inside the crankcase of the engine of you vehicle, because it makes it run easier and better.  "Quicker too".

It is a feature I tell you!



Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #6 –
If I honestly answer the OP, it will end up with a rant on internet communities, socialist group "we" think, the illusion of users having a say in development and so called branding.

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #7 –
In other words there is no artix philosophy, and there can not be one as that would constitute a "socialist we".

I see.  So let's say it 10 of you and each has his/her own philosophy and just meet to work on Artix.  How long do you think this would last, if it were true?

Very disappointing answer.

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #8 –
I've come to believe the choices of the Arch devs revolve around doing the least work possible. systemd made their life easier, ignoring their community puts less restraints on them, and keeping the system "simple" (when it isn't - systemd) contribute to this ideal of theirs. They have a right to do so, obviously, but loyal users have suffered as a result. Thankfully, those users don't have to swallow their pride and keep using Arch. It's free software, so of course it got forked.

I don't think Artix will suffer the same fate any time soon, people here are passionate and focused enough.

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #9 –
I was always led to believe the Arch devs stand has always been we are a group of friends "this is what we use you are welcome to share if you don't like it use something else, we not need you we are not interested in popularity" a very strange philosophy indeed.

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #10 –
Quote from: fungalnet – on
In other words there is no artix philosophy, and there can not be one as that would constitute a "socialist we".

Well, the truth is always something uncomfortable, yet it needs to be told.

Consider this, from a dev pov. It comes rather strange that you read on linux forums something about "we".
Who is that "we", if users talk about eg feature requests? Frankly, there is no "we", there is devs, the team, the we, and there is users, who are not the "we" from team pov.
You cannot allow users to have a say in development, no matter the decision to be taken. You also don't allow people to build a bridge without some knowledge of statics. Sure, as dev you can ask users for their view, but in the end, it is not users who decide or implement something.

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #11 –
I think we should let the issue rest.  If there was a "philosophy" behind artix it would have been that as declared by "we the developers" (meaning you Artoo and the rest of the team).  Since there isn't there is not much we can talk about, unless it is for "we the users" to criticize the lack of a philosophy.
What we do know about artix is what was published by "Artix", a technical exercise of how to make Arch still be Arch without systemd.  Artix wouldn't be artix with systemd.  At this point someone may ask "but what is arch-bang then?".  It is two things, arch with openbox and artix with openbox.  To some this constitutes or defines a specific philosophy.

It is what it is, it is our fault if we read more into it than it actually says.
 :-X

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #12 –
Quote from: fungalnet – on

It is what it is, it is our fault if we read more into it than it actually says.
 :-X

Right, artix is arch without systemd, and in terms of philosophy, I follow the simple old unix philosophy.
Its basically too much talk and too less contributions, hence there is a line between users and team, while every user can become a team member by simply contributing something, be it artwork, package maintaining, forum moderating whatever is useful to improving the distro.

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #13 –
I don't think we really need a philosophy for Artix as Artix is not something that we have came up from scratch, I think what defines us (as dev team and as distro) is just that we will never knell down and accept an specific init system to take control of the entire system enslaving the user freedom.

People on dev team is quite different from each other, the only common ground that we all share is that we believe in freedom.

Re: Artix "philosophy" in terms of the system

Reply #14 –
Does a "philosophy" really matter? Think about it, if Artix takes a turn for the worse (doubt it), it'll just be forked and development will continue under a new name; Linux distros are like a phoenix, once development ends for one distro, development picks up for a new one. Point in case, the philosophy is in the distro itself, if we don't like where Artix is heading we'll voice our opinions or simply fork development, that's one of the pros of using Linux.