• unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Sorry I don’t understand your first question.

    What I mean is that anyone (in fact there were projects that did this) could make an image with an installer GUI for Arch Linux that installed Arch Linux and some opinionated software like Endeavour does. But at the end you just got an easy Arch installation. What bothers me is that instead of pushing for Arch Linux’s brand, Endeavour created their own, virtually wrapping Arch Linux as theirs, and I don’t believe it is enough work to consider it a different distro, because it is LITERALLY ARCH with a couple of extra packages (that could be on the main repos or the AUR).

    And I am saying all this as an Endeavour user myself!

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      First of all, thank you for the reply and I find your position completely reasonable. We agree that EOS is essentially an opinionated Arch install.

      That said, the goals of EOS seem antithetical to the Arch project and many of its fans. I think it was elsewhere in this thread that somebody argued that somehow EOS would confuse new users because of mild deviations from the default like dracut or systemd-boot. Those are directly from the Arch repos and yet Arch users still brand them as “the other”. I do not see how EOS could have been done under the Arch umbrella and the decision enforce the separation with pure Arch is driven by the Arch desire to define Arch by a very narrow standard of purity.

      I am very happy that EOS uses the vanilla Arch repos and I am very happy that they have limited their ambition in terms of what to change.

    • Andy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      FWIW I’ve read an Arch dev complain that folks using any 3rd party installer are not in fact “running Arch” and should not claim to be doing so.