I will clarify this just because I have had several people ask me already. No, we did not remove the SyncFirst option in pacman to deliberately cause issues for Manjaro Linux. In fact, it was first discussed in Feburary 2012 and, as far as I can tell, Manjaro has only been around from late March 2012 (looking at the earliest commits in their git repository).
So lets keep the conspiracy theories to a minimum! (or at least come up with a better one…)
HoldPkg = pacman glibc
# If upgrades are available for these packages they will be asked for first
SyncFirst = pacman
can explain how work this. Its from the old pacman.conf
Personally, I do not believe that the intention behind this change was malicious. However, I do believe that you are capable. Clearly others share this sentiment as well, as evidenced by the need to publish this denial.
This in part would be because the Arch community are generally perceived as being somewhat malicious. I’ve lost count of the number of complaints about the consistently nasty and obnoxious behaviour displayed in the Arch forums. I’ve also read quite a few unpleasant posts there myself, and even here on your blog.
This perception is substantiated further by the plethora of malicious attacks that have been heaped upon Manjaro and other Arch-based distributions. The user-base have published childish, thinly vield attacks in the clumsy guise of scathing “reviews” about Manjaro, and have even registered on our forums for the sole purpose of generating a toxic atmosphere (e.g. “Loonix”).
This behaviour has been explicitly shared and consequently encouraged by at least one Arch developer – you – in the form of your equally childish, snotty, and vindictive blog posts. Linking to Loonix’s posts on our forum for the “entertainment value”; the condescending “distros battle”; and of course gloating when you thought that you had successfully manipulated the Manjaro devs into pushing a broken package onto their community.
Point is, people have assumed maliciousness on your part because you have behaved maliciously before, Dr. McRae. This behaviour is also hypocritical as it contradicts both the open-source philosophy, as well as Arch’s own “we are not a democracy” statement. Like I said before, you’ve got a lot going for you, so try not to be so angry and resentful…
…especially over a tiny fraction of a tiny percentage of the PC market!
No… I posted here so that I did not have to individually reply to each query I received. And because I could not reply to specific posts on the Manjaro forums, given I have no intention of creating an account there.
And I have a record of specifically rejected patches that are distribution specific for years. In fact, we reject anything that can not handle Linux, BSD and OSX (Cygwin was dropped in the 4.1 release).
Personally I find this just another example of the Manjaro developers incompetency. Relying on a knowingly broken feature in the package manager that has already been removed from the upstream git sources is nothing less that a spectacular failure. Especially given I have mentioned this many months ago and not a single Manjaro developer was ever seen in the #archlinux-pacman IRC channel or the pacman-dev mailing list to advocate why the feature should be kept.
Wow! I didn’t know this: so they (manjaros) are relying on SyncFirst… of course!
Couldn’t they fork pacman as it was?
“No… I posted here so that I did not have to individually reply to each query I received.”
Queries from those who assumed maliciousness on your part – as per the title of this post – thus proving my point.
“Relying on a knowingly broken feature in the package manager that has already been removed from the upstream git sources is nothing less that a spectacular failure.”
Talking about incompetency and failure, I see you admit to Arch providing yet another broken feature. What a surprise. And I note your employment of the now-standard (and snotty) Arch tactic of blaming everybody else by essentially stating: “That is your problem, not ours.” Hmm… How many times have I read that on the Arch forums?
“I could not reply to specific posts on the Manjaro forums, given I have no intention of creating an account there… not a single Manjaro developer was ever seen in the #archlinux-pacman IRC channel or the pacman-dev mailing list to advocate why the feature should be kept.”
So, you have no intention of improving your communication / social skills / approachability, and yet wonder why the Manjaro devs didn’t pop up in Arch IRC channels or mailing lists in the hope of co-operation. And after all that malicious behaviour directed towards them.
I have no doubt that they would’ve been made most unwelcome, and that their requests would’ve been ignored. Thus, this little retort of yours is as weak as Arch’s forward planning and consistency. I’ll save you the trouble of having to type the expected reply to my comment by writing it for you: “That is your problem, not ours.” đŸ˜›
Queries from naive Manjaro Linux users. And they must be naive because the are still using Manjaro Linux – where a single developer can handle keeping track of the updates entire repos for stability issues by himself while maintaining multiple kernels as well as many other packages. If you believe that is possible, you have not read your own forums regarding the major package update just performed and it nvidia and systemd issues… The major claim about the distributions features – easy and seemless upgrades – rather invalidated.
And I find it interesting that you ridicule us for removing a broken feature that Manjaro is looking at patching back in. Admitting something was broken and fixing the underlying reason it was needed before removing it seems a much better approach than sticking your fingers in your ears and going “LA LA LA – IT WORKS”. But a lot of Manjaro development already relies on such an approach, so nothing surprising.
I am found on all the pacman development channels. If I want to talk about pacman development, I go there. If I want to talk about Arch Linux, I got to their channels. Why would I go to the Manjaro ones? I don’t want to discuss Manjaro development. The idea that I should go there to discuss pacman stuff is plain stupid.
Pacman development specifically is distribution agnostic. Even in this release we merge ideas that were proposed by Chakra. If a (the?) single Manjaro developer contributed to the discussion in pacman development, we would be quite happy with that – and I have had productive email discussions with Phil in the past. I’m sure there will be issues found while finishing pmac (or whatever it is called) given I do not know any one else who has made a frontend using pyalpm… I’ll wait and see whether Manjaro forks or contribute in the future.
Interesting. Of course you know that Manjaro’s “unstable” repos are your “stable” ones. And yet despite having a number of testers using these “unstable” repos (as well as the next-stage “testing”, prior to the final “stable” repos), still we get problems now and again.
This is a testament to all those buggy and broken packages being spewed out by the Arch repos, and this is far more of an indictment on Arch than it is on Manjaro. But of course, your response is to give a middle finger and repeat: “That’s your fault…. Not our problem… LA LA LA LA”. Plus, Manjaro is still in a beta stage of development. What’s your excuse?
“I don’t want to discuss Manjaro development.”
Really? Well, your own blog entries completely destroy that claim!
“If a (the?) single Manjaro developer contributed to the discussion in pacman development, we would be quite happy with that – and I have had productive email discussions with Phil in the past.”
Actions speak louder than words. Try not being so hostile and I am certain there would be far more co-operation productivity in the future. Your own comment here acknowledges how hard working Phil is, a work ethic-backed up by his actual competency. Imagine how useful that would be for Arch.
PS – you only have to look at our Team page to know there is indeed more than one dev – lol
Well, if I didn’t think you were trolling before, I do now. I’m out of this flame war. Best of luck Allan.
All the best,
-HG
Yes – our stable repos are your testing ones, but then we make much different claims about what our distributions provide. And both examples I pointed out with the latest update (nvidia and systemd) were solely broken in your repos. In fact, they were from your [basis] repo which is entirely Manjaro packaged… So much for the Arch packaging being the issue. It is clearly localized bugs and brokenness from the Manjaro end. Even your criticism is incompetent and poorly researched.
Also, we clearly do not stick our fingers in our ears about any package in Arch that does have an issue, or you would need far more packaging work done at your end. We must do OK given the vast, vast majority of Manjaro packages are directly from Arch Linux.
And I know there is more than Manjaro one dev – but only one maintains the repos – or is Phil not telling the truth? [1].
Finally, I agree actions speak louder than words. When patches (or even discussion of ideas) arrives from an Manjaro developers on the pacman mailing lists, we will be able to see those actions… But until such a point actual contributions are made by those involved in Manjaro, any speculation on how I would handle their contributions seem ill-informed.
[1] http://forum.manjaro.org/index.php?topic=3239.msg27972#msg27972
I use Manjaro, and I am far from being a naive user.
What I am realising now is that you have no intention to try revert the image that is being associated with arch users and devs.
You are assholes, you act like assholes, and you do nothing to stop acting like assholes and stop looking like assholes.
Assholes you will stay, it appears.
Well, I am an Arch user, and I am very sorry to hear that a leading Arch developer calls users of another distribution naive, which I understand stupid. Sorry Allan, as much as I worship you as a brilliant developer, I am saddened and ashamed by your attitude. Even if you were right about the tchnical espects or technicalities in this dispute, it does not change a thing.
I totally agree with you. I haven’t heard about Slackware users dealing with Slackel users in the same way. I admit that sometimes i haven’t even the slightest clue what Allan is talking about. He sure has a vast knowledge about Linux in general and especially Arch. I’m trying to learn though. Manjaro helps me to get an Arch-based system up and running in a few minutes. Installing Arch takes me days. So here i am not able to really go the Arch way. What are my options ? I chose to install Manjaro and i’m happy with it (although i’m missing some packages like system-config-samba that are broken in Arch). Would the average Arch user be happier if i used Windows, Ubuntu or OSX ?
I need popcorn. I can’t wait to see the troll posts here. Both Arch devs/mods and guys who hate arch.
I really hope that this won’t happen even if you wouldn’t be entertained. In the end it’s the tiny Linux-community we’re talking about. If we can’t get along how do we ever want to grab a decent share of systems running on desktop-PCs ?
I don’t see the point of all these petty fights. Allan, I agree with almost every point you’ve made about Manjaro and the other Arch-derivatives, and Carl, I understand how you could think that the Arch BBS and Allan’s blog could be less than welcoming, but I fail to see vindictive or malicious intents.
The Arch community has always professed “The Arch Way,” and it doesn’t particularly enjoy projects which associate themselves with Arch and fail to follow its philosophy (is that wrong, or even surprising?).
I actually find it sad that Manjaro devs felt the need to fork Arch, rather than contribute to making it better. If you want a graphical installer, fine—it’s almost certainly never going to be included on the install medium, but contributing work towards Arch-proper helps everyone. Forking, especially in these cases, only duplicates effort with little benefit (as far as I can see).
Not to be “that user,” but… “can’t we all just get along?”
All the best,
-Sam
Hi Sam,
Well, we will have to agree to differ if you can’t see any malicious intent in Allan trying to get known broken packages onto the systems of Manjaro users.
My point is this: who would want to work with the existing devs to make Arch better, given the toxicity of the culture they propagate?
Personally, I also feel that co-operation and collaboration is preferable to fragmentation. But that’s a bit difficult with the kind of attitude displayed. I’m pointing this out as I honestly hope it changes.
If you’re referring to Allan’s post a while back about the delay between package updates for Manjaro, I didn’t read that as Allan’s trying to get the Manjaro maintainers to push the package. In fact, reading his posts, he said that it was explicitly not his intention for the devs to push the package. He was simply making a point that the package delay had the possibility for negative side effects.
Saying the Arch devs create a toxic environment is not a convincing argument to Arch users like me. Can you cite specific examples of their being explicitly toxic towards your contributions upstream? Because, my understanding (being a user, and not a mod/dev), is that the Arch devs are happy to take any well-written contribution upstream that doesn’t deviate from the Arch Way and doesn’t break a bunch of other stuff. So, being general won’t convince me.
Again, not trying to flame; rather the opposite, I want to douse the fire.
All the best,
-Sam
“And… do you know how easy it was to convince a Manjaro developer to ignore their entire stability scheme and push a known broken package into their repos?”
A quote from Allan, directly. Please, no games, Sam.
I didn’t read that as Allan’s trying to get the broken package pushed. I read that as his pointing out that the maintainer’s criteria for pushing packages was clearly less than strict. Also, if you read the bit just before that, you’ll note that he never goaded the dev into pushing the package, he was simply pointing out the delay for the package’s acceptance.
Allan can correct me if I’m misreading his posts, at anytime.
Moreover, that could be an example of his being reactionary towards Manjaro, but it’s not an example of the Arch devs being toxic towards well-written upstream contributions from anyone.
All the best,
-Sam
Picking a nice package that just had broken locale issues and not a major security hole or breakage seems an entirely non-malicious way to prove a point about the inability of one (or a few) developer to track the stability issues in all the repo packages…
What semi-Machiavellian crap. At least be honest, Allan.
This is like me going up to someone and kicking them up the bum while they were off-guard. I could argue that I did it was out of altruism – the intention being merely to illustrate that they should be more attentive in future to ensure their wellbeing – but the action itself is still malicious in nature compared to how it could’ve been handled. As would be my then gleefully crowing about it in a blog.
You know as well as I do that your intent was malicious. Otherwise the tone and approach to this issue would not have been so.
This is a terrible argument. As a distribution maintainer, it is your *duty* to be on-guard. That completely invalidates your argument. Sure, it doesn’t make sense to kick a random person and argue that they should have been on-guard. However, when it’s your duty to be on-guard, if someone manages to successfully kick you, then it’s your own failure.
Let’s use an analogy. Suppose that you’re a security guard guarding a building. If someone manages to do something malicious that you could have easily prevented, but failed to prevent because you weren’t paying attention, whose fault is it? You can state all you want that the other person was being malicious, but in the end, it’s still your fault for not paying attention and failing in your duty.
So, according to you, we need to guard against Arch’s broken packages like a security guard must be alert to a plethora of would-be thieves breaking in? And if you are attacked in the street, it’s YOUR fault? Interesting.
I suppose if you were robbed and/or perhaps beaten in the street – according to your argument – then you would consider yourself solely responsible for their actions? And you would also thank the perpetrators if they said they did it only for your own good whilst gloating about it publically?
Just out of respect for what the Arch devs did i would never do anything to harm Arch. I am a Linux user. So i wouldn’t harm any Linux distro.
It’s that simple.
Precisely, petty is the word. Why do so many Arch zealots have contempt and paranoia
over other Distros? You want this to remain a Distro for the advanced user yet spend so much
effort denouncing others and apparently Open source ideals, why? Where do they become a
threat? Mr. McRae you are right when you stated you dont have to be paranoid. Do YOU
know what you want? You act like jealous little girls gossipping with mal-contempt. Why
don’t you people grow up and try to be as BIG as you feel, eh?
I would suggest for both sides (Manjaro & Arch), to calm down, take a deep breath and start being reasonable.
Carl Duff: I think you need to understand, that when you’re a downstream developer, you need to accept what upstream is doing and if you don’t like it, fork it and go on your own.
Arch is a fast-paced, progressive distro, so if you’re looking for features set in stone, then Arch is not such a distro.
You have to understand, that it is only Manjaro that is on the rant here, (as far as I’ve seen).
I have yet to see similar rants from ArchBang and Charka devs.
The thing you don’t seem to grasp is that you’re dependant on Arch, but not the other way round, so why should Arch be concerned the least bit about you? Especially when you don’t intend to engage in public communication? It DOES NOT work that way.
It is wrong to think that we’re hostile to Manjaro.
Arch community simply doesn’t want compromises for some downstream distro.
Look at Linux Mint, you think Canonical gives two s**ts about them? They don’t and the Mint guys have to deal with it THEMSELVES! Why can’t you do the same?
Perhaps you’re not skilled enough yet, for your own distro, (no insult intended, just a reasonable suggestion), so it is great that you’re taking on Manjaro, but perhaps take it as a learning experience, at least until you’re more comfortable sorting problems like this yourself – and let me tell you, there will be more like these, for the simple reason that Arch is a CONSTANTLY moving target.
I see no malicious intent in that.
Let me assure you, that the open-source community is certainly happy for every new, ambitious project, but you have to be a bit more involved.
It does take more than slapping Xfce and your logo on top of Arch to build a successful distro.
Arch does not have free ride either, if fact their job is MUCH harder, as they have to respect many different upstream projects, not just one.
This is how any community works – by cooperation and realization where their place is and what is expected of them.
To be clear, I haven’t undertaken such a big project as you did ever in my life, but that’s perhaps because I realize my own limits.
“It does take more than slapping Xfce and your logo on top of Arch to build a successful distro” ++
So- you could do better than Manjaro devs ?
I have a few thoughts on this:
1) Let’s imagine that it was not a feature of pacman that was removed, but a feature in the linux kernel. Do you Carl seriously expect that Linus wouldcome to the Manjaro forums to discuss the removal of the feature with you?
Or how about if it was systemd, or any other major upstream project?
2) Why are you/Manjaro against the removal (and possible replacement by a better alternative) of a feature that is know to not work as intended? Do you really think that the pacman devs should ignore glaring bugs and broken features?
“Talking about incompetency and failure, I see you admit to Arch providing yet another broken feature. ”
How is that a bad thing? Would you rather that the arch/pacman devs put on blinders and blatantly refuse to admit/accept their mistakes? That would be the truly incompetent thing to do.
3) If you are so concerned about SyncFirst, why have you made no attempt at (helping to) fixing it? Why is there so little interest in helping to solve the *real* issue here?
4) “What semi-Machiavellian crap. At least be honest, Allan.
This is like me going up to someone and kicking them up the bum while they were off-guard. ”
After giving them prior notice more than 6 months in advance, and giving them every opportunity to discuss it with you beforehand.
5) As for your comments on arch community:
Yes, it can be harsh, and there are certain vocal people that the community could do without, but this is really a result of the size. As a community grows in size, the S/N ratio will always take a turn for the worse. But that doesn’t mean that you should return in kind, what you should be doing is providing a good example for the rest of us. THis should be easy to do since Manjaro is a small tight knit community, but I can’t see that your posts here have been anything like that.
@ Allan: If you want incompetent buffoonery, look no further than the nearest mirror. Your arguments are poor, relying on cherry-picking, deliberate mis-representation, and empty posturing. I think you should consider going into politics; you’d fit right in.
As for fixing broken packages, well, I posted a bug report weeks ago that still has not been resolved. I even posted the fix and offered to provide the patched package myself.
@ Matej: You have misunderstood. Completely. Why should Arch be the least bit concerned about us? Read Allan’s own posts and comments to find out. Or maybe even just my first comment here about his and other Arch community members’ unprovoked attacks on us. That is my problem. How would you like it if people attacked you all the time out of sheer spite?
And you are completely wrong about the devs of other distros not complaining about how they are treated. Read their forums for yourself. They just try to keep a lid on it for fear of getting even more angry responses and/or turning their own forums toxic. Happened to us. And please do not patronise us about just slapping XFCE on top of Arch. That’s what you do as an end user. Take a look at our git commits.
@ Mr. Elendig: You have also completely misunderstood. I have not complained about the change in Pacman. My point – which I have already explicitly stated – is the malicious behaviour exhibited towards us by Allan and his minions. As far as I am aware, Linus doesn’t write shit about us all the time or obsessively browse our forums.
Please also re-read the comment thread culminating in my own statement about Allan’s semi-Machiavellian crap. It had nothing to do with pacman. It was about him trying to convince us to push a broken package onto our users… as I have already stated here.
Conclusion: I’ll try to be as clear as possible for all concerned. Drop the snotty and arrogant attitude, especially as Arch itself is far from perfect. You’ll find more help, more ideas, and more support forthcoming if you do. And remember you are an open-source project – not a mini-me Microsoft.
“Your arguments are poor, relying on cherry-picking, deliberate mis-representation, and empty posturing”
And then you do exactly this and cherry-pick a single bug you filed. And where have I cherry-picked? I listed every single issue I have seen reported from the major update Manjaro did yesterday. What have I misrepresented? Were the packages involved not all Manjaro packaged ones? Far too many facts for politics – maybe the use of baseless defenses would line you up better.
Going back to your bug… It is one I remember actually being discussed because it looks like it should work and indeed does for other people. So we need to figure out why the pam include chain does not work for you (and note that seems to only be you at the moment… – that forum post is due to the user not converting their pam files back in the consolekit->systemd conversion), and fix it at the source because you would think such an issue would have wider consequences. What not to do is provide some bandage over the issue as is suggested, leaving the bigger bug exposed (if it exists).
And would you really take a built package from someone unaffiliated with your distribution and upload it to your repos? Because offering one like it is a genuine option seems like you would and that is hysterical.
(Also, the KDE build imported into your repos today has no samba support. You would think more than a day would be needed to test an entire desktop update, but it seems that stability vetting process at Manjaro is completely ignored if you can get better news items by having shiny new versions to attract the naivety…)
Allan,
Just a simple question: Is it totally impossible that Arch could benefit from a larger userbase coming from Manjaro ? Even if only a single bug is reported isn’t that better than that bug just sitting there for ages ?
Also, be careful with the KDE package update advise above. I am apparently known to be malicious…
“Also, be careful with the KDE package update advise above. I am apparently known to be malicious…”
Precisely, especially after the Firefox shenanigans. There is also a difference between cherry-picking and providing examples to evidence claims. My point was that I filed a report, provided a solution, and even offered to send a package for testing. Co-operation.
You also failed to notice that the pam issue in my report was tested with XFCE by Arch. This is very different from a window manager like Openbox, where the issue was found. This issue was also found by others on Archbang. It’s a sticky on their forums.
I may be wrong, but suspect the SLiM issue may related to the fact the DEs like XFCE work fine with DBUS whereas WMs like Openbox do not. As I am sure you are aware, where using Openbox for example, it is necessary to put a DBUS-related fix in .xinitrc or .xprofile (depending on the DM being used) for it to work properly. Again, I could be wrong, but this is my suspicion at the moment.
PS – you didn’t mention what repo the new version of KDE is in.
I’m terribly sorry Carl, I was trying to keep this discussion somewhat non-personal and focus more on the underlying issue. (oh, and thanks for ignoring point 5)
Here is my translation of what you have said so far as I have understood it:
“All criticism against us, no matter how valid, is anti-Manjaroism! Blasphemy I say, blasphemy! Anyone who opposes us are the evil minions of the Great Evil Overlord Allan McBelsebub, who are leading a conspiracy to destroy our holy distro! KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!”
On a serious note:
If you want us to drop the “snotty and arrogant attitude”, then you would have to teach us how to. We are after all brainwashed by The Glorious Allan Anti-Manjaro-Conspiracy TGAAMC(TM), and therefore does not know any better.
Disclaimer:
The above post is full of sarcasm, bad humor, references to obscure movies, games and mangas, mockery and larting.
The above post is entirely fictional, even when it is not.
The above post was written at gunpoint by a member of TGAAMC
42 minions were killed writing the above post. (To get the blood for the e-ink, obviously)
Please don’t take the post serious in any way. It is caturday after all.
http://arch.har-ikkje.net/gfx/caturday/caturday13.jpg
@Carl Duff – This is a personal blog of one Arch developer.
If you don’t like it, ignore it.
In a democratic, free speech society, we must accept the fact that we will be criticised, however that we may also criticise ourselves.
I am not aware of any “unprovoked attacks” on Manjaro, not even in this post. In fact I see quite the opposite of that; Allan’s simply stating that SyncFirst option was not removed on purpose to break Manjaro Linux, which indicates that you (Manjaro devs) have made such an accusation.
To me this seems like you attacked first without any sufficient evidence to support your claims and this post was simply a defence.
If you can prove me wrong, (with proof), then I would gladly reconsider my position on this.
I know what I am talking about, because when I first tried Arch full-time, I did nit know how its community worked (my bad) and I was unable to accept blame for my own mistakes, therefore came out as an as**ole many times.
You have to realize that it is not us, who’s attacking, but you.
Basically, you took Arch – a distro whose entire philosophy is COMPLETELY incompatible with yours and now you’re complaining. Re-read your own comments here; you’re basically saying that Arch’s full of crap.
What escapes me is why then you picked it up, as you base, when you know that there are other distros that perhaps fit your philosophy better?
“And please do not patronise us about just slapping XFCE on top of Arch”
We both know that that’s certainly not all you’re doing, however my point was that Manjaro is essentially Arch with some eye-candy on top-of it and that’s what I was getting at and you know it.
Anyway, best advice I can give to you is to completely ignore Allan if you don’t feel ok with him and do your own thing.
I very much doubt that when you post on Arch irc, mailing lists, forums etc. in a peaceful, meaningful way, that thousands of angry zombies will came attacking you, but maybe you can prove me wrong.
P.S. Best of luck with Manjaro & live in peace đŸ™‚
@Carl
sucks to be you, their distro, their package manager. dont like it? have fun forking.
Was this really necessary ?
Seems to me Carl should show the same level of commitment to his distro as he does to attempting to call out Messr Mcrae & the Archlinux communitys shortcomings.
Popcorn aside …
Can anyone tell me why Manjaro depends on SyncFirst?
For their script that “fixes” update intervention:
http://git.manjaro.org/packages-sources/basis/blobs/master/manjaro-system/manjaro-update-system.sh
pacman -Sy manjaro-system && pacman -Su
It seems a little unreasonable in my mind to get mad when something upstream changes that you don’t agree to but never actively said anything about in the places where something could be discussed said. It doesn’t matter what the intent was of the upstream developer. Manjaro is managing packages where 95% of the work is already done. I find it hard to justify complaining about the 5% you are responsible for because you are using a forked system.
Allan, A question…
Why Pacman use the 4.x.x version chema intead of a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…300, 301…. schema, I think taht a version schema like that is more like a blending edge, you no need to use 4.x.x and thin where thr major version or minor version is needed to bump
Because 3.x -> 4.0 implies major changes compared to 4.0 -> 4.1. It gives a sense of perspective about the extent of the update.
The blame Allan joke has new meaning
Neither Allan nor Carl represents their distros as their only “representatives”. Carl’s opinion is perhaps not Manjaro’s opinion as a whole, Allan’s opinion is perhaps not Arch’s opinion as a whole, even if the opinions happen to be true.
And please, Carl, I think while you’ve got the right to react, I feel that your overreacting a little bit too much. Calm down, try to not use words that picture “them” as bad. You (and Allan this time around, albeit to a lesser extent) needn’t praise them as if they’re God o anything like that, but try to avoid using things like “incompetent” for a few posts. Who knows, perhaps there’s been quite a bit of misunderstanding all along.
It’s not “your overreac….it’s you’RE. Sorry.
Hi Allan.
You recently said you have no intention of opening up a Manjaro account. I therefore just wanted to warn you that someone has just opened up an account on the Manjaro forum using the profile name “allanmcrae” & posted, linking to your blog.
Regarding your statement about only knowing about Manjaro from late March, you posted about Manjaro at least as early as Friday 11th January. I only started using Linux in December last year and was well aware of Manjaro by late December, and started using it as my primary OS by early January. Regardless of the truth or untruth of the rumours you are seeking to dispel, the above two points are highly questionable.
Thanks,
RJ.
Check the years on the months you are talking about. I said Manjaro started March 2012. I certainly can not have talked about them before they started…
Allan, point taken on the dating – that was an oversight on my part. Regarding your statement about having no intention of opening up a Manjaro forum account, is the person going by the name “allanmcrae” indeed yourself? Whoever this person is, they joined the forum today. If not, I will ensure that the account is closed down.
My hope is that this conversation yields something constructive. As far as Arch is concerned, I have seen nothing but positive regard for it expressed on the Manjaro forum. At the same time I believe that, for new Linux users such as myself, Manjaro is increasingly delivering what a lot of users like myself seek – a fast, stable, rolling release. A typical Arch user will no doubt prefer to run their own system, rather than use an Arch-based distro such as Manjaro. However, Roland, Phil & the rest of the development team – it’s far more than one or two people – are providing something of value, the kind of distro that an increasing number of users are looking for.
Manjaro has it’s roots in Arch. Long live Arch!
Thanks,
RJ.
That is definitely not me on their forums. I just registered the user “Allan” (the same as I use everywhere) from my Arch email address and commented in that thread. While I will not use that account, it will hopefully stop some trolling in my name (other than what I do directly…).
Allan, whoever this person with username “allanmcrae” is, they have not done any trolling so far, but merely pointed Manjaro users in the direction of your blog. Given what you say about this not being yourself, I feel comfortable quoting the post here:
“Because of security issues, many new features will be added to pacman shortly. The developers at Manjaro have decided to use Arch Linux as a base, but not be involved in the development of Arch. Many of these new features will permanently cut Manjaro from the update cycle. You have no one to blame but your own short-sighted developers. Please view my blog http://allanmcrae.com/ as details will be posted soon – Allan”
This person claims to know about something you intend posting soon. I will make a request to the forum that this account be deleted, to avoid trolling in your name. Shall I ask them to delete the account name “Allan” as well, seeing as you don’t intend to use it?
Thanks,
RJ.
I have made a request that the account that posted that is banned. I’ll leave the “Allan” account open as then it will be clear if I ever comment on something.
Allan.
Just to let you know, “allanmcrae” is no longer on the forum system. As you can appreciate, the email address registered to that account in no way proves that it’s not you, which is why I queried it. On that point, one must take you at your word.
My hope is that the “heat” around this string cools rapidly & I’m confident it will – the types of users that Manjaro is aimed at will most probably have little interest in it. As for me, your blog provides a useful glimpse into the Arch universe, of which Manjaro is a part.
Go well & thanks for an informative blog.
RJ.
I think that these pesky arguments between Manjaro and Arch users needs to stop. I don’t care what the Manjaro users said about your operating system, the arguments make both of the teams look like children fighting over which has a better toy. I can understand defense of the community and projects but wouldn’t it be better if the combination of the two decided to work together instead of functioning in these factions?