Arch-Based Antergos Linux Distribution Calls It Quits

[skeevy420]

I didn't know a non-arch distro could legally use the arch repos. But I've been wrong plenty of times.

As for the installation, since I only do it once, I don't mind the pacstrap then arch-chroot way. In fact, it seems rather natural, and I don't have a ton of junk or pre-configured bloat added.

All Antergos was was an installer, some packages that installed various desktop environments, and packages that set some settings to make things easier upon an install. Post-install, everything Antergos could easily be removed and you'd have the same thing you'd get if you followed the Arch Wiki and had the same personal preferences as the Antergos maintainers in regards to icon themes and whatnot.

[skeevy420]

What about something like this: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?...iner=&flagged=

There are node.js packages for LTS series, similarly you could have packages with given kernel versions or whatever other software.

That's basically what Manjaro does with kernels with a slightly different naming scheme: "linux316", "linux52", "linux419", etc. If you're on "linux50" and "linux51" is released, you might not even realize it unless you explicitly search for it since it doesn't readily upgrade from one stable release to the next. That's honestly the opposite of the pin problem. They basically "pre-pin" their kernels and that's annoying for old Arch users...or at least me...

[AndyChow]

While that's true for distros like Manjaro that has their own repositories (that are usually lagging behind), Antergos was using the standard arch repos - ie pure arch with easier setup and some distro-repos with things like wallpapers, icon packs, base configurations and whatnot. Imo 5 minutes afk:ing with the Antergos installer is the same as 30 minutes manual labor of setting up normal arch - end result is exactly the same. There's no right or wrong way of doing it, but I prefer the former.

I didn't know a non-arch distro could legally use the arch repos. But I've been wrong plenty of times.

As for the installation, since I only do it once, I don't mind the pacstrap then arch-chroot way. In fact, it seems rather natural, and I don't have a ton of junk or pre-configured bloat added.

[skeevy420]

I never liked that I had to pin kernel and module versions. I quite like the generic "linux" and "nvidia" etc. packages of Arch.
Although having both would probably be nice. One "always latest" and one "specifically version X".
Anyway I had to resolve failing pacman -Syu calls (package conflicts) every few weeks on my box with Manjaro while I had a running Arch for months to years without a conflict.

First thing I do is switch from Manjaro's provided kernel to self-compiled ones. That issue you describe is one of the reasons why. I have two kernels installed with 8 boot entries total: linux and linux-lts, regular and fallback/recovery entries for each, and unmitigated entries for all of those. I also keep Manjaro's current/newest kernel installed with the same Grub setup as the above as tertiary fallback.

Technically, that makes 12 Grub entries for 3 kernels. I've only had to use the lts one once in 4 years back on Antergos (I didn't pay attention and missed a failed ZFS dkms build during a kernel upgrade and used lts long enough to fix that) and I've never had to use anything other than my own linux builds on Manjaro since I learned from my mistake and now track ZoL a hell of a lot better and stick with whatever their highest supported kernel is (currently, the latest 5.1 with 0.8rc5).

I never liked that I had to pin kernel and module versions. I quite like the generic "linux" and "nvidia" etc. packages of Arch.
Although having both would probably be nice. One "always latest" and one "specifically version X".
Anyway I had to resolve failing pacman -Syu calls (package conflicts) every few weeks on my box with Manjaro while I had a running Arch for months to years without a conflict.

What about something like this: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?...iner=&flagged=

There are node.js packages for LTS series, similarly you could have packages with given kernel versions or whatever other software.

Arch user for at least 5 years with 15 archboxes. Installed Gentoo on my 32 core machine to see what the fuss was about, still trying to figure out why exactly what benefits, special powers or other cool perks I get other than the obvious coolness of compiling everything from source with some ability to tweak.

I'm not writing code to cross deploy to x86_64, i686 and ARM, if I was I would be on Gentoo fulltime already. Not sure what other perks I am missing.

Congratulations, you don't understand sarcasm.

[aksdb]

Yep...though I wouldn't go with Ubuntu (just never cared for it).

And Manjaro Testing is Arch Stable with Manjaro Stuff and Manjaro Unstable is Arch Testing with Manjaro Stuff so it isn't like Manjaro users lose access to things like the mesa-git repos and whatnot.

I never liked that I had to pin kernel and module versions. I quite like the generic "linux" and "nvidia" etc. packages of Arch.
Although having both would probably be nice. One "always latest" and one "specifically version X".
Anyway I had to resolve failing pacman -Syu calls (package conflicts) every few weeks on my box with Manjaro while I had a running Arch for months to years without a conflict.

[skeevy420]

I had Antergos for quite a while. I've even spent time improving their wiki. I don't believe their audience can be big. If you want rolling release use Manjaro, else use Ubuntu.

Yep...though I wouldn't go with Ubuntu (just never cared for it).

And Manjaro Testing is Arch Stable with Manjaro Stuff and Manjaro Unstable is Arch Testing with Manjaro Stuff so it isn't like Manjaro users lose access to things like the mesa-git repos and whatnot.

[skeevy420]

I guess you didn't really get my post which was about making fun of your gatekeeping by paraphrasing. Your argument that you know any better because you are an "old time" user is moot, and I am just an example of another old time user who disagrees with your views.

Exactly. I'm at 19 years myself. It is not relevant as a measure of technical expertise. The only time that's even relevant is to show that I've been around the Linux block for quite a while when I say:

[ypnos]

Ok, so your 15 years vs my 12 years... frankly why should I care that you've been using it maybe 3 years longer?

Also here we have another hypocrite... that wants to "gatekeep" me as he puts it, that's rich.

I guess you didn't really get my post which was about making fun of your gatekeeping by paraphrasing. Your argument that you know any better because you are an "old time" user is moot, and I am just an example of another old time user who disagrees with your views.