Interview with the Arch Dev Team

[reed9]

Really interesting interview with the Arch Linux folks on osnews.

Arch Linux Team

[schwim]

if you are going to use Arch, you better know what's installed on your system.(Yes sir!)

Arch Linux users don't need a desktop in 30mins!(Let them eat cake!)

There is, however, no need for "pre-built" (whatever that means) ISOs.(Maybe he should ask his co-developers, since they all knew what it meant. Oh, unless he was just simply trying to make those that prefer pre-built feel like morons.)

I therefore see no point in what a user would need on the desktop.(Oh, he sees no point in it.)

Obviously, none of the current developers have any other machines they want to run Arch on, so none of us will start a new port.(I'd hate to use an OS that is based on what computer they own at the time).

Although they've cultivated their disdain of the average user and honed it to a fine point, they could learn something about truly making the mainstream linux user feel like a useless idiot from the Debian guys. I was a little disappointed that they didn't just come out and call their audience retards.

[reed9]

Always the contrarian, Schwim.

I therefore see no point in what a user would need on the desktop.(Oh, he sees no point in it.)

He's referring to the way that pre-built distros try to assume the needs of the so called "average user". Because the purpose of Arch is to only provide a solid base for the user to build upon, there is no point for the small team of Arch devs to spend limited time and resources in dicating to the user how he/she should use their machine.

Obviously, none of the current developers have any other machines they want to run Arch on, so none of us will start a new port.(I'd hate to use an OS that is based on what computer they own at the time).

Again, with limited time and resources, they aren't going to support niche architectures. As is, Arch covers the vast majority of machines out there. If there is demand, the community can step in and create a port. If the demand is high enough, they might adopt the port and officially support it. Arch does assume the user should step up and contribute some work. You see it all the time on the forums when someone asks for this or that to be packaged. The response is often, "If you want the package, go create it." Or do something to help. Perhaps it sounds arrogant or rude, but at the same time, you're being provided all this infrastructure and software free of charge, I think the user does have a reponsibility to contribute in some way.

Why should any of us feel a sense of entitlement, that other people should volunteer their knowledge, time, and effort to provide for us, and we have no need to contribute back?

As they said, Arch is the distro they want to use, so they made it. If other people like it and want to use it, great. If other people don't like it, great. Why should they care? They aren't looking to take over the linux world, as they said explicity, they aren't in competition with other distros. If you're willing to learn and try and put some work into it, they are very friendly and welcoming. If you're demanding or unwilling to put effort into learning to do things for yourself, then they aren't going to cater to you. Those folks should probably use an Ubuntu or Mandriva or Windows.

Although they've cultivated their disdain of the average user and honed it to a fine point, they could learn something about truly making the mainstream linux user feel like a useless idiot from the Debian guys. I was a little disappointed that they didn't just come out and call their audience retards.

I don't think it's disdain for the average user. They just aren't interested in making a mainstream, "user friendly" distro. They are clear that that is not their target audience, and they don't want folks to have any misconceptions about Arch. If you don't like to tinker and get under the hood, if you don't like the command line, don't use Arch. I don't get the sense that they are disdainful of Ubuntu users, they just aren't the audience they're looking to draw. And thank goodness, because Ubuntu drives me crazy.

[schwim]

Always the contrarian, Schwim.

I must admit that I do it simply for the conversation it spurs. It gets awfully boring in the gen chat areas otherwise.

I think your points are all valid. Every single one. The issue I take isn't with the direction they took their distro or even what they're trying to accomplish with it. Here's my rub.

For whatever reason, the developers want people to use their OS. I didn't ask them to develop it and release it and if they truly only needed it for their computers, you wouldn't be running it on your system. So whether it's due to ego, a sense of duty or something else, they want people to use their system. This is inarguable.

Now here's the deal, instead of simply stating that they didn't want to take a certain path, over half those developers did what linux fanatics love to do; they spent their time making the user/reader/consumer feel at fault or at least incompetent. You can't tell me after reading that article that we weren't to feel that they were looking down their proverbial noses at us if we didn't like what they had to offer. It's clearly what many of the comments were tailored to do.

It's so commonplace in the linux community that it doesn't surprise me in the least. The only thing that does surprise me is that some people still wonder in spite of this global attitude why linux adoption is so achingly slow.

[coopstah13]

I read the whole thing, and I didn't get any vibe that they were talking down to anyone at all.

[schwim]

Of course. I often use the terms "see no point", "whatever that means" and "you had better know" to the customers that I peddle my services to.

Quite humble in fact, when I take more time to read it.

[coopstah13]

These aren't necessarily condescending phrases, and I would say that its impossible to really tell the tone based on this text interview.

[reed9]

For whatever reason, the developers want people to use their OS. I didn't ask them to develop it and release it and if they truly only needed it for their computers, you wouldn't be running it on your system. So whether it's due to ego, a sense of duty or something else, they want people to use their system. This is inarguable.

I wouldn't phrase it as "they want people to use their system", but it comes down to the same thing. The opensource community is all about sharing and contributing code, so they did that, they put their work on the web. But it's more of a, "Here's this distro we made because this is what we like. Use it or not, but bewarned, if you choose to use it, this is what to expect and we're not going to change it to suit you."

I very much dispute that Arch users should be viewed as "customers". They are not. They are ideally collaborators, or barring that simply beneficiaries of some other folks' work.

If someone cooks a meal and let's me eat for free, I haven't the right to complain that it isn't seasoned to my taste. And I certainly can't barge into the kitchen and yell at the cook for not doing it the way I want. Which is exactly how some users behave. I do detect a note of condescension, but I read it as towards that sort of user, of which there are sadly plenty.

Again, the person who is honestly trying, who is capable and wants to learn, who wants to give back, I have never seen someone like that treated with anything but kindness and warmth on the Arch forums.

[reed9]

Again, the person who is honestly trying, who is capable and wants to learn, who wants to give back, I have never seen someone like that treated with anything but kindness and warmth on the Arch forums.

I should add that I at least aspire to be that sort of person, willing to learn and try. Pretty much everything I know about computers I learned in the last two years since I switched to linux. I barely used a computer for anything more than playing music and surfing the web before that. So I'm not some computer elite, I'm just some schlub who likes linux, and especially admires the free (and I mean free, not open source) software political movement. I say this to give context when I state that I have never felt looked down upon by the Arch community or Arch devs.

[schwim]

I very much dispute that Arch users should be viewed as "customers".

Well, you should definitely use a term that you don't take exception to, otherwise it's hard to discuss the topic.

I don't know where you're getting your free lunches, but if they're making you enter into a binding contract granting you specific rights and imposing certain restrictions, it must be one hell of a sandwich. My point simply being that it's hardly an aww-shucks handshake affair, the way it's handled. I don't really have a preference what you call the consumer, but the fact remains that you agreed to a EULA to use it. That makes you more than a benificiary in my eyes.

Which really is completely aside from my initial point. I really don't want to make it seem like I'm against those that develop and share linux. I simply maintain that in my opinion, many of those that share their labor with us make us suffer through their pompous attitudes. Not all and maybe not even most, but enough to make you not want to put yourself in the same camp as them. As coopstah stated, it's all personal perception. He saw nothing out of sorts in the same article that I poked fun at.