Antergos most emphatically isn't a distro it's just an installer for arch Linux and quite frankly a poorly designed one that does not always actually work.
After the installer runs if it actually works you aren't left with something much different from a normal arch installation.
The actual distro developers have a lot of work to do as far as assembling a wide range of components and often writing their own like package management systems and recipes for building thousands of packages.
Its unsurprising that people writing 0.1% of distro badly doesn't require much work.
Sorry, I don't follow. Your second paragraph is rather accurate. That said, I don't see how that's different from the various flavors of Ubuntu. I would consider Lubuntu an Ubuntu installer...
Well that’s mean. But I have to agree that it doesn’t actually work 99% of the time for me. It certainly is easier to install arch than it is trying to debug cnchi. Arch requires so much typing, but at least the installation is reliable.
I don't take offense to it personally as I no longer work on the project, but...did you bother to open bug reports and share logs...or do you just throw a fit on public forums? I still run the geo server used in installation, and can assure you the vast majority (>99%) of folks do not have installation troubles. If they do, they aren't reporting it.
Comments like these, which are common, are what pushed me away from open source. Everyone feels entitled. Fix it, report bugs, ask for features. Frankly, as an open source contributor, I want it to work for people, but, if it doesn't work for your specific setup and you offer nothing of value, I don't care that it doesn't.
It's understandable if you still take it somewhat personally. You worked on it, just like an author who wrote an article in a magazine once would still likely care about that.
In my case (not the person you replied to) the Antergos website and IRC (sorry, I know reporting on IRC is not as useful as a proper bug report) people gave me the impression it was all good and it worked for everyone. I spent 2 hours hacking the installer to try to make it work, until eventually giving up and using the Arch iso to install in 10 minutes.
The entitled behaviour one might see is therefore sometimes not just entitlement, but could also be frustration from "feeling misled". We all know it's free, and I'm grateful for that, but I'm not grateful for feeling promised something to work and then spending 2 hours too much on that promise.
I believe you brought up antergos. The exact statement was.
"I worked with the Antergos team, a team of 4 people, to write a distro that let you pick and choose everything, from DE to browsers. While I've mainly faded away they are still hard at it. In short, if we can support nearly every DE with 4 volunteers, what are these *buntus spending their resources on?"
You compared flavors of Ubuntu unfavorably with flavors of antergos and it's neither throwing a fit nor entitled to point out that their resources presumably are spent on making things that work.
Regarding antergos, I consulted their bug tracker my issue had been reported already and wasn't fixed within the month I was interested in the matter and it was impossible to use the older version without the bug because once online it helpfully updated itself to the broken version. Further as far as I could tell the bug was generic enough that it would have effected most users. It simply crashed most of the way through a generic Ext4 install to bog standard desktop hardware.
People throw around entitled as if giving away something for free exempts your work from all critism. Sure you owe me nothing but if your work over promises and under delivers I'm apt to say something so others don't waste their time.
Firstly, I never compared flavors of Ubuntu as being lesser. I only asked why each DE needed it's own community.
Secondly, you didn't report your issues, enough said. When you are a volunteer team, you can't buy every piece of hardware. You absolutely depend on logs and more importantly people willing to test. I had an early Ubuntu beta format my partition when I hadn't selected to do so. I wouldn't say Ubuntu sucks and should give up. It was addressed as a bug and fixed. Such is the nature of software.
I don't think any promises were made. Antergos is an easy installer for arch. I don't know if you know all that goes into an installer. It's way more than I assumed when I signed up. Just writing py3 bindings for libparted, for example, didn't exist. I upstreamed those to RedHat. For a distro, I'd probably say the installer is 20 to 30 percent of the effort. Packaging is the large remaining majority. *buntu flavors reuse packaging, and reuse an installer.
I will never claim Antergos is perfect. It's not, and it does break as Arch changes things. But saying 'it doesn't work' or 'start over' is dismissive and borderline ignorant. Most of the issues over the years were due to changes in Arch packaging, not due to bad code.
I won't reply further, feel free to stand on your soapbox and continue badmouthing something you did nothing to help.
After the installer runs if it actually works you aren't left with something much different from a normal arch installation.
The actual distro developers have a lot of work to do as far as assembling a wide range of components and often writing their own like package management systems and recipes for building thousands of packages.
Its unsurprising that people writing 0.1% of distro badly doesn't require much work.