They add some of their own sauce to each of the distros. (This you're allowed to do (and do very easily because it's free (as in freedom) software). What you're

They add some of their own sauce to each of the distros. (This you're allowed to do (and do very easily because it's free (as in freedom) software). What you're not allowed do is build an ISO of the result and distribute and still call it Arch or Pop!_OS or whatever (because … drumroll … it isn't any more). You can't expect Distro makers to be getting user support requests from users from custom versions of their distros that a 3rd-party made. All this is obvious and perfectly reasonable when you think about it. And without free software it'd be difficult for a non mega-corp to create and maintain a project like this. So what you see as user hostile is actually users being allowed an able to try shiny new software on their proprietary hardware/software combo. So your snark is unnecessary.