Wouldn't it be cool if Ubuntu could be a bit more like Arch?

[pluckypigeon]

I like the idea of having a blank platform to install linux on but then IMO Ubuntu has a much better repo, although Arch's pacman is much faster than apt-get.

A fusion of the two would be perfect.

[Oak37]

You could do a minimal install (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD) of Ubuntu and then build up from that.

[pluckypigeon]

You could do a minimal install (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD) of Ubuntu and then build up from that.

Thanks for that. I'll have to research in to it further.

[cdwillis]

I've done both the minimal Ubuntu install and it was never as fast as my Arch install with about the same stuff installed.

[Dr Small]

I am an ArchLinux user, and have been a Ubuntu user in the past, and I would have to say that if Ubuntu was like Arch, I would probably still be creating text documents and changing icons in Windows explorer (since there was nothing better to do).

Fact is, if Ubuntu was like Arch (building it up from the ground), we'd be missing a lot of new Linux converts. I think Ubuntu should remain the way it is, and if users care to adventure and learn to optimize their systems, then there is always Arch :)

[Ptero-4]

Or you could go and make yourself a linux-from-scratch ;)

[Bachstelze]

I've done both the minimal Ubuntu install and it was never as fast as my Arch install with about the same stuff installed.

Could you please tell us how you measured that?

Moved to Other OS Talk anyway.

[pluckypigeon]

Or you could go and make yourself a linux-from-scratch ;)

Indeed I have.

I just miss having all the packages in the repos and only having to compile what I need when I need... that way I don't lose track of everything I've installed.

[ghindo]

Arch and Ubuntu appeal to two very different audiences. I think that it's great that they differ in the ways they do. That's not to say neither has room for improvement, but it's important to keep in mind that we have different distributions for a reason.

[quazi]

I like the idea of having a blank platform to install linux on but then IMO Ubuntu has a much better repo, although Arch's pacman is much faster than apt-get.

A fusion of the two would be perfect.

While Ubuntu's repo's are certainly better, I've found everything I've wanted to install between pacman and AUR.

Also the ZSNES I installed through pacman actually works! (Maybe zsnes in 8.10 repos has been fixed, but it wasn't for far too long).

I like Ubuntu and Arch the way they are. It allows one to choose between two notably different, but very effective distributions.

[crimesaucer]

Indeed I have.

I just miss having all the packages in the repos and only having to compile what I need when I need... that way I don't lose track of everything I've installed.

I feel like I've cheated if I don't compile my package.

[pluckypigeon]

While Ubuntu's repo's are certainly better, I've found everything I've wanted to install between pacman and AUR.

Also the ZSNES I installed through pacman actually works! (Maybe zsnes in 8.10 repos has been fixed, but it wasn't for far too long).

I like Ubuntu and Arch the way they are. It allows one to choose between two notably different, but very effective distributions.

Is there something in between?

[anewguy]

I personally like the way Ubuntu is presented and installed - just personal choice. I remember back in 1995 or 1996 installing Slackware - you had to do everything. At that time, since I was still employed in the technical area of computers, that wasn't a problem. Being much older now and away from work for many years, I just haven't kept up with things, and really only want to have to "think" more about what I'm doing when I'm working on something other than just installing and using an OS. Ubuntu definetely has made in roads into the non-techie world, and that is a big plus. While still quite a way (in my humble opinion) from being able to replace Windows for a lot of users, it is still so much easier to install now. Think about it - the things most people run into any problems with are wireless network (this is a vendor driver support issue) and video cards (again, a vendor driver support issue). For the most part, for the average user out there now compared to say 5 years ago, it's great - install it, get on the net, check you mail, use OpenOffice for letters, budgets on spreadsheets, etc..
While I can appreciate a minimalist install and selecting and choosing what you want (I was a techie after all), the age of Linux being a techie-only OS has been surplanted by a robust easier out-of-the-box distribution called Ubuntu (and there are others as well). This can only help Linux to appeal to the more massive non-technical computer user base out there.

Just my opinion, of course!

Dave :)

[cdwillis]

Could you please tell us how you measured that?

Moved to Other OS Talk anyway.

What I meant was it felt faster. Maybe because I know Arch is i686 optimized I got a placebo speedboost.:o

[binbash]

Ubuntu and arch is way different distros and it won't be like arch.

[jrusso2]

I personally like the way Ubuntu is presented and installed - just personal choice. I remember back in 1995 or 1996 installing Slackware - you had to do everything. At that time, since I was still employed in the technical area of computers, that wasn't a problem. Being much older now and away from work for many years, I just haven't kept up with things, and really only want to have to "think" more about what I'm doing when I'm working on something other than just installing and using an OS. Ubuntu definetely has made in roads into the non-techie world, and that is a big plus. While still quite a way (in my humble opinion) from being able to replace Windows for a lot of users, it is still so much easier to install now. Think about it - the things most people run into any problems with are wireless network (this is a vendor driver support issue) and video cards (again, a vendor driver support issue). For the most part, for the average user out there now compared to say 5 years ago, it's great - install it, get on the net, check you mail, use OpenOffice for letters, budgets on spreadsheets, etc..
While I can appreciate a minimalist install and selecting and choosing what you want (I was a techie after all), the age of Linux being a techie-only OS has been surplanted by a robust easier out-of-the-box distribution called Ubuntu (and there are others as well). This can only help Linux to appeal to the more massive non-technical computer user base out there.

Just my opinion, of course!

Dave :)

I started with Slackware at around the same time 1996 and I am glad for an easy to use system. I work on problems with networks and servers all week, last thing I want to do is have to work on mine when I get home.

[SunnyRabbiera]

What have Ubuntu be hard to install, have a small package library and be hard to use for the new user?
That will put butts in seats :D

[gjoellee]

I've done both the minimal Ubuntu install and it was never as fast as my Arch install with about the same stuff installed.

+1 Arch is twice as fast! However Ubuntu would not be as "easy to use" if they moved over to something like Arch.

[C!oud]

I like the idea of having a blank platform to install linux on but then IMO Ubuntu has a much better repo, although Arch's pacman is much faster than apt-get.

A fusion of the two would be perfect.

I agree with before, that would just defeat the purpose of Ubuntu

[gjoellee]

What I meant was it felt faster. Maybe because I know Arch is i686 optimized I got a placebo speedboost.:o

Yes that is one thing! Arch comes totally basic. Without any kernel modules that are not needed, the same with daemons etc... When you are finished setting up Arch correctly, Arch is more or less optimized for your computer and loads only what is necessary, which gives a much faster boot, and much better performance.

Ubuntu is like a light car, but stuffed with stash, and stereo and a bath tub which makes the car heavy and makes it drive slower, and need more power.

Arch is like a light car stuffed with seats for so many persons that needs to be in the car, and with a stereo and bath tub if you want to have. It is yet optimized (with turbo) for either i686 or x86_64 which gives the extra necessary power without using to much fuel.

I hope you see the point!

[namegame]

Along the same lines a Gjoellee.

I would be interested in seeing how "fast" an Arch installation would be compared to Ubuntu if it contained the exact same packages/daemons/modules as Ubuntu. I doubt that the difference would be significant to majority of users.

For me, Arch isn't fast because it is optimized for the i686 architecture. Rather it is fast because I have minimal requirements which don't require as much system resources.

For example, Arch+KDE is faster for me than Xubuntu, because I didn't install printing support, bluetooth support, I handle all networking from the CLI, etc.

[SomeGuyDude]

Ubuntu is Ubuntu and Arch is Arch. I think each has a cohesive philosophy myself and it'd be weird to meld the two.

[namegame]

I think each has a cohesive philosophy myself and it'd be weird to meld the two.

I agree. In fact, I think it would be rather difficult to do so. Arch follows the KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple Stupid) and therefore a default Arch install only has what is REQUIRED to start. On the other hand, Ubuntu wants the process to be easier and as such everything the developers think a user will want is included by default.

Summary, Arch gives users what is NEEDED to start using the system. Ubuntu gives the users what they WANT to start using the system. For some users, NEED == WANT.

[SomeGuyDude]

Bingo. The idea with Arch is you know your system and so you piece together what's necessary to get it running. Ubuntu's aiming for mainstream audiences and puts in everything that it could possibly need so everyone can install it without having to do so manually. They're complete polar opposites in philosophy.

Now, mind you, this doesn't mean either is BAD. Lots of people enjoy putting their system together and for many others that's more work than they care to put into it. You can't combine the two designs.

Sounds like the OP just wants Arch with Ubuntu's repos. Hint: install yaourt. Arch's AUR is incredible. I have yet to find anything that I couldn't install with yaourt.

[MisfitI38]

What have Ubuntu be hard to install, have a small package library and be hard to use for the new user?
That will put butts in seats :D
Packages in AUR:11,569
Packages in [community]:1,792
Packages in [core], [extra] and [testing]:4,693
That's 18,054, not including ABS and makepkg functionality.
To be able to install Arch, one must read an installation guide. It's simply good practice to read the manual before jumping into an OS.

[pluckypigeon]

Sounds like the OP just wants Arch with Ubuntu's repos.

Spot on;-)

[SomeGuyDude]

Spot on;-)

So here's my question: why? What apps have you been unable to find in Arch's repository? Have you messed with the AUR? I've honestly found MORE stuff in Arch's combined repos than Ubuntu's. My old Ubuntu sources list had a dozen repos that I added later. None in Arch.