Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

Kin · 2007-10-27 11:16:11

Hi,

well, I don´t know whether this also concerns you, but whenever I installed the base system, configured the modules, hardware,... I have to make archlinux a little mor comfortable, e.g. automatic mount within KDE, getting fonts looking well,...

So, a little getting more automatic gadgets or tools running, like in Ubuntu or in others noob-friendly Linux distributions.

I asked me myself, why don´t we put those little additions/tweaks/enhancements together in one package?

So, with only one pacman -S I will have a nice collection of scripts, that I have to manually run.

Last edited by Kin (2007-10-27 11:18:28)

peart · 2007-10-27 14:51:47

A million different users will set up their machines in a million different ways, thus creating a million "cutesy" packages. Besides, if you made a package with nice font config files and the like, it would have a ton of conflicts.

I prefer having Arch packages stick to installing the lowest common denominator. It's what makes it lean and mean.

foxbunny · 2007-10-27 15:58:55

Kin wrote:

I asked me myself, why don´t we put those little additions/tweaks/enhancements together in one package?

Or better yet, you could make a script that installs the stuff. I wrote 5 scripts that contain a simple "pacman -Sy package1 package2... packageX" line, that install the software I need and put them on a USB stick. So when/if I reinstall Arch, I just run them and get what I need.

Ramses de Norre · 2007-10-27 16:06:05

I ran away from ubuntu because I hated all the preinstalled stuff I don't need (can you image that the newest ubuntu uses compiz by default?), I like arch because of its simple nature, if I need something fancy I'll enable it myself, nothing has to run by default.

LinuxViking · 2007-10-27 22:59:49

I agree with most here. If people want ubuntu they can download ubuntu...(that isn't meant to be insulting I am just saying...)

pelle.k · 2007-10-28 04:15:44

Or better yet, you could make a script that installs the stuff. I wrote 5 scripts that contain a simple "pacman -Sy package1 package2... packageX" line, that install the software I need and put them on a USB stick. So when/if I reinstall Arch, I just run them and get what I need.

I've started to make my own flat text file lists. I call them <descriptive_name>.pkglist
I add packages, one per row, and use "#" commented rows just like in bash. Then i install them with

pacman -S $(grep -v "#" <name>.pkglist)

Last edited by pelle.k (2007-10-28 04:17:17)

Mr Green · 2007-10-28 07:00:39

@pelle.k

Emmm backups of packages names installed

so like when you see a screenshot you like on forum just ask for foo.pkglist and recreate it?

[less configs of course!]

/me thinking..........

dolby · 2007-10-28 08:08:45

archlinux devs have already automated many stuff, mostly in the past year to make em work out of the box. the user can still ofc configure them to work in the way he wants too very easy

pelle.k · 2007-10-28 14:11:18

Mr Green wrote:

@pelle.k
Emmm backups of packages names installed
so like when you see a screenshot you like on forum just ask for foo.pkglist and recreate it?
[less configs of course!]
/me thinking..........

Oh, I meant just having stuff installed easily, from a text file. But sure a utility like apt-on-cd would be cool...

Kin wrote:

I asked me myself, why don´t we put those little additions/tweaks/enhancements together in one package?

I mean, if you really like the idea of having a perfect arch setup, then write a wiki page (or expand one), blog article or something. Find out what extras you really think could make a (new?) user appreciate the system even more.
I understand your idea, but i don't think the arch community is that kind of people. They probably chose arch because it doesn't include the kitchen sink.
You make your own kitchen sink..

Last edited by pelle.k (2007-10-28 14:16:28)

ralvez · 2007-10-28 14:31:06

I have created a small script that I use to auto-install software when I install Arch in other people's machines.
Here it is:

#!/bin/bash

user=$UID

 if [ $user != 0 ] 
  then
  echo "Sorry. Only ROOT can run this program !"
  exit
 else
  echo "###############( Updating Programs )###############"
  echo
  echo "Start: " 
  date
 fi

# Basic programs

function baseprogs(){

echo "==============( Basic Programs )================="
echo

  for PROGRAM in xorg-server xorg-xkb-utils xorg-xauth xorg-server-utils xorg-xinit xf86-video xf86-video-vesa xf86-input-mouse xf86-input-keyboard xorg-apps cups kde firestarter
  do 
   echo +=========================+
   echo "PROGRAM: $PROGRAM"
   echo +=========================+
   echo
   pacman -Sy --noconfirm $PROGRAM 
   echo -e \\n\\n
  done
}

# Productivity tools

function productivity(){

echo "==============( Productivity Programs )================="
echo

  for PROGRAM in libdvdcss k3b gaim htop screen gkrellm gkrellmlaunch gkrellweather hwd openssh ntp host mc yakuake ethtool
  do 
   echo +=========================+
   echo "PROGRAM: $PROGRAM"
   echo +=========================+
   echo
   pacman -Sy --noconfirm $PROGRAM 
   echo -e \\n\\n
  done
}

# Web Development

function webdev(){

echo "==============( Web Development Programs )================="
echo

for PROGRAM in bluefish cssed kdewebdev apache mod_python python-docs ipython mysql mysql-python mysqlcc mysql-gui-tools php 
    do 
   echo +=========================+
   echo "PROGRAM: $PROGRAM"
   echo +=========================+
   echo
   pacman -Sy --noconfirm $PROGRAM 
   echo -e \\n\\n
  done
}

# Multimedia

function multimedia(){

echo "==============( Multimedia Programs )================="
echo

  for PROGRAM in xine-lib xine-ui amarok-engine-xine alsa-lib alsa-oss alsa-utils alsaplayer gstreamer0.10-alsa alsa-plugins mplayer mplayer-plugin amarok-base amarok-engine-xine gstreamer0.10 xbindkeys
  do 
   echo +=========================+
   echo "PROGRAM: $PROGRAM"
   echo +=========================+
   echo
   pacman -Sy --noconfirm $PROGRAM 
   echo -e \\n\\n
  done
}

# Office productivity programs

function office(){

echo "==============( Office Programs )================="
echo

  for PROGRAM in jre openoffice-base openoffice-spell-en openoffice-es
  do 
   echo +=========================+
   echo "PROGRAM: $PROGRAM"
   echo +=========================+
   echo
   pacman -Sy --noconfirm $PROGRAM 
   echo -e \\n\\n
  done
}

# MS-True Type fonts

function ttfonts(){

  echo +=========================+
  echo "Program: MS-TT Fonts"
  echo +=========================+
  echo
  pacman -Sy --noconfirm ttf-ms-fonts echo -e \\n\\n
}


baseprogs
productivity
multimedia
office
ttfonts
webdev

echo "All done!"

Notice that it is broken up in "modules" and if you do not need the "webdev" (web development) for instance you just comment it out with: "# webdev" and those packages will not install.

I think that there are 3 things that are good about this program:

1. It's simple
2. You do not have to be a programmer to know what will be installed (or change it for that matater), the package names are there.
3. You do not have to press 'y' to install the packages, it just goes.

Hope this helps.

R.

markc · 2007-10-28 16:23:10

pelle.k wrote:

I understand your idea, but i don't think the arch community is that kind of people. They probably chose arch because it doesn't include the kitchen sink. You make your own kitchen sink..

Sure but it takes time for a new ArchLinux user to get the hang of how to install their preferred kitchen sink and even what kind of kitchen sink they may prefer... you know... what color, what kind of taps, bench height, upper and lower cupboards, how many drawers, which side to put the coffee pot. I've heard this argument a lot that AL users like AL just the way it is and the strategy definitely appeals to archetypical arch users with a few++ years experience using AL. However, there are *always* new users tickling AL to see if it's for them. Some of these new users might even be winmac freshmen, all the way through to hard core Gentoo expats, and in either case it would be useful if there are simple to use tools to get these people up and running asap while they figure out their respective architectural kitchen preferences.

As far as the topic goes, I'm personally creating packages that adhere to a Debian installation layout such that dpkg could be used to even install a ubuntu package, if one was desperate enough to try that. I want to be able to cross pollinate scripts, techniques and even binary packages, between Debian/ubuntu and my AL based systems as much as I can possibly manage to.

foxbunny · 2007-10-28 17:02:45

There are things like Archie, and that other LiveCD, meant to address the issue of installing Arch. After installing Arch, however, I don't think there are any big issues... at least that are not issues by design.

pelle.k · 2007-10-28 18:42:58

markc wrote:

As far as the topic goes, I'm personally creating packages that adhere to a Debian installation layout such that dpkg could be used to even install a ubuntu package, if one was desperate enough to try that. I want to be able to cross pollinate scripts, techniques and even binary packages, between Debian/ubuntu and my AL based systems as much as I can possibly manage to.

I must say that my arch gnome is pretty much like ubuntus gnome, i'd admit that. It has taken me a few years to get a descent overview of what does what, and many (i would say most...) packages that the ubuntu developers include in ubuntu-desktop metapackage exist for archlinux as well, but remain unknown until you stumble upon them.
What I am saying is not that the idea of a new package group targeted at new user would make me uncomfortable, but that i doubt the developers think it's a good idea. Just look at the removal of "xorg" as a recent example of how sensitive this question can be.

Still, i have thought about "informing" new users, but the idea is at a grass root level as it is. Personally i think a graphical guide or walk trough, explaining what you could do to have more than just a basic desktop (beyond beginners guide), would be appreciated. This wouldn't have to be very complicated, but just a door opener. Like explaining that nautilus-gksu or nautilus-share can be a pleasant alternative to editing smb.conf or adjusting system files without using a terminal or root account.

thayer · 2007-11-08 20:43:29

ralvez wrote:

I have created a small script that I use to auto-install software when I install Arch in other people's machines.

That is awesome and just what I've been looking for. Thanks for sharing!

ralvez · 2007-11-08 22:27:17

Glad to be of help.

Enjoy!!

R.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-10-27 11:16:11

Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#2 2007-10-27 14:51:47

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#3 2007-10-27 15:58:55

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#4 2007-10-27 16:06:05

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#5 2007-10-27 22:59:49

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#6 2007-10-28 04:15:44

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#7 2007-10-28 07:00:39

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#8 2007-10-28 08:08:45

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#9 2007-10-28 14:11:18

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#10 2007-10-28 14:31:06

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#11 2007-10-28 16:23:10

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#12 2007-10-28 17:02:45

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#13 2007-10-28 18:42:58

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#14 2007-11-08 20:43:29

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

#15 2007-11-08 22:27:17

Re: Making Archlinux a little more like Ubuntu (not really)

Board footer