If you spend a week or two with Arch Linux, you start to wonder if maybe the Ubuntu machine should be following the same game plan as the Arch contingent. Let me reply to that.

Short answer: No.

Medium answer: No way.

Long answer: Let’s take a step back for a second, and think about the two distros separately from each other.

On the one hand, we have Ubuntu — the whiz kid of the Linux phenomenon, the sudden exciting newcomer, less than four years old and riding a wave of popularity and success that would make a for-profit executive into a bijillionaire many times over. The just-add-water distro that makes using your computer free and safe and reliable and suddenly fun again.

Ubuntu is the one-button push-start car. It’s the instant oatmeal of Linux — healthy, quick, easy and yummy. It’s pretty, it’s comfortable, it makes you feel good about yourself and it doesn’t cause tooth decay. It’s not perfect — nothing ever is — but nine times out of ten the only technical expertise it requires is enough fingers to work a keyboard.

If Linux was a car, Ubuntu would be a four-wheel-drive, all-terrain machine that ran on earth-friendly fuel, cushioned seats, GPS and plenty of cup holders for the Americans. If Linux was clothing, Ubuntu would be the little black dress. Flexible, smart and always classy, suitable for anything, ready for everything.

Now: In this corner, Arch Linux, and in some ways the antithesis of Ubuntu.

Ubuntu (barring incident) drops you off in a full-featured, complete desktop environment with a rash of software and a cookie-cutter desktop suitable for most standard computer applications. Arch gives you a terminal prompt.

Ubuntu holds your hand, checking your system and applying the settings that will probably work. Arch waits for your instruction.

Ubuntu configures and prepares, without consulting or asking what you want (within limits). Arch checks, and will tell you if you ask, but usually that’s it.

If Arch Linux was clothing, it would be a pair of Lycra running shorts — probably not enough to go out in public, but has the important parts covered.

So at this point, the natural suggestion is that perhaps Ubuntu is doing things right, and maybe Arch needs to roll in that direction — the direction of the other distro that starts with a vowel.

But there’s another way of looking at the situation.

Ubuntu adds some bulk. You don’t get to say what you want, or what you don’t want, and regardless of what you’ll use the computer for, you get X programs. No more, no less. (Naturally there are ways around this, but we’re talking about default installations here. 😉 )

With Arch, you get a system that starts clean and builds from there. If you don’t want this software, you don’t get it. Because you don’t install it. It never got in the way, because Arch didn’t put it there to start with.

Additionally, Ubuntu’s push to be the one-size-fits-all distro means it sacrifices some performance. Machines don’t (and I feel qualified to say this) run at their peak because, in Linux terms, Ubuntu is a little bit pudgy. It’s generic. It’s trying to cover all the bases. That’s a good thing, but it comes at a small cost.

Arch, on the other hand, is tuned for your system (unless you’re using another architecture), and skims away the excess fat. No, it’s not intended for all machines, but that’s not going to create an exception — it’s built for the majority. So it’s true: It’s precompiled for a subset of hardware. But that’s a very big subset, and one that will probably include yours.

Furthermore, Ubuntu moves from point A to point B in measured, six-month increments. Snapshots are stable and predictable, and short of security fixes there’s no real reason to demand daily, weekly or even monthly updates. A clean, fresh Ubuntu system is stable and ready, even if the software is, in some cases, many months out of date.

Arch doesn’t have stable points. You’re riding the crest of a wave with Arch, and fresh stuff is added all the time. Do things break? Yes, they do occasionally. I can attest to systems that wouldn’t boot because of a botched upgrade — but I can say the same thing about Ubuntu too. Things like that happen.

But the general rule is that the adoption of software is reliable in Arch, even if it is continual instead of periodic. There’s no need to jump between updates, because each update is a small, minor step, depending on the programs you have installed.

Probably the last point worth mentioning before actually answering the question is package management. Ubuntu inherits the venerable and encyclopedic aptitude, a system developed and improved over decades of development, something that handles the tens — no, hundreds of thousands of packages available to you, and does it with considerable pluck.

But let’s face it: pacman (and I feel obligated to plug yaourt here) does the same job in a quarter of the time, and with the same amount of enthusiasm. Run two identical machines with one distro on each, and installing and configuring software will get done quicker with pacman than with aptitude.

Maybe that’s not a huge consideration for you, but it does mirror the underlying traits of each distro: Ubuntu is comprehensive but sluggish, Arch is specific and speedy.

So we come to the point I originally suggested: That maybe, just maybe, Ubuntu should be doing things the way Arch does. Imagine a rolling release Ubuntu system. Imagine installing the freshest software only days after its release. Imagine a package manager that runs through the installation process in a manner of seconds, leaving ancillary software uninstalled unless you ask for it.

Sound good? That’s up to you. Should it be done? No.

Ubuntu is the gateway distro — the one you try first and learn from. For many people — dare I say most people? — installing Ubuntu once is enough. Not because it’s tough or difficult (unfortunately it is for some people), but because once it’s in place, that’s all they ever need. Things are amazingly simple in Ubuntu. I’ve heard of people using their machine who never use the command line ever. It’s just not done.

On the other hand, there are people (myself included) who are addicted to speed. Or they like to install things and learn by breaking them. Or they have an unusual hardware configuration they want to milk it for all it’s worth.

These are the bicycle mechanics of the computer world — everybody else is content to ride to work and that’s all they want a bike for. The others want to know if they can strip a bicycle down to it’s essence, and get to the office five minutes earlier.

At the core of my answer is the simple fact that all people are not alike. We all use our machines for different reasons and with different intentions. I’m a laptop junkie — I simply must have the fastest, most effective software configuration available to me without a prescription. But other people just want function — efficiency is secondary.

Changing Ubuntu to face that second sun would be a big mistake. Regular and continual updates? Why? Is that critical? Not unless security is involved, and Ubuntu already covers that. Fast package updates? I already said I don’t care about cutting edge software — so why would I care if the management is fast? And a sacrifice of a little speed on the altar of comprehensiveness is not too much to ask.

In the end, we’re talking about two different audiences: Those who want something that “just works” (ack! I said it again!), and those who want something that “works how I want.” Are the two mutually exclusive? Not necessarily.

But knowing what you like is key. You have a choice: Know thyself, and pick thy distro accordingly. In the end, that’s what makes Linux great. Obligatory end-of-post smilie: 😀

P.S.: I apologize for the unnecessarily long discussion. The Muse was singing to me.

P.P.S: If Crux Linux was clothing, it would be a fig leaf, two bolts of cotton fabric and an emergency sewing kit.