Valve dropping official Ubuntu support

I can see them being inconvenient, even dangerous- but they also work.

What would be nice would be for PPA management to be more of a thing. But really, Snaps and Flatpaks are a better solution when available. Not the best, but certainly better.
I just want to be able to install whatever version of software I need, whenever I want. Package managers need a huge bottom up overhaul. PPAs let me install some of these things, but upgrades demolish things
 
PPAs suck. They are marginally better than say, not being able to install your required software.

.MSI installers suck. No security whatsoever, just some random executable installer welcomed into your operating system. There's nothing wrong with PPA's beyond the fact that transitioning Windows users don't understand them and turn to Arch based distro's as the AUR makes more sense to their clouded judgement - They tend to use the AUR like Google when searching for software.

Of course, you could just use Google and search for a PPA?

There's absolutely nothing difficult about a PPA.

I can see them being inconvenient, even dangerous- but they also work.

Do you inspect every line of source code and related dependencies when compiling from scratch? I bet you don't no matter what you may claim. Everything involves a potential compromise of security, nothing more so than the .msi example above. Even the AUR has been compromised before as it's not actively maintained by anyone but it's users.

There's nothing wrong with PPA's.
 
I just want to be able to install whatever version of software I need, whenever I want. Package managers need a huge bottom up overhaul. PPAs let me install some of these things, but upgrades demolish things

PPA's upgrade along with OS updates? I have no idea how you can claim upgrades demolish anything.
 
Everything involves a potential compromise of security, nothing more so than the .msi example above.

Sure- the challenge is that by adding a PPA, this software is now updated at the maintainer's whim. What may be safe today could be an attack vector tomorrow.

That's not to say that an .MSI couldn't phone home and do the same thing, just that PPA's (and other repositories) do this by design.

I'm much more interested in pushing everything into containers. That and having stuff be designed to run with SELinux enforced from the get-go.
 
PPA's upgrade along with OS updates? I have no idea how you can claim upgrades demolish anything.
If you dont know what i'm talking about, you have either; 1 never installed from a PPA and then upgraded the OS, or 2 never installed from a PPA.
OS upgrades, break things. Software installed from PPA's seem to be particularly susceptible to this.
 
If you dont know what i'm talking about, you have either; 1 never installed from a PPA and then upgraded the OS, or 2 never installed from a PPA.
OS upgrades, break things. Software installed from PPA's seem to be particularly susceptible to this.

I experience software breaking as a result of the upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 daily, I know exactly what you're talking about and no OS is immune to such issues.

No matter what the OS, an upgrade should be a clean install which means reinstalling software anyway.

Sure- the challenge is that by adding a PPA, this software is now updated at the maintainer's whim. What may be safe today could be an attack vector tomorrow.

That's not to say that an .MSI couldn't phone home and do the same thing, just that PPA's (and other repositories) do this by design.

I'm much more interested in pushing everything into containers. That and having stuff be designed to run with SELinux enforced from the get-go.

Really no different to any other distro and far worse than anything under Windows. Repositories have to be maintained, if the devs aren't the ones maintaining them than it's an attack vector - Even considering dependencies, it's still an attack vector.
 
I experience software breaking as a result of the upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 daily, I know exactly what you're talking about and no OS is immune to such issues.

No matter what the OS, an upgrade should be a clean install which means reinstalling software anyway.
And reinstalling from PPA means to only the most current version, not the same as previous, which means I am forced to migrate all my files and other systems running cross platform software right now, or don't run Linux.

This is painfully off topic, but I don't understand why the automatic whataboutism from Linux supporters that always have to point at windows. This thread has nothing to do with Windows. PPAs suck. I use them because there isn't a better way that doesn't involve compiling from source (ouch).
 
And reinstalling from PPA means to only the most current version, not the same as previous, which means I am forced to migrate all my files and other systems running cross platform software right now, or don't run Linux.

I have over 100 PPAs added to my install and I can upgrade just fine. Honestly, your rebuttals make little sense.

If I want to compare Linux to Windows, I will, whether you like it or not.
 
Well as expected Ubuntu has back tracked... and aare going to support 32 bit libs (at least the ones required by steam and wine). I hope Valve considers moving to a recommended distro they have a bit more control over anyway. But I guess for now this is good for Linux gaming in general.

Oh and on the PPA stuff... there is nothing inherently wrong with them. But they do introduce the potential for breakage, just like installing from the AUR does or from non official repos in any distro. For most software you installing bins... and using system libraries which really shouldn't break nothing. However some PPAs (like drivers) and some AUR software that builds alternate versions of semi common libs (like python bits ect) CAN (not will just potentially) cause distro related issues.

I find that to be most likely when running locked frozen distros. (LTS type distros) As the distro is running a lot of locked versions of things... and introducing updated libraries can cause issues. Its not as common as it used to be... because librariy developers have gotten smarter over the years. Issues I have seen with libraries the last few years have almost always been when a newer version dropps a legacy feature completely. So if version 2.0 had a rarely used legacy feature and 2.6 dropped it... a PPA / AUR / third party repo updates a LTS type distro library running 2.1 to 2.6. Breakage can happen.

That is why I always suggest rolling or semi rolling distros to power type consumer users. Distro isn't trying to run any 2 year old feature locked libraries for nothing... chances of breaking anything are much lower. I know a lot of people like Maz love running Ubuntu and basically turning it into a semi rolling release with 100 PPAs... I don't understand it, but respect it. (basically your curating your own semi rolling release of ubuntu at that point) The fact it works is a testiment to a lot of good Linux software developers that have really fixed the "DLL hell" issues of the past. That is Linux though... 1001 ways to do the same things. Whatever makes sense to you go to it. More people doing things many ways makes the software stronger as developers fix all the little potential issues, making the whole of Linux much more stable.
 
That is why I always suggest rolling or semi rolling distros to power type consumer users. Distro isn't trying to run any 2 year old feature locked libraries for nothing... chances of breaking anything are much lower. I know a lot of people like Maz love running Ubuntu and basically turning it into a semi rolling release with 100 PPAs... I don't understand it, but respect it. (basically your curating your own semi rolling release of ubuntu at that point) The fact it works is a testiment to a lot of good Linux software developers that have really fixed the "DLL hell" issues of the past. That is Linux though... 1001 ways to do the same things. Whatever makes sense to you go to it. More people doing things many ways makes the software stronger as developers fix all the little potential issues, making the whole of Linux much more stable.

Adding a PPA is in it's simplest terms just the installation of software, why is adding a repository to install software such a big deal?

I do not run a rolling release distro as I need stability, stability and reliability is paramount. I can run an LTS distro, run the latest software using PPA's, if the software breaks anything I can simply purge and I'm all good again and it's totally my choice if I want to run the latest kernel or not. Furthermore, I prefer apt and apt has great stupidly simple to use tools built into it in the extremely rare case that there is a dependency issue. In my experience bleeding edge libraries do more damage than older more proven libraries.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with PPA's beyond the simple fact, as evidenced by a certain poster here, people just can't grasp the concept of a PPA (not aimed at you ChadD).

Thats the thing, at no point did i compare linux to windows.

But I did, in fact I expanded to include more than just Windows and there's absolutely nothing wrong with comparisons. You can't raise a rebuttal without them in many cases.
 
Last edited:
Adding a PPA is in it's simplest terms just the installation of software, why is adding a repository to install software such a big deal?

I do not run a rolling release distro as I need stability, stability and reliability is paramount. I can run an LTS distro, run the latest software using PPA's, if the software breaks anything I can simply purge and I'm all good again and it's totally my choice if I want to run the latest kernel or not. Furthermore, I prefer apt and apt has great stupidly simple to use tools built into it in the extremely rare case that there is a dependency issue.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with PPA's beyond the simple fact, as evidenced by a certain poster here, people just can't grasp the concept of a PPA (not aimed at you ChadD).

But I did and there's absolutely nothing wrong with comparisons. You can't raise a rebuttal without them in many cases.

Fair enough Maz. There isn't anything wrong with what your doing... you are just imo making yourself a lot of work. No your not running a LTS distro anymore if you have 100 PPAs. Those software installs are not just installing bins, they are also updating libraries that need to be. Without a doubt a ton of your LTS libraries have been updated to new versions. If those PPAs are keeping you up with the latest git MESA / NV driver stuffs and the latest versions of software like Gimp Krita ect ect no doubt large chunks of your LTS packages are being replaced with rolling GIT libraries updated via your PPAs.

In a real sense you have turned your Ubuntu LTS into a rolling Ubuntu release that isn't anymore stable then a distro that has already included those newer libraries in their standard repos. Such as a Manjaro or a Solus that is semi rolling. (in fact if you are running the GIT linked GPU driver PPAs your already more on the cutting edge then Manjaro or Solus as they tend to both delay GPU drivers a month or two)

And ya no attack or anything. Nothing wrong obviously with PPAs... running 1 or 100. I'm just saying no your not running Ubuntu LTS anymore.
 
Fair enough Maz. There isn't anything wrong with what your doing... you are just imo making yourself a lot of work. No your not running a LTS distro anymore if you have 100 PPAs. Those software installs are not just installing bins, they are also updating libraries that need to be. Without a doubt a ton of your LTS libraries have been updated to new versions. If those PPAs are keeping you up with the latest git MESA / NV driver stuffs and the latest versions of software like Gimp Krita ect ect no doubt large chunks of your LTS packages are being replaced with rolling GIT libraries updated via your PPAs.

In a real sense you have turned your Ubuntu LTS into a rolling Ubuntu release that isn't anymore stable then a distro that has already included those newer libraries in their standard repos. Such as a Manjaro or a Solus that is semi rolling. (in fact if you are running the GIT linked GPU driver PPAs your already more on the cutting edge then Manjaro or Solus as they tend to both delay GPU drivers a month or two)

And ya no attack or anything. Nothing wrong obviously with PPAs... running 1 or 100. I'm just saying no your not running Ubuntu LTS anymore.

The point is, by using PPA's I'm still 100% in control of my release. If a PPA breaks anything I do a ppa-purge and the PPA is removed and packages are once again replaced with Ubuntu default versions - Something I've done once in my whole time running Ubuntu, dependency hell is so rare now it's a moot point. I'm also fully in control of the kernel I run and can roll back kernels quickly and easily in the event of an issue. Furthermore, being an LTS release I am guaranteed support, including security updates, for five years - Which isn't the case for non LTS releases.

There's really nothing hard about it. Add PPA > Update cache > Install > Done. I've had more issues installing software under other operating systems.

EDIT: I also have to stick to 16.04 until I work out an alternative as Gnome devs are asshats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
The point is, by using PPA's I'm still 100% in control of my release. If a PPA breaks anything I do a ppa-purge and the PPA is removed and packages are once again replaced with Ubuntu default versions - Something I've done once in my whole time running Ubuntu, dependency hell is so rare now it's a moot point. I'm also fully in control of the kernel I run and can roll back kernels quickly and easily in the event of an issue. Furthermore, being an LTS release I am guaranteed support, including security updates, for five years - Which isn't the case for non LTS releases.

There's really nothing hard about it. Add PPA > Update cache > Install > Done. I've had more issues installing software under other operating systems.

EDIT: I also have to stick to 16.04 until I work out an alternative as Gnome devs are asshats.

Security updates ending on a semi rolling or rolling release are also not an issue. ;)

Manjaro also easilly allows you to install mulitple kenrels via GUI. Not a big deal to keep the latest kernel and the latest LTS kernel on the same system.
https://wiki.manjaro.org/index.php?title=Manjaro_Settings_Manager

But ya agreed dependny issues are not a major issue anymore for much of anything. I do still keep my Manjaro pacman cache set to 3 levels of roll backs though. ;)
 
When it comes to rolling releases, the concept is good, but I've always had nothing but issues that I used to push to the back of my mind and pretend were isolated until I used Ubuntu and realized that all the 'isolated issues' went away.

I keep the same OS install for five years no problem now.

Currently testing KDE Neon on an old HP Server running 2 x X5690's and 256GB of ram. Running off a hardware SAS 10k raid 5 array I'm very impressed so far, bloody fantastic and may be a viable way to upgrade to 18.04.
 
Last edited:
Adding a PPA is in it's simplest terms just the installation of software, why is adding a repository to install software such a big deal?

I do not run a rolling release distro as I need stability, stability and reliability is paramount. I can run an LTS distro, run the latest software using PPA's, if the software breaks anything I can simply purge and I'm all good again and it's totally my choice if I want to run the latest kernel or not. Furthermore, I prefer apt and apt has great stupidly simple to use tools built into it in the extremely rare case that there is a dependency issue. In my experience bleeding edge libraries do more damage than older more proven libraries.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with PPA's beyond the simple fact, as evidenced by a certain poster here, people just can't grasp the concept of a PPA (not aimed at you ChadD).



But I did, in fact I expanded to include more than just Windows and there's absolutely nothing wrong with comparisons. You can't raise a rebuttal without them in many cases.
This right here is why you don't get what travm was talking about. Try jumping off the LTS and upgrade to a non-LTS release as soon as it releases like I do. PPA's break. Period. Usually because they don't support the new release yet. So yeah, your security updates aren't breaking your LTS release, but you and travm are comparing apples and oranges. Also, your earlier comment about security. Lets not pretend like apt is perfect. For one, it's still using http instead of https. Now, I'm not going to claim that https is instant security, but it sure as hell is more secure than plain http. Yes, I know that apt has key verification, but iirc it wasn't that long ago that a security issue with apt key verification had to be addressed.

Yes, linux package managers with official repositories are more secure than the way applications are installed on Windows, but let's not forget that the difference between using a developer created PPA and installing a developer created .MSI is almost no different. You are still trusting the developer implicitly to not provide you with malicious code. If anything, I think your apparent blind faith in PPA's show's how little you understand how insecure and broken PPA's can be.
 
This right here is why you don't get what travm was talking about. Try jumping off the LTS and upgrade to a non-LTS release as soon as it releases like I do. PPA's break. Period. Usually because they don't support the new release yet. So yeah, your security updates aren't breaking your LTS release, but you and travm are comparing apples and oranges. Also, your earlier comment about security. Lets not pretend like apt is perfect. For one, it's still using http instead of https. Now, I'm not going to claim that https is instant security, but it sure as hell is more secure than plain http. Yes, I know that apt has key verification, but iirc it wasn't that long ago that a security issue with apt key verification had to be addressed.

Yes, linux package managers with official repositories are more secure than the way applications are installed on Windows, but let's not forget that the difference between using a developer created PPA and installing a developer created .MSI is almost no different. You are still trusting the developer implicitly to not provide you with malicious code. If anything, I think your apparent blind faith in PPA's show's how little you understand how insecure and broken PPA's can be.

I understand exactly what's being discussed, hence the reason why I keep stating that I stick to LTS releases. Claiming that 'PPAs break' is a pretty broad statement, I'm not too sure what you mean by 'they break'? Do you mean secure keys change? Do you mean the PPA reaches a point where it isn't maintained anymore? Are you talking about dependency issues?

If you're talking about dependency issues, I don't really experience them considering modern package managers.

When it comes to installing software, nothing's perfect, everything's a compromise - However apt is more secure than some 'other' operating systems, period. As stated, even compiling from source isn't perfectly secure. It's highly unlikely that legitimate developer maintained PPA's are going to be compromised just like it's unlikely that .msi installers from a legitimate developers website is going to be compromised - However when it comes to 'uncertain' .msi installers, possibly malicious .msi installers, they'll float around the internet forever while the compromised or malicious PPA will be noted by the community and most likely closed down.

Furthermore, your assumption of my blind faith in PPA's is exactly that: An asumption on your behalf. I never claimed any blind faith in any form of software installation, I merely stated that PPA's don't deserve the bad wrap they get from those that prefer the ArchUserRepository and I believe many prefer the AUR simply because they struggle to understand PPA's coming from Windows where you install some random file from anywhere.
 
Furthermore, your assumption of my blind faith in PPA's is exactly that: An asumption on your behalf. I never claimed any blind faith in any form of software installation, I merely stated that PPA's don't deserve the bad wrap they get from those that prefer the ArchUserRepository and I believe many prefer the AUR simply because they struggle to understand PPA's coming from Windows where you install some random file from anywhere.

The advantage of the AUR over PPAs is that it is a USER repository.

PPAs are at an advantage when it comes to commercial software. Its much easier to provide a PPA off a developers site. However that means you are putting 100% of your trust into the creator of the PPA. If say a shaddy developer was to create a bit of software and provide a PPA... if 1 milllion other Ubuntu users knew it was terrible regular users wouldn't see that. The AURs strength is that it is a user repository. When there are issues they are reported by users... if a AUR entry is flat out malware it is reported and removed. If a change in a library or something causes an issue, users can report that and it can be corrected by the maintainer... and in some cases I have seen AUR users correct things themselves when its been reported by other users. If someone reports a "won't build requires makedepends=('nss') or some such thing" that information is shared. The AUR makes it pretty easy to judge the quality of a package before you install it. If you want to install something like DXVK, when you see the AUR entry has 101 votes and 9+ popularity you know you won't have any issues. PPAs (at least to my knowledge) don't have that same level of end user vetting.

Also AUR stuff is all accessed from the same area... via your package manager, and or by browsing their site. If you really have 100+ PPAs installed how do you even keep track. Surely some of your PPAs where installed months or years ago.

I have nothing against PPAs... but PPAs and the AUR are not =. In concept they are comparable, in use the AUR is more reliable imo.

Also when did the AUR and anything arch based become a thing for newbie windows converts ? :) AUR proper would mean arch.... and no doubt I agree Manjaro is the distro every new Linux user should be starting with. I am not sure I would say people go to Manjaro because they don't like PPAs. If a newish user leaves Ubuntu for Manjaro imo it has more to do with HAVING to use PPAs for basic things like GPU drivers. Being a rolling release for most people 99% of their PPA needs are covered in the main repositories. The AUR is more a place to go when you need Linux Canon printer software or something.

For the record... on the Manjaro system I'm on right now... my AUR packages installed right now are. DXVK, Chromium-widevine (so I can use netflix on Chromium instead of chrome), RadeonTop, spotify... and someone was kind enough to add a package for the PopOS GTK theme I like. That is it... no outside repositories for kernel related stuff... or anything system related. Manjaro covers all the standard stuff like MESA and broadcomm kernel drivers ect with new enough versions that there is no need to hunt outside packages.
 
Last edited:
The advantage of the AUR over PPAs is that it is a USER repository.

I know it's a user repository, I highlighted the point in my previous post. In my opinion that's the exact issue with the AUR, Arch developers aren't interested in maintaining it therefore it's really no better than a PPA.

If say a shaddy developer was to create a bit of software and provide a PPA... if 1 milllion other Ubuntu users knew it was terrible regular users wouldn't see that. The AURs strength is that it is a user repository. When there are issues they are reported by users... if a AUR entry is flat out malware it is reported and removed. If a change in a library or something causes an issue, users can report that and it can be corrected by the maintainer...

Which is absolutely no different to a PPA, the AUR has been compromised before and it will be compromised again.

Also AUR stuff is all accessed from the same area... via your package manager, and or by browsing their site. If you really have 100+ PPAs installed how do you even keep track. Surely some of your PPAs where installed months or years ago.

Exactly, and as I stated earlier this is 90% of the reason people prefer the AUR. Especially migrating Windows users struggling with the concept of a PPA.

Also when did the AUR and anything arch based become a thing for newbie windows converts ? :) AUR proper would mean arch.... and no doubt I agree Manjaro is the distro every new Linux user should be starting with. I am not sure I would say people go to Manjaro because they don't like PPAs. If a newish user leaves Ubuntu for Manjaro imo it has more to do with HAVING to use PPAs for basic things like GPU drivers. Being a rolling release for most people 99% of their PPA needs are covered in the main repositories. The AUR is more a place to go when you need Linux Canon printer software or something.

I never stated newcomers prefer Arch, I stated newcomers prefer the AUR for the exact same reasons you mentioned, with one exception - They don't use the AUR because it's easier, as adding a PPA to install drivers is far from difficult. They use the AUR because it makes more sense to newcomers when the software is all centrally located in one huge user maintained repository.

For the record... on the Manjaro system I'm on right now... my AUR packages installed right now are. DXVK, Chromium-widevine (so I can use netflix on Chromium instead of chrome), RadeonTop, spotify... and someone was kind enough to add a package for the PopOS GTK theme I like. That is it... no outside repositories for kernel related stuff... or anything system related. Manjaro covers all the standard stuff like MESA and broadcomm kernel drivers ect with new enough versions that there is no need to hunt outside packages.

All bleeding edge, as stated and as seen with Windows 10 - Bleeding edge drivers aren't always ideal, neither is a rolling release model in all cases.

At the end of the day, it seems I'm being attacked simply because people aren't actually reading my posts? There's pros and cons to both PPA's and the AUR, but quite a bit of what Linux users harp on about regarding PPA's is, literally, a load of crap. Nothing against you ChadD, you know I respect you, but it really is the case and I get sick of hearing it. It's right up there with people flat out attacking Nvidia Linux users because FOSS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
I know it's a user repository, I highlighted the point in my previous post. In my opinion that's the exact issue with the AUR, Arch developers aren't interested in maintaining it therefore it's really no better than a PPA.

Arch developers are arch users. It's not a commercial distro. It is developed by a small group that isn't out to get rich.

The AUR is maintained by users just like the distro itself. The largest group of AUR maintainers are in fact the arch developers and developers from other projects like Manjaro.

The AUR IS maintained. By users.... Arch / manjaro / archo / archbang / bluestar / archlabs / blackarch and all the other small arch spin developers are users and contributors to the AUR.

PPAs can be created by anyone with zero curation. This is an advantage if you want a package managed install for a commercial project. If the developers of say Bitwig want to publish their files with zero input from users or distro developers. PPA
If a distro like arch which is NOT commercial and run by its users wants to add the same software one of the arch developers will add it to the AUR and the user community will contribute if needed. As you can imagine not every commercial entity is happy with publishing their software and then having it nit picked by users.

Advantage for one off commercial packages goes to PPAs. Advantage for 1000s of smaller bits of software not designed to run on the same distros.... AUR.

Oh and not attack just a discussion. PPAs have advantages. Just saying I much prefer the AUR... but its not really the same thing. PPA is almost the wrong name. "personal" seems wrong to me... it's not really a personal repo, it's a outside repo. AUR is a personal package repo... well its a Community run repo. Of course crap makes its way in there now and then but it gets thrown out just as fast.
 
Last edited:
Arch developers are arch users. It's not a commercial distro. It is developed by a small group that isn't out to get rich.

The AUR is maintained by users just like the distro itself. The largest group of AUR maintainers are in fact the arch developers and developers from other projects like Manjaro.

The AUR IS maintained. By users.... Arch / manjaro / archo / archbang / bluestar / archlabs / blackarch and all the other small arch spin developers are users and contributors to the AUR.

PPAs can be created by anyone with zero curation. This is an advantage if you want a package managed install for a commercial project. If the developers of say Bitwig want to publish their files with zero input from users or distro developers. PPA
If a distro like arch which is NOT commercial and run by its users wants to add the same software one of the arch developers will add it to the AUR and the user community will contribute if needed. As you can imagine not every commercial entity is happy with publishing their software and then having it nit picked by users.

Advantage for one off commercial packages goes to PPAs. Advantage for 1000s of smaller bits of software not designed to run on the same distros.... AUR.

Oh and not attack just a discussion. PPAs have advantages. Just saying I much prefer the AUR... but its not really the same thing. PPA is almost the wrong name. "personal" seems wrong to me... it's not really a personal repo, it's a outside repo. AUR is a personal package repo... well its a Community run repo. Of course crap makes its way in there now and then but it gets thrown out just as fast.

C'mon ChadD.

The AUR's been compromised before and the devs wern't interested in resolving it as "it wasn't their problem". PPA's are also maintained by many Ubuntu devs under Launchpad and software can be added to the AUR by anyone which is also not curation, the devs definately do not curate the AUR.

I hear about malicious PPA's about as much as I hear about compromises in the AUR..
 
C'mon ChadD.

The AUR's been compromised before and the devs wern't interested in resolving it as "it wasn't their problem". PPA's are also maintained by many Ubuntu devs under Launchpad and software can be added to the AUR by anyone which is also not curation, the devs definately do not curate the AUR.

I hear about malicious PPA's about as much as I hear about compromises in the AUR..

Fair enough... both are less then ideal soltions.

Which is why I recommend a distro where even a power user is going to need 5 or 6 bits from the AUR... over potentially 100s of PPAs. ;) (really I'm just ribbing you now.)

Point taken. Like most things compter related they work fine as long as you have a decent idea of what your doing. PPA and AUR simply have different strengths. The AUR is not a solution for a company like Bitwig... where as PPAs are. Ubuntu being a commercial distro that is logical. AUR is more communitry driven which is exactly what arch is... a community driven non profit distro. All good. :)
 
Back
Top