From a Gentooer's point of view...

Misfit138 · 2007-09-01 16:31:50

Thanks Shadin and Sigi for the encouraging words.
I think that SOME GNU/Linux users have a tendency to become "religious zealots", and no matter what kind of sense you try to impress upon them, they will always react to their perceived threat with flame wars and distro-bashing. It gets tiresome after a while.
I am pleased that the overwhelming majority of posters in the thread seemed open-minded and mature toward both distros.

hussam · 2007-09-01 17:10:59

In my experience, a lot more people in the Arch community (devs and users) respect Gentoo more than vice versa. The first time I ever talked to a gentoo dev, he told me he didn't respect Arch but I ignored that and told him that Arch is a improving distribution.
Gentoo people tend to be too proud of their systems. But you really can't blame them. Compiling everything from source is a major headache. Unless you have a fast PC, OpenOffice.org takes 8 hours to build.
I wouldn't mind having to compiling everything in 'base' by myself, but when you get to desktop stuff, it becomes too time consuming.

Shadin · 2007-09-01 20:22:47

In my opinion, the only advantage to compiling from source as opposed to using Arch's available binaries is if you specifically need an option that the Arch devs left out, or if it's a very complicated scientific program that needs to be extremely customized. I've yet to see any type of benchmarks that prove that Gentoo's method is faster in any way. I'd expect Linux communities to be immune to this type of unsubstantiated voodoo.

voonte · 2007-09-01 23:09:23

Shadin wrote:

In my opinion, the only advantage to compiling from source as opposed to using Arch's available binaries is if you specifically need an option that the Arch devs left out, or if it's a very complicated scientific program that needs to be extremely customized. I've yet to see any type of benchmarks that prove that Gentoo's method is faster in any way. I'd expect Linux communities to be immune to this type of unsubstantiated voodoo.

The primary reason for compiling applications yourself is to better control the dependencies and only install the features you want. People who advocating the super extreme performance you gain by using Gentoo, are normally not Gentoo users at all. I highly doubt you'd notice any difference between Arch and Gentoo, performance-wise.

erm67 · 2007-09-04 11:23:02

voonte wrote:

The primary reason for compiling applications yourself is to better control the dependencies and only install the features you want. People who advocating the super extreme performance you gain by using Gentoo, are normally not Gentoo users at all. I highly doubt you'd notice any difference between Arch and Gentoo, performance-wise.

Gentoo and Arch are faster than distro compiled for i486, the difference between gentoo and arch, if you have a i686(_64) is almost unnoticeable. If you have a amd k6 or a processor not supported by arch however there is a great difference, gentoo runs on several platforms like sparc, mips, powerpc (all more or less sponsored by the respective hardware makers), and all variants of ix86 supported by gcc.
Arch is i686(_64) specific.

Most gento users simply activate all flags, I was a gentoo user for 5 years and in certain cases the use flags were useful i.e. I do not use kde so I disabled kde support for all apps, this of course do not impact performance in any way (maybe sligthly smaller executables), but it cuts down compiling times, a big problem with gentoo.
Since I have a pentium4 and arch has precompiled binaries I do not feel the need to disable kde (for example) in all my apps, and if a app has a feature that arch do not enable by default (very few) I can always use abs to recompile that specific piece of software to make it suit my needs.

P.S.
I have a sparc Ultra2 300x2, what about arch for sparc?

sH · 2007-09-04 12:02:37

I wanted Conky to display song-titles from audacious. It did not work with the default-package, so I re-built conky with --enable-audacious via ABS. That's the cool thing about being able to compile stuff. But these cases rarely happen for me, so mostly I can save time by using the pre-compiled packages.

iphitus · 2007-09-04 12:51:04

erm67 wrote:

Arch still uses libexpat 1.x how will it be updated in a 'rolling release' fashion without breaking most users systems?

Typically, the updated version of the offending lib is placed in testing. There's a todo list that we follow, containing all the applications that link with that lib, which we go through and rebuild. Once that's done, and there's no known outstanding issues, we move it and the applications to extra/current. Sometimes if it can safely wait, we wait until there's a few big rebuilds, so we can get them all done at once as this offers the least amount of disruption for users.

James

erm67 · 2007-09-04 15:35:10

iphitus wrote:

Typically, the updated version of the offending lib is placed in testing. There's a todo list that we follow, containing all the applications that link with that lib, which we go through and rebuild. Once that's done, and there's no known outstanding issues, we move it and the applications to extra/current. Sometimes if it can safely wait, we wait until there's a few big rebuilds, so we can get them all done at once as this offers the least amount of disruption for users.
James

ldd shows that libraries like libgtk, libqt, libgnomeui links to libexpat, so the update would break any DE at least. I tested only /usr/bin and /usr/lib with ldd and then pacman -Qo to find the corresponding package and found already 145 packages + certainly kde and other pkg that installs in /bin/ /sbin /usr/sbin /opt/.

Fortunately Archlinux uses the new libexpat as I found out later looking in abs, it was gentoo stable that was extremely outdated using a 2004 version of the library. Besides downloading precompiled binaries for a 100 pkg or so is a lot faster than recompile all of them with a system almost b0rked. Pacman first downloads all the updates and than installs them so only during the install phase there could be problems.

Last edited by erm67 (2007-09-04 16:02:43)

broch · 2007-09-04 16:07:53

I have /boot noauto
why this would be a problem?
While sometimes default kernel has boot problems, custom kernels work as a backup... or the other way around. So I never had any boot problems.

STiAT · 2007-09-04 16:44:52

Heh, i highly respect gentoo as a distribution.

I've been coming over from gentoo myself, and i still like it a lot. I prefer arch, what's my personal opinion, and in my opinion we all shall be glad, that we have the choice.

I appreciate the wiki entry edit, since i also don't get how much "faster" things finally are. I think the speed difference may be noticable on high performance machines - for my desktop feeling, i didn't notice any difference.

Yours,
Georg

erm67 · 2007-09-04 17:36:11

broch wrote:

I have /boot noauto
why this would be a problem?
While sometimes default kernel has boot problems, custom kernels work as a backup... or the other way around. So I never had any boot problems.

It can be a problem because pacman installs the newly compiled modules in /lib/modules/2.6.22-ARCH overwriting the old ones and the kernel in the wrong place (if you forget to mount it before updating of course). So if you use grub it will boot the old kernel with the new modules and they might be potentially be incompatible. It is a remote possibility.

broch · 2007-09-04 18:00:37

just keep unique naming:
2.6.22 2.6.22.1, 2.6.22.1.a and so on.
I had three different versions of 2.6.22: vanilla, SD and CFS schedulers. kernels named: 2.6.22, 2.6.22-SD, 2.6.22-CFS and corresponding /lib/modules/ entries were named the same way (so one can have as many as possible 2.6.22 kernels with thanks to different entries in CONFIG_LOCALVERSION="". So this is not a problem really.
The only problem may be script that keeps only two recent copies running. If someone would update only once in a while then script would have to recognize that kernel naming sequence is broken and still would have to keep last two.

skottish · 2007-09-04 18:14:36

Arch is by far the best distro that ever existed. Why? It's so damn easy to pronounce!

Sigi · 2007-09-04 18:31:20

At least for people not speaking german. (Arch's pronounciation is similiar to Arsch, which means Ass in german )

twiistedkaos · 2007-09-04 19:12:33

It was an interesting read, all four pages of it. I like arch for one reason, it suites my needs. No linux distro is "better" in comparison to another. Each have their pros and cons. I chose, like many of my fellow archers, to use arch. Because of the simple reason that it suites our needs

Last edited by twiistedkaos (2007-09-04 19:30:09)

erm67 · 2007-09-04 20:05:22

broch wrote:

just keep unique naming:
2.6.22 2.6.22.1, 2.6.22.1.a and so on.

I meant using the official Arch kernel26 installed using pacman, it is not versioned, anyway if it were versioned and pacman installed the new kernel 2.6.22.2 in the wrong place, deleted the modules of 2.6.22.1 installing those of 2.6.22.2, and grub still starts kernel 2.6.22.1 it cannot find the modules and the boot fails certainly.
Maybe this is exactly the reason why arch does not use unique naming (at least the latest kernel26 updates didn't).

twiistedkaos wrote:

It was an interesting read, all four pages of it. I like arch for one reason, it suites my needs. No linux distro is "better" in comparison to another. Each have their pros and cons. I chose, like many of my fellow archers, to use arch. Because of the simple reason that it suites our needs

I agree Arch is a great desktop linux for i686(_64).

pjeremy · 2007-09-04 22:54:39

Sigi wrote:

(Arch's pronounciation is similiar to Arsch, which means Ass in german )

Not even close.

Edit to clarify:
You are basically claiming that "cherry" and "sherry" are pronounced similarly. Besides the "-erry" there's no resemblance.
Same thing with "Arch" and "Arsch", besides "Ar-", there's no similarity.
Arch = Arch(-erry)
Arsch = Arsh(-erry)
Arsch has a soft pronunciation after Ar- whereas Arch has a hard pronunciation.
If you don't know how to pronounce "sherry" and "cherry", then take "Tschüss" und "Schüsse".
Arch =ArTsch(-üss)
Arsch = ArSch(-üsse)

Last edited by pjeremy (2007-09-04 23:20:06)

broch · 2007-09-04 22:57:07

have you ever installed more that one custom kernel from the same version? I did install 2.6.22 in several variations. without overwriting anything in /boot and /lib/modules only by changing this line:
CONFIG_LOCALVERSION=""
which defines kernel and module folder entry. It would be then sufficient to set a rule of kernel naming and this will keep always separate kernel and corresponding folder in /lib/modules.

instead of having
2.6.22-ARCH for all kernel subtree from 2.6.22 to 2.6.22.x simply leave full version so each kernel will bear full version as a name
not in /boot but in /lib/modules this is set in the line I mentioned above
currently we have 2.6.22.6 add this to CONFIG_LOCALVERSION="" and unless pacman would provide newer kernel version under the same name (2.6.22.6) nothing will get overwritten (when updating to the future 2.6.22.7) and each kernel will have separate entry in /lib/modules
/lib/modules/2.6.22.6 (-ARCH)
/lib/modules/2.6.22.7 (-ARCH)
/usr/src/2.6.22.6 (-ARCH)
usr/src/2.6.22.7 (-ARCH)

/boot/vmlinuz (linked to /lib/modules/2.6.22.7-ARCH)
/boot/vmlinuz.old (linked to /lib/modules/2.6.22.6-ARCH)

keep in mind that vmlinuz/bzImage names in /boot do not matter

In other words this is easy to fix but script will have to deal with other problems: namely cleaning what really supposed to be cleaned. This may be more difficult.

I am not sure if you understand what I am suggesting. Simply install several versions of the same kernel. Do not modify anything with exception of the above line in .config and corresponding bzImage/System.map name when copying (this is easy done by make install script not available in Arch though)

Last edited by broch (2007-09-06 13:57:18)

Sigi · 2007-09-05 00:02:56

pjeremy wrote:

Sigi wrote:
(Arch's pronounciation is similiar to Arsch, which means Ass in german )
Not even close.
Edit to clarify:
You are basically claiming that "cherry" and "sherry" are pronounced similarly. Besides the "-erry" there's no resemblance.
Same thing with "Arch" and "Arsch", besides "Ar-", there's no similarity.
Arch = Arch(-erry)
Arsch = Arsh(-erry)
Arsch has a soft pronunciation after Ar- whereas Arch has a hard pronunciation.
If you don't know how to pronounce "sherry" and "cherry", then take "Tschüss" und "Schüsse".
Arch =ArTsch(-üss)
Arsch = ArSch(-üsse)

Thanks for the clarification. I have to admit that "similiar" isn't true in this case. "Difficult-to-pronounce-for-non-native-english-speakers" might have been more appropriate...

Flying Saxman · 2007-09-05 16:43:57

To the discussion ar(s)ch-linux: I also have to hear this gag of "Oh, you use arsch-linux?" very often, if I talk about my distribution, even if it is pronounced differently. The difference between the pronounciation of these two words exists, but if you say it fast, some people like to understand it wrong anyway.

shining · 2007-09-05 18:31:10

Sigi wrote:

pjeremy wrote:
Sigi wrote:
(Arch's pronounciation is similiar to Arsch, which means Ass in german )
Not even close.
Edit to clarify:
You are basically claiming that "cherry" and "sherry" are pronounced similarly. Besides the "-erry" there's no resemblance.
Same thing with "Arch" and "Arsch", besides "Ar-", there's no similarity.
Arch = Arch(-erry)
Arsch = Arsh(-erry)
Arsch has a soft pronunciation after Ar- whereas Arch has a hard pronunciation.
If you don't know how to pronounce "sherry" and "cherry", then take "Tschüss" und "Schüsse".
Arch =ArTsch(-üss)
Arsch = ArSch(-üsse)
Thanks for the clarification. I have to admit that "similiar" isn't true in this case. "Difficult-to-pronounce-for-non-native-english-speakers" might have been more appropriate...

Eheh, indeed. I'm french, and I think I pronounce it just like Arsch in german, so not in the correct english pronunciation

oli · 2007-09-05 18:41:24

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … bishop.ogg

It's similar to Archbishop. So you can hear the correct pronunciation.

F · 2007-09-05 20:32:15

that thread got old really fast.

I hate distro discussions. Unless the kernel is different, I don't give a damn.

Last edited by F (2007-09-05 20:32:29)

jb · 2007-09-06 03:43:15

I 2nd; went probably no more than half the page down before I smoked the tab. Unless one of the compared distros is doing something radically different, it's really not worth discussing.

Edit: Not at that level of passion/conviction, anyway.

Last edited by jb (2007-09-06 03:46:14)

erm67 · 2007-09-06 09:43:34

jb wrote:

I 2nd; went probably no more than half the page down before I smoked the tab. Unless one of the compared distros is doing something radically different, it's really not worth discussing.

Don't forget that the discussion takes place in 'gentoo chat ', and thus it is just chatter and made in the right place. If you think they are offending Arch try to say that you are a Ubuntu fan in that channel :-)
Anyway not all gentoo devs are aggressive and condescending, some however are.
And do not forget that the discussion erupted after they found out in the Desktop Linux 2007 survey that Gentoo dropped 2.5 points while Arch grew.

Last edited by erm67 (2007-09-06 09:52:54)

Arch Linux

#26 2007-09-01 16:31:50

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#27 2007-09-01 17:10:59

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#28 2007-09-01 20:22:47

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#29 2007-09-01 23:09:23

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#30 2007-09-04 11:23:02

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#31 2007-09-04 12:02:37

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#32 2007-09-04 12:51:04

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#33 2007-09-04 15:35:10

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#34 2007-09-04 16:07:53

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#35 2007-09-04 16:44:52

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#36 2007-09-04 17:36:11

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#37 2007-09-04 18:00:37

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#38 2007-09-04 18:14:36

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#39 2007-09-04 18:31:20

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#40 2007-09-04 19:12:33

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#41 2007-09-04 20:05:22

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#42 2007-09-04 22:54:39

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#43 2007-09-04 22:57:07

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#44 2007-09-05 00:02:56

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#45 2007-09-05 16:43:57

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#46 2007-09-05 18:31:10

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#47 2007-09-05 18:41:24

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#48 2007-09-05 20:32:15

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#49 2007-09-06 03:43:15

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

#50 2007-09-06 09:43:34

Re: From a Gentooer's point of view...

Board footer