So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

reub2000 · 2005-07-25 08:56:37

I've been recently trying different distros, and was considering trying arch linux. I've always liked gentoo because of it's thorough package database that always up-to-date, and it let's you install and update packages with one command. But I've always hated it's long compile times. And it's not like I really need super fast programs when I have an Athlon 64 3000. So is arch linux kept up-to-date, and can you install every single package known to man using pacman?

iphitus · 2005-07-25 09:06:11

Like gentoo?

It's a helluva lot simpler, and is only really similar in the way that it isnt similar at all.

Well you can install nearly every package known to man with pacman and aurbuild.

dtw · 2005-07-25 09:08:18

So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

No - you're just going to attract a massive flame war with comments like that

So is arch linux kept up-to-date

Yes

can you install every single package known to man using pacman

No - I know this a deliberate exageration but no. Our pkg range is not as wide as gentoo's but we have the aur system which is helping to fill the gaps.

Aside from that the 64-bit project is only a fledgling but they guys working on that would surely love another machine to help out. It's easy to get involved here

arooaroo · 2005-07-25 09:10:32

I know that's what a lot of people think, but it's quite is straightforward as saying Arch == Gentoo - compiling. There's a lot of unqiue stuff in AL. It offers the flexibility in an easy to use way. Very difficult indeed.

Plus, the forums rock because no-one's arguing about CFLAGs

Riklaunim · 2005-07-25 12:40:56

arch: easy, simple, super up to date
gentoo: doesn't have to be super up to date (you can have PHP 4.4.0 or 5.0.2 and not the latest available), more work with it than with arch... but you get what you "demand"

iphitus · 2005-07-25 12:49:26

arooaroo wrote:

I know that's what a lot of people think, but it's quite is straightforward as saying Arch == Gentoo - compiling. There's a lot of unqiue stuff in AL. It offers the flexibility in an easy to use way. Very difficult indeed.
Plus, the forums rock because no-one's arguing about CFLAGs

Actually, Id like to hear someone name some similarities, as Im yet to hear any realistic ones.

WOW, we are i686 optimised, doesnt make it any more similar than mandrake being optimised for i586.

iphitus

reub2000 · 2005-07-25 13:16:57

No, but it seems like they both try to keep things simple. Mandrivia is anything but simple.

sweiss · 2005-07-25 14:14:18

Gentoo was far from simple from what I recall.

And either way, Gentoo is Gentoo, Arch is Arch. They are equal in the fact they are both running the Linux kernel.

Dusty · 2005-07-25 14:41:51

Actually, I wouldn't say Arch = Gentoo - compiling, on account of we have ABS and makepkg. So if you wanted to compile everything you could (some do).

In fact, Arch = Gentoo + binary package distribution. It actually provides more than Gentoo, not less. ;-)

These are gross over-simplifications. Arch = Arch, Gentoo = Gentoo. Arch = Linux Kernel + Gnu + pacman. Gentoo = Linux Kernel + Gnu + Emerge.

and so on.

You're better off installing Arch and seeing for yourself. If you can use Gentoo, you can use Arch.

Dusty

iBertus · 2005-07-25 16:03:28

We don't argue over using --omg-optimize versus --uber-optimize

Dusty · 2005-07-25 16:06:22

iBertus wrote:

We don't argue over using --omg-optimize versus --uber-optimize

Hmm. It would be an interesting question though. Should I post a poll?

Dusty

dtw · 2005-07-25 16:06:50

We do argue about all sorts of other sh*t tho!

arooaroo · 2005-07-25 16:15:53

I thought Gentoo offers binary packages now - or are they from spin-off groups mirroring the packages for a given platform - a bit like how we are getting Arch_i586 and Arch_x64.

Dusty · 2005-07-25 16:18:17

dibblethewrecker wrote:

We do argue about all sorts of other sh*t tho!

No we don't!

Dusty

paranoos · 2005-07-25 16:18:36

if you don't mind simplifying things this way, it helps decide if a distro is better than the one you are/were using. i switched over to arch from debian, so to me:

arch = debian + bleeding edge + i686 + much simpler init

in fact, arch has a much simpler init than most distros. i think slack uses it too? i prefer pacman over apt, since it's simpler ... but of course, apt had its advantages too. i never ever ever wanted to create my own packages in debian. arch makes it easy.

like i said, this is a gross oversimplification, and some knucklehead somewhere is going to want to argue with you for saying it. if it helps you decide what to switch to, then go for it. i'm all for trying everything, except it's really boring to switch all the time!

Dusty · 2005-07-25 16:21:04

paranoos wrote:

except it's really boring to switch all the time!

Another note for those considering Arch, we have a high rate of people saying stuff like "I tried a lot of different distros, but after I tried Arch I just didn't feel the need to try any more".

Paranoos: Thanks for going on topic again.

Dusty

dtw · 2005-07-25 17:28:25

paranoos - that's a great way of looking at it. I always say to anyone looking for any distro to think about what they want from it - i guess your point follows the same logic. Who careswhat anyone else thinks of how you think right?

Thanks

TheDoctor · 2005-07-25 17:47:04

Dusty wrote:

Another note for those considering Arch, we have a high rate of people saying stuff like "I tried a lot of different distros, but after I tried Arch I just didn't feel the need to try any more".
Dusty

That's why I switched. I don't think that I learn more about the linux platform having to compile everything from scratch, but I learn more about it having to understand the init scripts, how packages interact with each other, and all the other things that arch brings to the front. A lot of people would call these bugs, not having sane default configurations, etc. but who are they to tell me what's sane?

As an example, I had a problem with KDE and its sound server. Arts would lock everything non-arts out. I never had the problem with Slack, because slack had set the default timeout for the arts server. Arch didn't do that, so I had to fix it myself, and found a configuration option that I had never noticed in the six years of using linux and KDE.

And that was only my second day in Arch...

sarah31 · 2005-07-25 17:53:40

The only way you can find outr if gento=arch- compile time is to use it. You should note though that the main/official version is only i686 optimized so it would not be using your 64-bit system to its optimum. There is a 64-bit version floating around out there.

Gentoo has its issues and arch has its issues. Arch does not offer as many apps as gentoo does but by no means should that restrict you in any way as if there happens to be a package you need but arch repos or the AUR repos do not have it you can build the package yourself with arch's ABS which is an easier system than most build systems out there.

Dusty · 2005-07-25 17:57:16

sarah31 wrote:

There is a 64-bit version floating around out there.

http://genesis.blogdns.net

I would try Arch32 before tryig the 64 bit version. Its alpha.

Dusty

deficite · 2005-07-25 17:58:10

64 bit or not, an athlon 3000+ is blazingly fast. It's good to develop a 64-bit platform for when the time comes that everything switches over to 64-bit, but I don't think the benefits of using 64-bit are worth making your decision of a distro or going through needless hassles yet. Until Arch64 gets more developed you'll have a much easier life by just using Arch32. Of course, that's not to say you shouldn't help contribute to Arch64

jerem · 2005-07-25 20:45:10

The only things you may miss from Gentoo :

- portage's relatively huge package support
- the smell of the cup of coffee you drink when compiling
- emerge's colored output
- Gentoo's stability.
- Gentoo's geek appeal
- Gentoo puts ebuilds in ONE place. Arch puts them in several(too much ?) repositories. But of course, Arch has less developers so they can't support all the software in the world.

The things you may gain with Arch over Gentoo
- Arch's layout is very simpler, and thus very very customizable. If you dig a little in the initscripts and optimize them according to your system, you will boot with the smallest delay in the world.
- Arch's speed in general is amazing, especially pacman, since it is written in C and not in Python. Searches with pacman are completed in less than a second. Portage will take...er.....longer...
- ABS is basically a port system where you can recompile the binaries with the options YOU want. Instead of an ebuild, you have a PKGBUILD, which I find to be simpler to understand than an ebuild. You can also make your own packages easily.
-Arch is much more bleeding edge(sometimes hurting stability). But a new package always corrects the problem very shortly.
- You may like to be able to install Arch 10 times with all the packages whereas you would just be on half-installing the Gentoo base system.

Dusty · 2005-07-25 20:47:50

jerem wrote:

- emerge's colored output

FTR, I'm pretty sure there is a patch, sed script, python script or something like that floating around with coloured pacman output.

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-07-25 20:54:40

Dusty wrote:

jerem wrote:
- emerge's colored output
FTR, I'm pretty sure there is a patch, sed script, python script or something like that floating around with coloured pacman output.
Dusty

I think there's each of the above... pajman does colored output, and there was a little sed script to add colors to package names...

Dusty · 2005-07-25 21:02:55

I didn't want to leave anyone out.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-07-25 08:56:37

So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#2 2005-07-25 09:06:11

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#3 2005-07-25 09:08:18

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#4 2005-07-25 09:10:32

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#5 2005-07-25 12:40:56

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#6 2005-07-25 12:49:26

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#7 2005-07-25 13:16:57

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#8 2005-07-25 14:14:18

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#9 2005-07-25 14:41:51

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#10 2005-07-25 16:03:28

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#11 2005-07-25 16:06:22

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#12 2005-07-25 16:06:50

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#13 2005-07-25 16:15:53

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#14 2005-07-25 16:18:17

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#15 2005-07-25 16:18:36

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#16 2005-07-25 16:21:04

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#17 2005-07-25 17:28:25

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#18 2005-07-25 17:47:04

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#19 2005-07-25 17:53:40

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#20 2005-07-25 17:57:16

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#21 2005-07-25 17:58:10

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#22 2005-07-25 20:45:10

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#23 2005-07-25 20:47:50

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#24 2005-07-25 20:54:40

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

#25 2005-07-25 21:02:55

Re: So is arch basically gentoo without the long compile times?

Board footer