Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

mm23 · 2008-11-30 00:20:15

So, Gentoo's kind of fallen off the wagon. I don't have any problems with the compile times -- but I do have issues with compiling. I love portage, I love ebuilds, I love useflags. But it's all gotten so horribly broken lately that I'm strongly considering switching to a binary distro next time I reformat. I'm sick of dealing with arcane gcc errors that I can't trace back to anything or bizarre blocks and dependency breakage.

I keep hearing, "well, if you like Gentoo's customability but you're sick of screwing with compiles, then switch to Arch."

I want to know if they're right. I would like to give Arch a shot.

But binary distros and me tend to not agree much of the time. It's not so much that their binary based -- I have no issues with binaries. I just don't like their methodology of "since you're using a binary distro, you must be a recent Windows convert and want the computer to hold your hand.". So I need to know some things from some users with first-hand experience.

- Pacman & package selection: better than apt (please god say yes)? No dependency hell? Is it easy to switch to testing/unstable versions and back? Can I compile select things if I so choose? Is package selection as good as with Portage? Can I find smaller apps and libraries that are useful in a niche in the Pacman reps easily? (like Nitrogen, tint2, pypanel, etc.). It'd be REALLY annoying to have to hunt down 500 tar.gz and compile stuff -- it'd be like using Gentoo without Portage.
- Kernel selection: Good selections for laptops or certain builds of computers (i.e AMD or Intel?), as opposed to a huge 120 MB kernel with every option enabled? Possibility of easily foregoing Pacman and letting people compile their own (i.e zen-sources, mm-patchset based kernels, etc.)?
- Sensible defaults: None of this "you're forced to use Gnome with an ugly default themeset and you can't uninstall it" Ubuntu crap, I do hope. If I wanna use Openbox and KDM, I use Openbox and KDM.
- Sensible core config file locations: This one is a big one for me. For Gentoo, all of the system config files/init scripts were easy to find (/etc/conf.d and /etc/init.d). I used Ubuntu for a while and the damn things were strewn all over the place (stuff like /etc/local/user/net/config/heresanotherdirforsomereason/symlinktohell/config makes me cry).
- Hands-on-edness: I want to use bash. I want to get in and get a little bit dirty. I don't want GUI-based Windows-esque nonsense ALL of the time. This is my primary complaint for Ubuntu: it shields you for everything, so that you spend more time undoing it's "ease of use" automatic crap than you do actually using the system. I can forgo all of this if it's in Arch at all, right?

I realize I'm being a bit preening and overbearing, but I just want something that doesn't break every 3rd package due to compile errors, but still offers a bit of leeway for experienced Linux users instead of this "let's make Linux more like Windows" idea that seems to be ever-so-pervasive in distros today. I really hope Arch can do this.

rson451 · 2008-11-30 00:29:21

Take a few moments to browse the wiki, especially the ABS and AUR pages. You will find most of your answers there.

smartboyathome · 2008-11-30 00:32:27

- I would say it does when its combined with AUR. You can compile whatever you want using the PKGBUILDs, which automate it. I can't tell you how to fetch the PKGBUILDs if you want to though. Arch is very good for finding apps, and if you don't find what you are looking for, its easy to create PKGBUILDs to automate compiling and packaging a tar.gz.
- The kernel isn't optimized for AMD or Intel, but check in the wiki, and iit will tell you how to recompile your kernel and package it with pacman. Theres even PacBuilder which will automatically recompile and optimize packages from source.
- Arch only installs a minimal set of apps and is basically what you want from the ground up. There are basically no defaults whatsoever.
- Its the same in Arch as it is in Gentoo from what I can tell for config files and such.
- Arch shields you from nothing. Heck, it sets you up as root by default and you have to create a new user just to have some sane security!

jdhore · 2008-11-30 00:35:21

mm23 wrote:

.- Pacman & package selection: better than apt (please god say yes)? No dependency hell? Is it easy to switch to testing/unstable versions and back? Can I compile select things if I so choose? Is package selection as good as with Portage? Can I find smaller apps and libraries that are useful in a niche in the Pacman reps easily? (like Nitrogen, tint2, pypanel, etc.). It'd be REALLY annoying to have to hunt down 500 tar.gz and compile stuff -- it'd be like using Gentoo without Portage.

It is better than apt. Dependency hell is a lot less painful then apt.

You can't easily switch to testing and back, but Arch Testing and Gentoo/Debian Testing are very different. Currently all that's in Arch's Testing (besides all the Xorg 7.4 packages) is like really new versions of stuff that's a bit too unstable to go into Core/Extra so unless you want to help test stuff, or really want Xorg 7.4, there's no real reason to run Arch's Testing branch.
You can easily compile stuff if you choose with the abs (think of it like FreeBSD's ports tree).

I'd say with the AUR, package selection is better than in Portage, without the AUR, not so much...and yes, all those small things you mentioned...I know for a fact they're either in the AUR, Extra or Community.

mm23 wrote:

- Kernel selection: Good selections for laptops or certain builds of computers (i.e AMD or Intel?), as opposed to a huge 120 MB kernel with every option enabled? Possibility of easily foregoing Pacman and letting people compile their own (i.e zen-sources, mm-patchset based kernels, etc.)?

The default kernel is VERY small, but it has most of the stuff you'd want enabled, however, there are plenty of extra kernels in the AUR. I believe Zen is in there, the latest 2.6.28 RC is in there and i think mm is in there among others.

mm23 wrote:

- Sensible defaults: None of this "you're forced to use Gnome with an ugly default themeset and you can't uninstall it" Ubuntu crap, I do hope. If I wanna use Openbox and KDM, I use Openbox and KDM.

Everything is configurable and nothing is set unless you explicitly set it for the most part.

mm23 wrote:

- Sensible core config file locations: This one is a big one for me. For Gentoo, all of the system config files/init scripts were easy to find (/etc/conf.d and /etc/init.d). I used Ubuntu for a while and the damn things were strewn all over the place (stuff like /etc/local/user/net/config/heresanotherdirforsomereason/symlinktohell/config makes me cry).

Most config files are in /etc or a subdirectory of /etc (usually only one layer down) and all init scripts are in /etc/rc.d

mm23 wrote:

- Hands-on-edness: I want to use bash. I want to get in and get a little bit dirty. I don't want GUI-based Windows-esque nonsense ALL of the time. This is my primary complaint for Ubuntu: it shields you for everything, so that you spend more time undoing it's "ease of use" automatic crap than you do actually using the system. I can forgo all of this if it's in Arch at all, right?

Everything is manual. I'd consider Arch (in this case) a cross between Gentoo and Debian

mm23 wrote:

I realize I'm being a bit preening and overbearing, but I just want something that doesn't break every 3rd package due to compile errors, but still offers a bit of leeway for experienced Linux users instead of this "let's make Linux more like Windows" idea that seems to be ever-so-pervasive in distros today. I really hope Arch can do this.

Just a suggestion, you should really Just Try Arch and browse the AUR and do some package searches. You'd probably have found all the answers to these questions yourself if you did that (mind you, i'm not complaining).

Xyne · 2008-11-30 01:14:19

From what you said, I think you would be happy with Arch. It meets all of your criteria very well and I would suggest that you try it. On the other hand, for someone who's apparently so adamant about getting his hands dirty etc, it's somewhat contradictory that you didn't do any research on your own before posting on the forum. Much of the information that you've requested is readily available in the wiki as rson451 has pointed out (asking if Arch shields you from the underlying system is a fairly good indicator that you haven't read anything at all about Arch).

I suggest that you read the following pages:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR
http://archlinux.org/pacman/pacman.8.html
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginner%27s_Guide

wirenik · 2008-11-30 01:18:15

mm23, take some time to do research on your own. Some of your questions (like "Am I forced to use GNOME?") sort of reveal that you haven't made much of an effort to learn about Arch. Read the beginner's guide and the AUR and ABS entries, for starters. You'll find answers to most of your questions there.

I know that sounded a bit harsh, but really, all Archers will love you if you read the wiki or Google around before posting in the forums. That side, welcome to the forums, and I hope you pick Arch in the end! We have quite a few ex-Gentoo users who are enjoying themselves here.

finferflu · 2008-11-30 01:24:18

Here is another highly recommended read

shazeal · 2008-11-30 02:10:43

As an ex-gentooer, arch is the only distro you will ever be able to use after Gentoo. Anything else is too restrictive. Arch is pretty much like running ~x86 on gentoo without all the problems that creates in gentoo.

The end result between arch and gentoo for instance installing a full gnome desktop is pretty much not noticeable. The only real difference is that arch has no USE flags so you will get all the common depends pulled in.

Final words, DO IT!

Misfit138 · 2008-12-08 03:22:45

jdhore wrote:

You can't easily switch to testing and back...

lolwut?

Last I checked, you just add or remove [testing] from pacman.conf

sand_man · 2008-12-08 04:14:08

Misfit138 wrote:

jdhore wrote:
You can't easily switch to testing and back...
lolwut?
Last I checked, you just add or remove [testing] from pacman.conf

But what is the simplest way to remove testing packages and reinstalling stable ones?
Surely the -Syuf is a little dangerous for this so it would need to be done one package at a time.

Dieter@be · 2008-12-08 09:56:25

shazeal wrote:

The only real difference is that arch has no USE flags so you will get all the common depends pulled in.

Yep, and if there are deps that only enable some specific edgy feature, they are classified as optdepends and are not installed automatically. The installer will say which optdeps a pkg has and which benefits it enables.

Dieter@be · 2008-12-08 09:59:10

sand_man wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
jdhore wrote:
You can't easily switch to testing and back...
lolwut?
Last I checked, you just add or remove [testing] from pacman.conf
But what is the simplest way to remove testing packages and reinstalling stable ones?
Surely the -Syuf is a little dangerous for this so it would need to be done one package at a time.

You can use yaourt:

DOWNGRADE OPTIONS
-Su --downgrade
reinstall all packages which are marked as "newer than extra or core" in -Su output (this is specially for users who experience problems with [testing] and want to revert back to current)

clarence · 2008-12-08 10:50:03

take a good look at some PKGBUILD's. i mean seriously take a gooood look. PKGBUILD's are what arch uses to compile sources into binaries. in the world of package management PKGBUILD's are, in my opinion, a thing of unrivalled beauty

Dieter@be · 2008-12-08 11:12:25

clarence wrote:

take a good look at some PKGBUILD's. i mean seriously take a gooood look. PKGBUILD's are what arch uses to compile sources into binaries. in the world of package management PKGBUILD's are, in my opinion, a thing of unrivalled beauty

Imho pkgbuilds are very similar to ebuilds.
Ebuilds can be a tiny bit more complex however because of the keywords, use flags, they keep a list of reverse dependencies (this i like) etc.
You could look at it like this: ABS (pkgbuilds) is very similar to portage (ebuilds), only arch uses binary packages by default (the "output" of abs), while you can easily use abs and build the package yourself. Gentoo uses only portage. (maybe the situation has changed with pkgcore, paludis etc. I haven't followed recently)

Misfit138 · 2008-12-08 13:17:20

sand_man wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
jdhore wrote:
You can't easily switch to testing and back...
lolwut?
Last I checked, you just add or remove [testing] from pacman.conf
But what is the simplest way to remove testing packages and reinstalling stable ones?
Surely the -Syuf is a little dangerous for this so it would need to be done one package at a time.

yaourt -Su --downgrade

dhave · 2008-12-08 18:19:05

Jump off the fence. You won't regret it. A lot of ex-Gentooers and Slackers are around here, and most seem very satisfied.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-11-30 00:20:15

Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#2 2008-11-30 00:29:21

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#3 2008-11-30 00:32:27

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#4 2008-11-30 00:35:21

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#5 2008-11-30 01:14:19

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#6 2008-11-30 01:18:15

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#7 2008-11-30 01:24:18

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#8 2008-11-30 02:10:43

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#9 2008-12-08 03:22:45

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#10 2008-12-08 04:14:08

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#11 2008-12-08 09:56:25

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#12 2008-12-08 09:59:10

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#13 2008-12-08 10:50:03

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#14 2008-12-08 11:12:25

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#15 2008-12-08 13:17:20

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

#16 2008-12-08 18:19:05

Re: Long time Gentoo user on the fence...

Board footer