Gentoo, we need to talk...

High|ander · 2005-10-28 22:56:19

I like the idea that you compile stuff to fit your computer. I love to optimize.

But the problem is that portage suxs ASS! (sorry for my bad language)

No reverse dependensies, and the USE-flag hell is just shit!
But then this is just ny thoughts

mforce · 2005-10-28 23:07:19

Actually I'm still waiting to try Arch , maybe with a bit of luck we'll have 7.1 this year . My first problem with Arch is that it's still smaller than Gentoo I think ( but growing ) and my second one is that I hope it won't be another Debian with releases of stable "when they're ready" ( and we all know what that means ) .

High|ander · 2005-10-28 23:20:03

Why wait....? i my opinion it is mutch more stable then gentoo if you dont run x86 builds only witch suxs because they never get that stable because gentoo hardpatches the source-code

dtw · 2005-10-28 23:22:36

Well, your first problem can only be solved with time and you pitching in rather than standing on the side-lines. I fail to see why number 2 would even cross your mind - there is no evidence that we would adopt such a system, is there?

High|ander · 2005-10-28 23:23:58

I don't debian ever is going to be this bleeding edge

clarence · 2005-10-28 23:48:27

mforce wrote:

...My first problem with Arch is that it's still smaller than Gentoo I think ( but growing )...

Bigger doesn't really mean better IMO. If you know what I mean, nudge nudge wink wink ooh er. The thing I like about Arch is that the Dev's appear to be more concerned with the Arch philosophy than with market share (please correct me if I'm wrong).

High|ander · 2005-10-28 23:52:40

Yea, i belive so too. They seem to be a little smarter to.

dtw · 2005-10-28 23:54:24

I think that's pretty accurate and the philosophy is the most important thing to many of the users too

Dusty · 2005-10-28 23:54:59

some of the devs are concerned about market share.... they don't want Arch to get too popular. ;-)

Dusty

High|ander · 2005-10-28 23:55:27

Word!

jondkent · 2005-11-01 13:02:33

Like nearly everyone here I come to Arch from Gentoo (ran for over 3 years), prior to that it was a mix of Slack (6+ years )and Debian (6+ years).

In fact my main server it still Slack but is days are number as I intend to put Arch on that too.

Heres hopping that Arch does not get as overcomplex as Gentoo did. Originally Gentoo was fairly stream line and that was managable. I just worry that Arch may go the same way (minus the compiling).

Jon

High|ander · 2005-11-01 14:34:35

Yes, i know exacly what you mean. Gentoo is too big as it is now, to many developers wanting different things

Dusty · 2005-11-01 16:27:07

Vote for move to off topic!!

jondkent · 2005-11-01 16:34:31

Dusty wrote:

Vote for move to off topic!!

Any reason why?

clarence · 2005-11-01 16:41:04

Dusty wrote:

Vote for move to off topic!!

That's a bad thing right?

dtw · 2005-11-01 18:51:26

Moved to Linux discussion - you can generally ignore Dusty ATM - he is just trying to keep his post count up so that I don't overtake him

Explosivo · 2005-11-11 23:26:26

I am also an Ex-Gentooer. But unlike all the others of you, I user Gentoo for just 2 months, after having used Ubuntu for two weeks and Winblow since I was six years old 8) .
I agree with all of you, that Arch is damn good, that it has most benefits Gentoo also has while beeing a lot simpler!

I think, every Getnoo-User who get's pissed off some day by this annoying ebuild-USE-flag-rc-update-endless-compiling and-hell-freezing-over-stuff, should definetly at least give Arch a try. For me Gentoo was my Linux-Playground, Arch will probably be my partner (though giving up Gentoo wasn't easy either )

Ecco · 2005-11-14 22:17:19

I used Gentoo for a few years. Checked out Arch sometime during 0.6 and haven't looked back since. I just love the simplicity and the fact it doesn't try to do all sorts of things for you.

On the other hand I've been trying to get a decent install working on my laptop for just about forever. For everything that's fixed two other things break

mezoko · 2005-11-14 22:38:40

mforce wrote:

I have to agree that was nice . But I also feel the need to say that Arch will never replace Gentoo as my main distro . I'm willing to give it a try , put it on an older PC that has a Celeron @ 333 and could never compile Gentoo but never instead o Gentoo .
Why ? Well just because Gentoo is too damn good . It has every package I want , everything I install works and it's very stable. The only thing that Arch could offer would be less time to install a package but I don't really care about that . Besides I like the fact that I can use my custom flags and compiler options .
So I'm sorry while Arch might be a good one Gentoo is my distro and I'm not giving it up because there's nothing wrong with it ( at least from my point of view ) .
Good luck with Arch though . I'm waiting for 0.8 to give it a try . I feel it has a lot more potential than Gentoo because let's face it , other than geeks no one wants Gentoo . I see Arch as a good alternative to that Ubuntu , Mandriva , SUSE crap and let's not forget the worst of them all Fedora .
There are only 2 main distros I respect ( besides Gentoo which I love ) Debian and Slackware . But Debian is too slow and bugyy and Slackware is too basic . I know they're trying to keep things simple in Slack but they do it by letting it do nothing . No dependecies , no huge repository , nothing .
That's why I feel Arch is the best binary distro out there . I will give it a try soon and I hope it doesn't disapoint me . But Gentoo stays , sorry .

No gentoo doesn't gentoo has a thousand txt files that have information on were to download it and how to build it thats all!

Gullible Jones · 2005-11-14 22:52:27

Hmmm... I've heard say that Gentoo has a base system of binary packages now. Since Robbins left, it seems as though it's become a bit more like NetBSD with a Linux kernel.

jondkent · 2005-11-15 09:05:06

It does appear that Gentoo is slowly moving to binary packages, what with the new position on installation etc. I would guess that once people realise that there is really no differance in compiling most apps or just using a pre-compiled package that they would stick with pre-compiled. There are exceptions to this, mplayer springs to mind, but they are few.

I still use Gentoo at work, mostly because I haven't the time to replace it, and it does what I need. But everwhere else its Arch.

codergeek42 · 2005-11-17 00:02:45

No No No No No.

Gentoo is *not* moving to binary packaging. The reason that the developers are recommending and only supporting a stage 3 install (to my knowledge) is because the way the bootstrap script and Portage handled dependencies was essentially broken. Much of it was kludges to get things to work (such as the build and bootstrap USE flags which, among other things, disable C++ support). If you take a look at many of the problems Gentoo has had from stage 1 installs, most, if not all, of them are due to circular dependency issues with OpenSSL or Perl. One can achieve the same effects by running the boostrap process after the system is installed. In this way, circular dependency issues are resolved, and the user can actually be productive on their system while things compile. In fact, should you want to install from stage1 directly still, it's explictly linked to in the handbook, just as a FAQ on its own, separate from the install guide. Please check this thread for more information.

That's my understanding of it anyway. I hope that clears things up a bit.

Gullible Jones · 2005-11-17 01:22:52

Damn, that's a shame.

(It would be nice to have a Gentoo-based distro with a binary package repo, I must say. Portage ain't as speedy as pacman, but it's a nice package manager.)

kakabaratruskia · 2005-11-17 04:17:15

Dusty wrote:

reminds me of when I found out Python wasn't the little girl I once knew...

pedophile...

Dusty · 2005-11-17 04:21:27

kakabaratruskia wrote:

Dusty wrote:
reminds me of when I found out Python wasn't the little girl I once knew...
pedophile...

*shakes head*

Arch Linux

#26 2005-10-28 22:56:19

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#27 2005-10-28 23:07:19

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#28 2005-10-28 23:20:03

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#29 2005-10-28 23:22:36

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#30 2005-10-28 23:23:58

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#31 2005-10-28 23:48:27

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#32 2005-10-28 23:52:40

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#33 2005-10-28 23:54:24

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#34 2005-10-28 23:54:59

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#35 2005-10-28 23:55:27

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#36 2005-11-01 13:02:33

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#37 2005-11-01 14:34:35

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#38 2005-11-01 16:27:07

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#39 2005-11-01 16:34:31

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#40 2005-11-01 16:41:04

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#41 2005-11-01 18:51:26

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#42 2005-11-11 23:26:26

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#43 2005-11-14 22:17:19

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#44 2005-11-14 22:38:40

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#45 2005-11-14 22:52:27

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#46 2005-11-15 09:05:06

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#47 2005-11-17 00:02:45

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#48 2005-11-17 01:22:52

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#49 2005-11-17 04:17:15

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

#50 2005-11-17 04:21:27

Re: Gentoo, we need to talk...

Board footer