Slashdot Mirror
Gentoo Linux 1.2
MrOutlander writes "Gentoo Linux releases version 1.2 of their cutting edge distribution with many updates including KDE 3.0.1 (20020604) and GNOME 2 (beta, 20020607) support. I love emerge :)"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
While Gentoo does rock, I don't suggest any of the cutting edge stuff for production boxes. While that's a given for the most part, the ease with which Gentoo allows you to install new and tempting things may make it harder for some to resist. (Emerge just rules.)
;) ).
Installing Gnome2 and then Evolution left me with no X/Window Manager (or, rather, Gnome 1.4 and Gnome2 at the same time). The machine I did this on is one I use to fool around with, but in a production environment, I suggest avoiding the temptations Gentoo puts before you and sticking with the tried and true (ie, Gnome 1.4 if you like Gnome, and whatever the stable version of KDE is
libertarianswag.com
Gentoo's great, if you have a Pentium-or-better machine (for the partially-built distro) and a bootable CD-ROM. Don't even bother if you can't boot from CD, and good luck if you try to do a "live" install from an existing Linux installation. A good alternative is LFS, which accomplishes much of what Gentoo has set out to accomplish but without all of the superfluous extras. More importantly, LFS is meant to be built using an existing (if possibly broken) Linux platform. If building a Linux system from scratch is what you're looking for, LFS certainly delivers.
This isn't meant to be trolling ...
With the previous discussion whether source based distros or binary distros are better I wonder, why you can't simply download a binary distro and recompile all important packages from the Source RPMS. So you can get the comfort from e.g. Mandrake with the efficiency of e.g. Gentoo.
Is it a possible way to enhance a binary based distibution with a recompilation feature?
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
If anyone has a "HOWTO install gentoo from floppy" I would be happy to know about it.
No howto, but why not use a floppy-based linux like 2-disk xwindows or baslinux or even tomsrtbt from here to connect to ftp.gentoo.org, download the ISO, mount it as a loopback device and install from the laptop's HD?
Great idea, why won't you help Debian folks if you need it so much?
root@aio:~# nmap -sX -iR -p1- # Ho, ho, ho! Merry Xmas, everyone!
If you think installing and compiling software is fun, sure. Gentoo fills a specific niche for people who (like yourself) want to learn more about their systems, and also the rare breed of people who want everything compiled from source. It's not for everyone. Some people don't like their desktops to break. And I personally don't care how my desktop works just as long as it does! That's why I stick with Debian: it may not have all the latest stuff but I can install software with 99% certainty that it will work because the maintainers have built and tested the packages.
And when I say that you're a niche user I don't mean to belittle you. Nor do I intend to put you on a pedestal. Gentoo is attractive to you. Debian is attractive to me. RedHat is attractive to other people. They all fit a particular niche. Gentoo offers features that you find attractive and this makes Gentoo a worthwhile distribution. But don't make the mistake of thinking that because you find Gentoo fun that everybody "with a little Linux experience" will find it fun too. I've tried Gentoo and RedHat and I think RedHat is more "fun" as a desktop. But that's because I think compiling software is boring and pointless.
The diversity in Linux distributions is an incredible strength. If there was only one Linux distribution then I strongly believe there would be fewer Linux users.
Is the fact that the issue is one of control, not source-v-binary. In this case you suggest, the question would be, 'Which packages are important?'
If you want a desktop, you will have different needs to desiring a server. You will want eye-candy. So who decides what the important packages are?
Policy dictates, if you use Debian. Something or other, if you use Red Hat or Mandrake. Gentoo and LFS put the control in your hands.
Doing what you suggest can be done, but the question of control then comes up. Either you trust others to know their Linux (binary), or you dig yourself and come up with the goods (source).
For me, it's Debian unstable. I don't have time to look at recompiling all the source for any machine at the moment, though I won't rule it out. And I have no problem whatsoever following what the Debian Project recommends as the results have been nearly perfect thus far.
It really depends on what you want to do.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
rpm --rebuild
heh, I did this with redhat over the years and while it can be done, it just doesn't seem natural. Tarballs are easy to work with if a person likes to have the source as a quick reference to why things work. Having a source tree available is like having the most comprehensive man pages if I want to know the most obscure details.
With a source based distribution, the temptation to tinker and try interesting hacks out is overwhelming. Gentoo provides an environment that is friendly for making changes if one wants control how far across the system modifications will reach. I don't see how it would be possible for rpm --rebuild to recompile just the system or selected parts of the world, while emerge makes this easy.
Calling it GNU/Linux doesn't reflect the work of many many other volunteers. Maybe it should be calle d AlanCox/KDEteam/xmms/Mozilla/GNU/Linux? Why should GNU get so much credit for writing a compiler and few other tools.. if I wrote a w32 compatible OS using VC++ am I obliged to call it Microsoft/MyOS?? Of course not.
All it took on my Gentoo boxes was a simple:
emerge -u openssh
Whereas on my Debian boxes at work it was a simple:
% apt-get update
% apt-get upgrade
and I didn't have to wait while it re-built.
Still, many are wondering if Debian will ever be able to release a 'stable' (as classified by them officially) 2.4 Kernel and all the things that depend on it.
I agree wholeheartedly!
> Why should GNU get so much credit for writing a compiler and few other tools.
Because if you were to remove the compiler and "few other tools" like glib you'd be left with a pile of neat source code.
That's like saying that because my car requires gas to function, that it should be called a Nissan Texaco/Altima, or a Nissan Chevron/Altima. If I were to remove that precious gas, I'd be left with a pile of metal. I do lack the time to make my car go without gas, so I guess I won't be ditching it anytime soon. But I won't be prepending Texaco/ or Chevron/ or anything else in order to show my appreciation.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;