Gentoo Linux 2004.2: What You See Is What You Get

editingwhiz writes "Jem Matzan has a cogent analysis of the new Gentoo Linux 2004.2 on Linux.com: "Gentoo Linux is the BSD of GNU/Linux distributions; it's elegant and customizable and you know exactly what you're getting when you install it. No mystery programs, no packages that you have to deinstall because you'll never use, no clutter, and everything is customized to your needs. If you do it right, Gentoo is also faster than your average GNU/Linux distro because everything can be compiled with higher compiler optimizations." (Linux.com is part of the OSTG network.)" Jem also has some criticism of the current version of Gentoo's AMD64 version.

Comments

WYSIWYG

[alatesystems]

What you see and what you get is a bash prompt on the cd boot. It is worse than slackware on the install, unless you get that new-fangled(yes I know red hat uses it and has forever) Anaconda working, but who does that anyway?

Gentoo is great though because you can send a friend a cd and have him pop it in and forward port 22 and do /etc/init.d/sshd start; passwd and then you can remote in and install linux for them, or in my case, on a colo that had a bad hard drive.

I like gentoo, but to set it up right takes quite a while and a lot of patience.

Chris

Re:WYSIWYG

[sbennett]

What you see and what you get is a bash prompt on the cd boot. It is worse than slackware on the install

I'd have said "better than slackware on the install". I realise I'm in the minority here, but I like a simple, text-based install process. After Gentoo's, my favourite installers (of those I've used) are Debian's old-style one and [Free|Open]BSD. They do what they need to, and don't get in the way.

Oh, and the other major plus with Gentoo's install: you don't need an install CD to do it; any Linux system will do. I haven't yet found another distro or OS that lets you do that.

Re:WYSIWYG

[ComputerSlicer23]

Anaconda can be run from the command line.

Start by fetching a couple of files off of the RedHat boot disk. From the images directory, you'll want to grab the boot floppy you need (depends on if you plan on doing a network or cdrom based install).

In my example, I grabbed bootdisk.img, and I put it in tmp. You'll also need RedHat/base/stage2.img also.

cd /tmp ;
mkdir bootdisk
mount -o loop bootdisk.img /tmp/bootdisk
cp /tmp/bootdisk/initrd.img /tmp/initrd.img.gz
gunzip initrd.img.gz
mkdir initrd
mount -o loop initrd.img /tmp/initrd
mkdir stage2
mount -o loop stage2.img /tmp/stage2
mkdir install-root
( cd initrd ; tar cvf - . ) | ( cd /tmp/install-root ; tar xf - )
( cd stage2 ; tar cvf - . ) | ( cd /tmp/install-root ; tar xf - )
mount -t proc none /tmp/install-root/proc
chroot /tmp/install-root/ /usr/bin/anaconda --method http://pub.whitebox.mirror/whitebox/3.0/en/os/i386 --text

That starts the installer running, and is attempting to do a network install from whatever website you replace "pub.whitebox.mirror" with (you probably have to adjust the rest of the URL, but it's the path I use on my local whitebox mirror).

The installer starts to run at that point. I had to run it from the console, and I was intentionally in run level 3 rather then 5 (I should have gone to single user mode, but I was lazy). I get a nice curses application at this point. It got all the way to the part where it wanted me to repartition my disk. I have no free partitions to actually attempt an install. However, I'm fairly sure I could have finished the install (if I couldn't the heavy lifting was pretty much done with, it would have been a series of small problems to overcome).

It's a bit of pain, and there's probably an easier way to do it, but that's how I figured out how to run the installer in less then 30 minutes after reading your message. (I remember reading on the WhiteBox lists that it should be possible to just start a remote install via an SSH session, but I've never actually seen the procedure written up). I figured it couldn't be that hard. Anaconda is nothing more then a python script that runs. It needs a bit of runtime support, but nothing special.

Kirby

Re:WYSIWYG

[GimmeFuel]

I've heard this argument before, but it's never quite worked for me. I think there's two ways it can be interpreted and both have flaws. Another (supportive of Gentoo) poster has already said that Gentoo simply requires that you can follow EXACT instructions. That makes me nervous, as it sounds like it's not really learning, but rather just memorizing a bunch of commands. If that's the case, I don't think Gentoo really leaves you all that better trained than the ape at phone-tech support who flips through a manual and tells you to do whatever the book said without and actual cognitive thought.

Installing Gentoo isn't a magic rite of passage that turns anyone into an experienced Linux guru. All Gentoo does is force you to use command-line tools like mount and mk*fs. Compare this to other distros where the option is there to use the command-line tools, but it's easier to use the shiny GUI app. It's like the difference between a High School Spanish class and taking a foreign exchange trip to Spain for a few months; you will learn a lot more (assuming you want to learn in the first place) if you have to immerse yourself in a unfamiliar environment where you have to learn if you want to get anything done.

Of course, this path isn't suitable for everybody, which is why things like High School Spanish and RedHat exist. To each his own.

Conversely, though, it might be that Gentoo actually has good documentation that tells you WHY things work as opposed to just a list of key commands. If that's the case, however, why do I actually need the distro? Can't I just read the Gentoo documentation, learn about Linux's innerworkings, and then just apply that to whatever distro I see fit. After all, if I can edit an XF86Config file by hand under Gentoo, I can edit it by hand under RedHat. The GUI tools may change between distros, but the important stuff is always the same, so the Gentoo docs should be universal, making Gentoo a doc project that just has some sample software attached to it.

If Gentoo was only about teaching people how to use the console, then it probably would just be a pile of docs. However, Gentoo is about much more, which is why it is a full-fledged distro.

Gentoo is for learning/inaccuraces in doc

[oldosadmin]

The key feature most people miss about gentoo is that it's a great LEARNING DISTRO. I learned many times more in my 5 months of using gentoo than I did in using RHL/FC for a year. Not to mention the great docs/community... anyone who can follow EXACT directions, has some patience, and basic linux knowledge should be able to install Gentoo.

One thing (big thing) it missed about 2004.2 was the move from XFree default to XOrg...

Also... by slow development... I don't know what they mean? Portage is gaining features (try one of the pre-releases), and the ebuilds still fly out fast after new software is released.

Whenever I run linux (I move from Win/Linux often), Gentoo is my distro of choice by a long shot.

Gentoo.

[rincebrain]

I run three Gentoo boxes, and I must say, Gentoo is, by far, the most convenient Linux I've installed...when you already know what you're doing. =)

If you don't know what you're doing, and something is slightly off-kilter...you're better off in Debian or some other distro with an easier installer which won't give you a scary cryptic error message.

Also, Portage is the single best software management I've ever encountered, bar none...though occasionally, user error means you wait awhile for packages to become stable.

When you run stable, though, you very rarely have a problem with a "required" upgrade due to a bug...relatively rarely, of course. =)

In addition, Gentoo is second to none in documentation and error repair...the mailing list sends out documentation of a bug, along with complete list of affected versions of a package, and fixes.

Finally, 2004.2 fixes a few nasty bugs in the installer LiveCD, so, in my experience, it's far more stable and reliable for certain hardware configurations.

Note: I've only done x86 installs myself, so YMMV. =)

I'd like to see that quantified

[martinde]

Can someone show me benchmarks that real programs are really faster on the same hardware than some other distro? I've seen benchmarks that say the opposite, but I've never seen any that support this common claim.

I do realize that optimizing for the "correct" CPU should provide improved performance, but I wonder how much improvement you really see with gcc in this case.