Slashdot Mirror
New Gentoo 2007.0 Release Gets Mixed Review
lisah writes "Gentoo's recently released version 2007.0 gets a fair-to-middling review from Linux.com. Installation was a headache from the live CD and DVD versions, but the Gentoo Linux Installer saved the day and gets high marks for being 'far better than it's predecessor.' The user experience is also mixed — on the one hand, the distribution boots quickly, has great hardware support, and new, user-friendly artwork. On the other hand, 'for some strange reason, the installed Gentoo doesn't allow normal users to run any administrative applications.' Overall, it doesn't look like Gentoo offers any compelling reasons to switch to 'Secret Sauce' if they're happy with their current, uh, flavor."
Yes, but would it run an Indy car?
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
2007.0 already? And I only just finished compiling 2006.0!
I'll probably be modded down for this...
while I appreciate a good gui install, and the previous 2006.1 gentoo gui install was QAB, I'd have to agree with the review that any step forward is a good step. Also agreeing with the article, the CLI install is still the way to go and even if the gui install worked flawlessly I think I'd still choose the CLI install method over it. Once everything is installed, the review finds several things they say "don't work", but that is just the nature of the "do it yourself"/"linux my way" mentality of Gentoo. Has this realease turned Gentoo in to Ubuntu? No, and thankfully it hasn't. I believe Arch might be more up your alley if that is what you are looking for.
I get the scripted installer part for admins, but why would a distro like Gentoo, which has already found its niche, violate that niche by dumping development time into a "newbie" installer? It's not as though I'm really bothered by it, but it seems like they've been content to leave the super-easy install to the Fedora and Ubuntu's of the world... even if it meant lesser uptake on their own distro. Does this new installer still download and compile everything from source? Just seems like it takes the focus off a specialized-install-for-all and puts it squarely on increasing the userbase. Why the change?
Gentoo isn't so much a distro as an educational game. If your system works better than an Ubuntu box, you're winning.
/etc and unpack the latest stage3 tarball on top of your installation
There's always a way to fix these problems.
1. Use 'quickpkg' to save important things like Python before you break them
2. Plow over broken dependencies with 'emerge -C'
3. revdep-rebuild when needed
4. If it doesn't work, try the ~x86 package
6. emerge -uDNv world
7. wait a day, emerge --sync, try again
8. update often!! stale systems are harder to update
And the craziest trick of all....
9. backup your
One of those things should fix just about any update problem you encounter
I use Gentoo on servers because of the flexibility. I can specify exactly what I need. I can generate custom ebuilds easily (they are just shell scripts after all). In fact I can make entire installable custom *distros* for in-house apps and combinations of libraries, etc. I can pin specific packages to specific versions. I can set the build flags for each individual app. I can selectively override the Gentoo-supplied ebuilds with overlays. I can keep track of all my config files and track changes with RCS. I can install multiple versions of PHP, MySQL, Java, whatever, and keep it all straight. This is why I use Gentoo.
I really don't give a shit about a pretty installer. Let Gentoo focus on the power-user niche please, and if you don't like it, use something else.
It does have some of the best documentation I have come across. In the form of the gentoo-wiki site. I always find what I need in that site, even when fixing problems with other distros. That site deserved a mention for being so damn good, but I forgot to place it in my original post.
Like with everything else it has it's advantages and it's disadvantages
/etc/init.d scripts has been placed into common functions referenced elsewhere
it all depends on what you want to use it for
(it's a bit like hitting a screw with a hammer and saying, hmmm this isn't going into the wall very well)
if you want something that's going to work first time, and that your not going to have to arse about setting up
(e.g. a commercial environment) then go with a rpm solution like redhat or suse (this way you've always got the option of support as well at the same time)
If you want something for running the latest cutting edge software and damned the consequences
the sort of person that would make the attempt at building his own conservatory on the side of his house go for Gentoo
Disadvantages
1. it's source based
which can mean less stable / well tested
ultimately gentoo is a source based dist, which means any binary files you end up with won't have been tested
and there's no guarantee of behavior as it all depends on how things have been linked
2. rpm's do some amount of checking when installing the binary, with gentoo it's assumed that whatever has been compiled is correct
(unless make install throws up an error during the build process or you write some checking into the script it's not always possible to guarantee that everything is installed the way it's supposed to be
admitily problems are rare but do crop up now and again
3. it takes ages to compile / install etc
the trade-off here is having access to the latest stuff, so I'm happy with this one
Advantages
1. if you want to get something working that's only just been released
it takes me 5 mins to write an ebuild script
it takes much longer to write an rpm spec file
(this especially comes in handy when your trying to add / remove patches / custom graft as part of the script)
the reason for this is a lot of the common stuff has been functionalised (is that a word?) into eclass files
this makes the whole thing default to a certain common behavior unless overridden in the script
also you don't have to list all the files that should be installed as it works it out for itself all auto-magically
in an ideal scenario for rpm you'd at least have both options depending on the use of the system (do some checking, don't do some checking)
ideally I'd really like rpm to take on some of the same advantages as this one (why not?, it might need testing / change of spec files but it'd be well worth it)
2. a lot of the scripts that form the bootup are much more up-to-date
again most of the stuff in the
it's part of the whole "if it's not broke don't fix it" thing, which in principle gives advantages to commonality if everyone is using the same sort of
startup scripts if your writing a RPM for several dists and may be more stable / tested
but the gentoo method is much simpler to write for / more automated
3. it's sourced based
which means it'll run on pretty much anything, any weird ass bit of hardware you can throw at it (usually)
(PS3 hint hint)
Personally I'm confident I can fix most things when they go wrong in the portage tree, via an overlay (or at least have the patience to wait for it to be fixed). but for the average Joe user in an office that couldn't give a monkey's for that sort of thing something binary / rpm is better suited
There's probably lots of stuff I've missed here but the general idea is
if you like home brew go to Gentoo (mmm tasty brew)
If you like it plain and flat go for Red Hat