Vector Linux = KING!

gentoo is better, not only do you get a custom kernel, you only download what you need and all software is optimized for your specific box.

quote:

---

Original post by yves032784
gentoo is better, not only do you get a custom kernel, you only download what you need and all software is optimized for your specific box.

---

I was sure there are only Mandrake, Redhat, SuSe, and something else. LINK please.

---

"C lets you shoot yourself in the foot rather easily. C++ allows you to reuse the bullet!"

quote:

---

Original post by yves032784
gentoo is better, not only do you get a custom kernel, you only download what you need and all software is optimized for your specific box.

---

Taking into consideration compile-time for the kernel and the packages... that isn''t newbie-friendly now, is it?

To customise your Gentoo Linux system, you have to start from stage1, thus, the installation will take a very long time. Fastest option is to start the install from stage3... and of course, your kernel won''t be as highly customised as claimed, so really, what''s the point? Anyway, the install of Vector Linux was a breeze... about 15 to 20 minutes


"Never met an American that didn''t like guns."
"Santa Claus would pick up a gun to save his friend."

InitGames Software | InitGames Software forums

Your image is broke.
I don't know what it looks like;
the server is down.

Oops, I was in haiku mode again for a second.

[edited by - Naaga on January 5, 2004 4:08:29 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by liquidAir
To customise your Gentoo Linux system, you have to start from stage1, thus, the installation will take a very long time. Fastest option is to start the install from stage3... and of course, your kernel won''t be as highly customised as claimed, so really, what''s the point? Anyway, the install of Vector Linux was a breeze... about 15 to 20 minutes

---

Kernel configuration is done after the stage3 tarball is emerged. It''s as customized as you can get, since the sources can be pulled direct from kernel.org. Gentoo also has its own kernel that includes some performance-related patches.

Even still this is a pointless argument. Gentoo is not for someone who likes things to "just work". It requires tinkering. Whether this is good or bad is up to you.

20 minutes? even my debian box installed in less than that.

The thing with Gentoo is a usage conditions problem. Given that it compiles everything you emerge onto the box, then yes, it can ''take longer'' than other distros. However, if you''re installing stuff infrequently - for example, if the box is a server - then that''s hardly a problem for you.

I''ve built and configured two Gentoo servers; one provides SMB/Printing/FTP/Web/Mail/CVS services on my home network, and one provides Web/SQL services on my school network. Both hardly ever need to be touched (the home one even automatically turns itself back on after a power cut, but that''s the BIOS rather than the OS), partly because (a) we hardly ever need new software on either of them, and (b) because they hardly ever need maintanence (a few cron jobs have taken care of the basic stuff). Installation, while slow, was painless - starting from the Stage1 tarball, all I had to do was set the options for the kernel in menuconfig, and the rest was automated. The difficult bit was setting up all the software to work properly (SAMBA and CUPS cooperation - oh joy.)

Contrast that to the install of RedHat 7.3 I have on this machine. It point-blank refuses to detect my USB WiFi box, I cannot rebuild the kernel and then successfully use said new kernel, and there''s a whole crapload of apps which, quite frankly, I have no idea what they do. I use it for a little bit of web development - mainly just for testing sites to see that they work in Linux-based browsers.

Granted, the situations for the two systems are somewhat different, but the Gentoo boxes have just both been plain *smooth* compared to the RedHat one. Oh, and don''t get me started on the RPM system. Ugh. Gimmie Portage (Gentoo''s package manager) any day.

As such I''d recommend Gentoo as a server OS, where you install once and run many, and not so much for a desktop OS where you tend to be installing stuff on and off quite regularly.

Richard "Superpig" Fine
- saving pigs from untimely fates, and when he''s not doing that, runs The Binary Refinery.
Enginuity1 | Enginuity2 | Enginuity3 | Enginuity4 | Enginuity5
ry. .ibu cy. .y''ybu. .abu ry. dy. "sy. .ubu py. .ebu ry. py. .ibu gy." fy. .ibu ny. .ebu
"Don''t document your code; code your documentation." -me
"I''m not a complete idiot; parts of me are missing." -}}i{{

I''ve been using Linux for about two and a half years now, and UNIX before that for a couple other years.

First off: For any newbies out there, definitely try SuSE. Its hardware autodetect is very, very nice and it provides a slick graphical interface to trivial hardware tasks like setting up printers and modems and so on and so forth. Alternatively you could try Fedora, but Fedora does not ship with MP3-playing support libraries due to RedHat''s paranoia over licensing fees.

I now leave the floor open to trolls complaining about how they like to have their hand held by monopolist software outfits.

Resist everyone
I am your only friend. Click here for more information.

hehe, you got it looking like windows xp...

quote:

---

Original post by yves032784
gentoo is better, not only do you get a custom kernel, you only download what you need and all software is optimized for your specific box.

---

Bah. You can make a customised kernel in any distro, but many people don''t seem to want to. No big deal.

reasons why i went to Gentoo:
I somewhat know what i'm doing, what to emerge (i'm using kde).
It runs at peak efficiency. Winxp starts to slow down a lot after loading many apps, but linux systems seem to handle the load better.
It's a learning experience.

Main reson why i dont use redhat: it's over bloated and takes forever to boot. However i do recommend redhat/mandrake for complete linux newbies.

I actually almost completely stoped using windows because linux is well....geeky...i learn a lot about computers just by using linux.



[edited by - yves032784 on January 6, 2004 2:01:31 AM]

ahem.....
(to red army quior song thing)
Linux... Linux... Linux... Linuxu...
Du............ duuuuuuu DA DUUUMMM
Linux .. rocks teh socks.... off of windoze
Linux... Linux... Linux... Linuxi...

Why I use Gentoo exclusively:

--get on soapbox--

I recently wrote a decision brief on which operating system to put on my computer for a class. I compared 10 operating systems on cost, programming/multimedia tools available (and thier cost), hardware compatability, performance, standards compliance, maintainability, and installation ability. Gentoo came out way on top. Of course, it was slightly biased, but the numbers don't lie (much). Here's a quick summary.

The biggest thing I like about Gentoo is that it is compiled for MY architecture. If I'm running a dual athlon, a P-III, or an 8086 (ok, maybe not that), then I know I'm getting the most performance out of the machine. OS's compiled for the "lowest-common denominator" is like having a Ferarri with a govenor on it to limit speed to 55 mph. I don't really care what my neighbor has for a computer and that my OS will work "out of the box" there too. I want to get all the performance I can out of my machine.

It's a bit more difficult to install, but if you read the manual that comes with the install disk, it will all work out. But you HAVE to read the instructions and have a little patience.

It does take time to compile all the packages that most people would want on desktop workstation, but you can get around that because there are also packages precompiled for the more popular architectures to quicken the install process.

Also, Gentoo only installs the programs that I want. It's won't try to push all the "convienence" programs down my throat, unless I ask it to, which is as simple as typing "emerge crap-2.0." The portage system has just about every software package ever concieved of for linux in it. The last time I checked, the list had about 70,000 entries.

Gentoo also keeps the system up to date the best of all the distros I tried. The portage system is clean, simple and it works as advertised.

The community for Gentoo is amazing. I would have to say that the Gentoo forums (http://forums.gentoo.org) is one of the most active message boards when it comes to support. Most problems are answered almost immediatly by people who either had the same problem or know the answer. There is no shortage of people willing to help on thier forum boards.

Gentoo's not for everybody, but if you're looking for a solid OS, give it a try. It only takes a little patience and reading to get it working.

--get off soapbox--


Cheers,

Bob

PS. Links:
Gentoo Linux
Gentoo Forums


----------------------------------
Halfway down the trail to hell...

[edited by - scourage on January 6, 2004 5:45:11 AM]

What do you compile gentoo with? gcc?

I was under the distinct impression (as based on the recent CUJ article) that gcc produced some of the not-best code out there. With that in mind, would gentoo really be all that ''searingly fast?''

quote:

---

Original post by flangazor
What do you compile gentoo with? gcc?

---

Unless you set it up differently, yes. I''ve read that some people have used Intel''s compiler as well.

quote:

---

Original post by flangazor
I was under the distinct impression (as based on the recent CUJ article) that gcc produced some of the not-best code out there. With that in mind, would gentoo really be all that ''searingly fast?''

---

Define "not-best code". GCC (as long as you stick to stable versions) produces reliable and correct output for all of the popular architectures it supports. When it comes to optimization, which I''m pretty sure is what you were aiming at, GCC is great in some ways and just good in others (but I certainly wouldn''t call it bad in any). As I''ve brought up before: GCC rivals every mainstream compiler out there when it comes to common optimizations and integer operations; on the other hand, with IA-32 floating point operations, it could be much better when compared to, e.g., Intel''s C compiler. There are other things it could be better at optimizing as well, I''m sure.

Not to imply that it''s what you''re trying to do, but it really bothers me when people criticize GCC incorrectly and unfairly. So, I just felt I had to reply...

Yes and no. gcc may not produce the best machine-code, but not-so optimized machine-code compiled for an Athlon-XP (that takes advantage of the additional registers and specialized instructions) will outperform the same program compiled with a great compiler for a 386, running on the same machine.

Also, the compiler doesn''t have to be gcc. Initially, it would be if you did a complete source install (stage 1 install). But once you have a bootable system, you could install intel''s compiler (or some other compiler) then use that as the default compiler and recompile the stuff already installed, and then rest of programs that you want to use.

I don''t think that gcc is that bad, but that''s just my opinion. I''ve never compared compilers for optimizations. I try to write better code. Would you post a link to that article, I''d like to read it.

Cheers,

Bob


----------------------------------
Halfway down the trail to hell...

I thought all titles including "LINUX = " were closed with a day or two. Oh well...


< Sorry for the waste of a reply >

---

Why do Suicide Bombers think they''re going to a better place?
Don''t they know their going all over the place?