What distribution will *YOU* switch to? (part II)

Phoenix591 · Guru Joined: 17 Sep 2007 Posts: 487

If Gentoo ceased to exist (mirrors all shut down and portage tree removed), then I'd go to Arch. But, I doubt Gentoo's going anywhere just because of some paper work in New mexico (or anything else).

Sprotte · Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject:

Switching is perhaps saying too much, but I'm rather fascinated with the BSDs. I find FreeBSD to be the friendliest of the bunch. So I thought I'd look at its features and compare it to Gentoo (its bastard offspring...) for a bit. You might enjoy it, or you might not.

First the similarities.

- UNIX like: You'll feel right at home.

BSD has the typical tools and filesystem hierarchy. Top, dmesg, ls and df do what you expect them to. /etc and /usr are still /etc and /usr. The standard shell is tcsh, which is good enough for a start. Loads more are available later. Man pages for everything.

- Source based (and open source): System comes with gcc installed.

You have the choice to compile your whole system from scratch, and you can set CFLAGS and knobs (simple use flags) in /etc/make.conf.

- Package management: Ports is like Portage's working-class cousin.

Makefiles, like ebuilds, allow automatic fetching, configuration, dependency handling, compilation and installation of packages. Emerge-like frontends (portmaster, portupgrade) exist to further automate installation and updating of installed ports. Search functions are very fast and comprehensive. Cleaning out orphaned packages and unwanted dependencies (leaves) is a snap. Reverse dependencies are supported. The ports tree is updated either via snapshots or via automated cvs checkout (cvsup), much like emerge --sync. Yup, you can also exclude stuff. Over 18000 ports are available and up to date.

Now for the differences.

- Keep them separated: The "base system" idea

*BSD has this idea of a base system which contains the kernel, basic tools and libraries, and the compiler, and is kept separate from the ports system. This allows the devs to focus on mission critical things, and deliver a rock solid basis (a core) for the user to build upon. The base system is quickly installed in binary form (like a stage 3 tarball) and can be updated via binary packages, patched, or recompiled, should you so desire. In FreeBSD, things like X, perl and python are not part of the base system. Other BSDs differ here. The base system is subject to "releases". It is not just a blob though, it's all open source.

The ports tree only contains add-on (third party) software. This includes modular X, KDE and all the rest. There is only one ports tree, in spite of the base system's "releases".

There is an official binary package repository (yay!) and you have the choice when and where to use ports or packages, or both. Package installation and dependency handling is fully automated and user friendly. It's a bit like "Gentoo plus official binary packages". You can have a desktop running in under two hours, and recompile your KDE later when you feel like it.

Now for some of the minor idiosyncrasies...

- Different init system (rc.d). Init scripts know about dependencies, like Gentoo's. The base layout reminds me a bit of Slackware because of the simplicity; services are enabled manually in rc.conf. Booting is very fast.

- Different filesystem (ufs). You can mount ext2/ext3 and reiserfs (maybe readonly, not sure) partitions, though, as well as FAT and NTFS.

- Slightly different naming conventions. For example, BSD calls partitions "slices". Instead of using several partitions, it takes one big slice and then subdivides it (it calls these subdivisions "partitions"). FBSD says "ad0" when it means hda, and "ad0s2" when it means hda3. "ad0s2a" would be the root partition. And so forth.

- BSD, unlike Linux, needs a primary partition.

- BSD takes pride in superb documentation and top-notch manpages ("man ports", "man pkg_add" and "man pkg_info" recommended). The downside is, when a BSD guy says "RTFM" he'll be pissed off if you start acting up. Chances are it's documented somewhere, and really well, too.

There's not much to say about package managers, both Ports and Portage do a good job. Still, in all fairness, there are some things Portage does better (mainly user friendliness related), and some Ports does better (mainly technical things, and speed).

Kernel compiling is easier on *BSD, but Linux gives you more options. Linux also has better hardware support. Gadgets are more likely to run under Linux. Once *BSD supports them though, it supports them well.

There is no framebuffer splash in *BSD (oh no!) - that's because there is no framebuffer. High resolution console? Patch your kernel. (You can have color in the console though, just set TERM to xterm-color or something and use for example zsh's prompt themes.) There is no ALSA either, since BSD uses OSS and that usually Just Works (tm).

*BSD has a Linux compatibility layer that works much like wine, only better. Linux games are said to run at least as fast, if not faster, on BSD. Didn't try it, there are enough games in ports to keep me occupied. There is also wine, and I think I saw zsnes in ports, too.

Only FreeBSD supports 3D hardware acceleration atm (it's experimental in Net and Open), and of the newer cards only nvidia (closed source driver aka "blob") seems to work well, although that is changing since ati/amd released specs.

In the end, both Gentoo and (Free)BSD are damn good OSes, and clearly they are close relatives. One can do most of what the other can. Being based on Linux, Gentoo has an edge when it comes to bleeding-edge hardware support, but many will say that *BSD is more mature and well thought out.

So it's not really a question if Gentoo or FBSD is better; it's rather hard to decide which one to put on your desktop. It comes down to a stalemate between control and ease of use. Gentoo does give you absolute freedom, but also requires more dedication; BSD lets you spend more of your time elsewhere, but offers "only" 90% of the customizability. It's a tradeoff.

About the issue of "bloat", I'll say that a "slim" FBSD install looks almost the same as a Gentoo one. Most Gentoo systems will have perl and python, and stuff like HAL/dbus, and a number of libs and toolkits if it's a desktop. Most Gentoo users pride themselves of a perceived lack of bloat, which is attributed to USE flags. I can only say that FBSD is no more bloated and no less "snappy" than Gentoo, even without USE flags (knobs in BSD speak) and with standard CFLAGS.

When I look at my FreeBSD desktop, it seems rather hard to find any bloat at all. Granted, I built it like a Gentoo system, only pulling in the required parts of X, Openbox and some tools on top of the base system. Yup, it installed some of the stuff I listed above as dependencies, but really nothing out of the ordinary. It's not like it pulls in KDE or something.

Gosh, I did not compile it myself. Most of it. Makes me feel a tad uneasy, but I'll learn to deal with that ;-)

I mean I COULD. If I wanted to, I could download the cvs source and recompile the whole ******* thing. Theoretically. Hey, I DID recompile the kernel just to feel better.

About Gentoo/BSD, I'm not sure what to make of it. Perhaps it would make more sense to port Portage to *BSD instead of importing FBSD's base system into Gentoo. It seems like building a house backwards, if you know what I mean. I'm curious to see where it goes though.

Other Linux distros? Well if we're talking ersatz Windows bloatware, no, thank you. Arch Linux seems to do something right, and Debian... well, Debian smells funny.

batistuta · Veteran Joined: 29 Jul 2005 Posts: 1384 Location: Aachen

Sprotte, that was a nice review. Lots of nice info and I agree with you almost 100% on everything. One point were I "disagree" (because I drastically agree) is

Sprotte · Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject:

Batistuta: I agree with you.

FreeBSD's base system is rather well constructed and ready for use on a server. Very fast to deploy. Add apache, some tinkertoys, and you're good to go.

Trying to use it as a desktop reveals the following:

1. Flash = problematic. Works on and off apparently. Youtube seems to work atm.

2. Sound in games = some problems. Quake runs well, slightly slower than in Gentoo but well playable. Nothing comparable to evdev, Razer mice problematic.

3. Wine = really problematic. Works on and off, some underlying problems. Personally had problems running Starcraft and similar. Some claim to have WOW working though.

Compiling xorg-server just for the heck of it, I must say I prefer emerge's interface and usability to make. Take elogs for example, and USE flags. With ports, you're at the mercy of the makefile maintainer when it comes to configuring options. It's sometimes a bit sparse.

Portage isn't _as_ bad as we like to make it sometimes ;-)

gasparov · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 105

I had switched my laptop to ubuntu...ubuntu sucks big.
My gentoo is a pain in the ass but it works.fullstop.
There is a bug on launchpad with something like 100 comments and 35 dupes, was filled in october concerning nvidia users that found a blank screen instead of ttys , unresolved and still there with the "new" beta release.
Ubuntu nowadays is a distro for people that comes from window...how the hell can you go on months with no ttys and mostrly how is possible that the average ubuntu user hasn't even realized it yet.If something like this happens on gentoo we are gonna have a death body.
Still Ubuntu has the best community, and Ubuntu developers still can use ASCII , gentoo devs use it for flaming

but the code is better.

I switched to ubuntu because compiling means waiting I realized that found yourself stuck with no solutions and tools to find one means waiting as well.

lightvhawk0 · Guru Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 388

I'm stuck on Gentoo.

I used old Redhat 6.2 and switched to Mandrake, then I found Gentoo 1.4. I creamed my pants with emerge and compiling things from sources. Then I got bored and switched to Ubuntu, and honestly every binary distro feels the same to me.

But for a quick install, I'd say Ubuntu is ok. I'd rather just stage3 the damn machine, and use ssh to set everything up.
_________________
If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. - Voltaire

batistuta · Veteran Joined: 29 Jul 2005 Posts: 1384 Location: Aachen

Aquiles · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:32 am Post subject:

I like Debian. Actually, I'm using it at work, since I use a laptop and some compilation times would not fit well my needs (granted, I could have gentoo on it if I really wanted, but I think it's not the best sollution in this case). So, should I quit using Gentoo at home, I would probably switch to Debian, although I've read good words about Arch.
_________________
Aquiles

unaos · n00b Joined: 06 Apr 2006 Posts: 64 Location: brovary,UA

i'll give a try to archlinux.
but still with gentoo yet

_________________
house of mystic lies

Sprotte · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject:

Arch doesn't support as many platforms.

My old P1's, which could benefit from packages, are unsupported afaik. For example. On a recent machine I would rather run Gentoo than Arch.

skion · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: Use ~x86

I'm happy with Gentoo since I enabled ACCEPT_KEYWORDS='~86' :-)

Has been a lot less hassle, and even feels a bit more stable since then.
_________________
- Skion

Rad · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:56 am Post subject:

Sprotte · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:10 am Post subject:

Interesting, I'll look into the Sabayon package manager... I do use distcc and friends, I was just saying that the old machines are the ones which benefit most from packages, and yet Arch doesn't support them afaik. I find that ironic.

desultory · Bodhisattva Joined: 04 Nov 2005 Posts: 9410

Another option would be to use a package repository which is supported by Gentoo.

batistuta · Veteran Joined: 29 Jul 2005 Posts: 1384 Location: Aachen

spacejock · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:22 am Post subject:

I maintain two linux servers, both of them running Gentoo. The other seven desktops I used to run Gentoo on are all running Ubuntu now. Five of them were on the same network, and even though distcc was nice for emerging, trying to maintain them all and carry over config files after every update was just too much work.
_________________
Author of the Hal Spacejock series ... "Better than Red Dwarf" - Tom Holt
Download the first book free

shazeal · Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:58 am Post subject:

Gentoo was my first full time distro, after much pulling of hair at the time I switched to Archlinux, all I can say is its the smartest thing I ever did. I learnt a hell of alot about linux (the under lying structure not the desktop fluff) using arch, and destroying my system meant a 20 minute reinstall rather than a couple of days on gentoo.

However, I am back on Gentoo and Im never switching again, for me I want a system configured for me, you can simply never have that on a binary distro, what made me switch back was my realization that I was compiling almost half my system via PKGBUILDs on arch, I never made use of the baseline kernel from the core repo as it was like playing russian roulette. After almost 2 years away from gentoo, I have a ~amd64 system up and running after 2 days (mostly tweaking and finding my way around again).

IMO, for someone learning linux and not wanting a dumbed down distro Arch is simply the best, but for me it cant compare to the ease of configuration gentoo has (Once you actually have a clue about what your doing).

So I did switch, and it was great, but I have gentoo in my blood :twisted:

rahulthewall · Veteran Joined: 01 Nov 2007 Posts: 1264 Location: Zürich

I started my Linux experience with Ubuntu and I must say that was a smart choice. True, Gentoo makes you learn stuff but for somebody who had no idea as to what Linux was all about, it was just too much to start with. I stayed with Ubuntu for nearly a year and a half, and then it was not the case that everything worked out of the box. Wireless was troublesome and one had to use 915resolution to get the correct resolution. They improved, and most of the hardware was supported out of the box however the problem was that there was no need to learn. Most of the stuff worked and there was seldom need to use the command line, there was a graphical front end for nearly every command. However, Ubuntu made me comfortable with Linux and that is when I decided to install Gentoo.
I happened to pick up a bad time for it. Tried to install right in the middle of the semester, and lo and behold. All the stuff about use flags and the details had me flummoxed and I was lost. Spent three days trying to get everything working, and when finally it became necessary for me to complete my homeworks I had to give it up. Not wanting to go back to Ubuntu, I installed Arch Linux. The installation was very fast and pretty straight forward. Felt like a breeze after Gentoo. Stayed wiwth it for a month at the most, however for some reason it never tickled my fancy. It just did not feel right, and as soon as my winter break started I installed Gentoo again. This time I was successful. It took me a solid couple of weeks but I managed to get all my hardware working. Learned a lot, and since then I have installed Gentoo more than a couple of times. Switched to ~x86 and everything works, right down to hibernation and suspend.
And now I cannot go back, nothing feels right compared to Gentoo. eselect, ebuilds and portage are really wonderful. And the stuff that Gentoo taught me is really helping me in my internship as well where I am porting MontaVista Linux.
Gentoo all the way for me.
_________________
Who shall guard the guards?

marcus0263 · Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject:

sjirous · n00b Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 11 Location: Germany

I faced severe stability problems for a few weeks when I recently updated my gentoo-sources
plus the Nvidia drivers. I almost went nuts because I could not find an error, and finally was
flirting with the thought of giving up with Gentoo & give kUbuntu a try. I thought about all
the advantages of a "major" binary-based distribution, like less time-consuming maintenance,
support of third-party vendors etc.

Well, I gave it a try (just the live version), it worked pretty well & stable, but... Then the
package system was installing new software despite spitting out error messages. So I started
to think about how to actually fix issues in such a "closed" distribution.

Some hours later I was back at Gentoo, and in the meantime I probably found the issue
(wrong FSB speed in my BIOS - can't remember I ever changed it, but since I increased
it my system runs solid as a rock again).

Bottom line: although there may be some hick-ups with Gentoo, in the long run it is still
less painful to maintain than any other distro. Not to mention this forum, where I receive
answers in just six minutes after raising a question...

Cheers

Sascha

yogipsu · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 30 Aug 2003 Posts: 98

Kasumi_Ninja · Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject:

b1f30 · Apprentice Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 262 Location: USA

Other distros play the double-edged sword game - they make great contributions to the F/OSS community, but they also package buttloads of proprietary crap which pushes you further away from the guts of the system, further impeding your progress with what you want to make your system do. Generic kernels just plain suck with the 10 zillion kernel modules that are loaded.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - I wish Gentoo were alive and well back when I first picked up my first copy of Mandrake. Gentoo is UNIX-ey looking and feeling, portage is exactly what I was looking for in a package manager, and compiling from source, while painful at the core, makes for a system that I enjoy sitting down with and doing more than just email/surfing.

The number one reason I've stuck with this distro through rain and shine is you loonies who plague the forums. :-)

Just my take.

:-p

P.S. Debian and FreeBSD kick ass. :-p
_________________
H T T P : / / W W W . B I N A R Y F R E E D O M . I N F O /

Kasumi_Ninja · Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject:

Currently I am running Debian Lenny/testing which runs great. A big plus is that everything works out of the box (things like hibernation which I never got properly to work in Gentoo). I miss portage however, (especially for installing older versions). I have a stage4 of my old Gentoo install on another harddisk, to play around with. I don't expect to install Gentoo on my main workstation anytime soon.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered

Smart1 · n00b Joined: 16 May 2007 Posts: 66

Gentoo sucks! I don't change it for another Distribution nevermore.

Honor to to each. I don't like overcrowded. In Gentoo everybody makes a OS for himself. I use primary KDE, but I have many GTK Programs.

I have probed and used many Linux, some version from each. RedHat or Fedora I have not tried, I don't like RPM paket system.

I have got Problems with him in SuSE, mine first Linux from 5.0 Version, i have bought RedHat I think Version 8, but not installed.

I used SuSE, Slackware, SourceMage, LFS, RockLinux, Sorcerer, Gentoo, Debian, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, EduUbuntu and retour to Gentoo in 2006.

Regards,
_________________
http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.sysresccd.org/ http://www.linuxquestions.org/

Registered Linux user: #130654 http://counter.li.org