View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
zietbukuel l33t
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 607
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:42 am Post subject: I'm back... |
|
|
Hey guys, I've been using Gentoo since 2005, left because of some major problems with the distro and switched to many different distros, right now I'm using Ubuntu. I'd really like to give Gentoo another chance, but I feel kinda lost, since I've stopped using it since 2009. Has there been any significant changes since I left? I dunno, anything? or it's almost the same thing? How stable do you consider Gentoo using its latest stable version? Thanks for any info |
|
Back to top |
|
|
avx Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004 Posts: 2152
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, stage3 is now the default way to install, portage (and other parts) have made (huge) steps forward and unstable is stable for me for years. But it's still not holding your hand, so if you need that, your wrong here.
Anyways, welcome back (I should really start counting these 'I am back threads', seems like there are at least 2/week) _________________ ++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.>. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cwr Veteran
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 Posts: 1969
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't consider Gentoo especially stable, but the problems are all upstream,
not in Gentoo. For instance, Gnome themes still crash on a regular basis, as
they have since 2.28, Gnome terminal has started producing a corrupted background
(from 2.30), ath9k wireless drivers no longer cope with hostapd changing the regional
settings, and so on.
But these aren't major problems, and mostly things work.
Will |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zietbukuel l33t
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 607
|
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the input guys. How stable would you say Gentoo is compared to Ubuntu? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10587 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Will: things mostly work. But, if stability is your primary goal, I don't think you're in the right place. I don't think Gentoo will ever be as stable as a well-managed, well funded binary distribution. But, stability isn't Gentoo's primary goal. Gentoo calls itself a meta-distribution; more colloquially, it could be described as a custom distribution building toolkit. If that's what you want, then it's great: best of breed, in fact. If you don't like to tinker and tweak, at least a little, then you may not want to come back.
Gentoo is improving over time. Portage's dependency resolver solves more blocks on its own now—and gives better advice when it can't. The other tools are noticeably better since you left as well.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10587 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, yes. Moved from Installing Gentoo to Gentoo Chat. If you decide to actually do an install, open a new thread.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
phajdan.jr Retired Dev
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 1777 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
zietbukuel wrote: | Thanks for the input guys. How stable would you say Gentoo is compared to Ubuntu? |
For me Gentoo is more stable than Ubuntu, and slightly less stable than Debian (but obviously more up-to-date).
I think that most problems are either upstream, or created by users themselves (i.e. having an overly complicated setup, mixing stable with unstable and using too many package-specific settings). Of course sometimes we (developers) screw up and something broken gets shipped to stable (it's harder to avoid that with a rolling release; you can't freeze things and test them for weeks/months), but I don't remember any real show-stoppers. Using a lean desktop environment like XFCE has helped in my case (and it also compiles faster and drags less dependencies).
Finally many improvements have been made. Portage is much smarter as already mentioned, and stabilizations at least for amd64 and x86 are managed in a much more controlled and efficient way.
I'd say give it a try, possibly dual-boot, and let us know what you think. _________________ http://phajdan-jr.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kollin Veteran
Joined: 25 Feb 2006 Posts: 1139 Location: Sofia/Bulgaria
|
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
avx wrote: | Well, stage3 is now the default way to install... |
Come one guys, even in 2005, when i made my first Gentoo install, stage3 was the default method.
Of course there was some stage1 guides lurking in to the forum, but the default was stage3
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-319349-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-0.html _________________ "Dear Enemy: may the Lord hate you and all your kind, may you be turned orange in hue, and may your head fall off at an awkward moment."
"Linux is like a wigwam - no windows, no gates, apache inside..." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zietbukuel l33t
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 Posts: 607
|
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's true, I always installed Gentoo with the stage3 tarball.
Now what I wanna know is what GNOME version are the stable and unstable branches are using atm? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Veldrin Veteran
Joined: 27 Jul 2004 Posts: 1945 Location: Zurich, Switzerland
|
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Now what I wanna know is what GNOME version are the stable and unstable branches are using atm? |
2.32 is stable, and 3.2 is in unstable. (just a brief check on amd64)
from what I've heard, 3.2 might get stabilized, but I may be that you have to wait till 3.4.
V. _________________ read the portage output!
If my answer is too concise, ask for an explanation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cwr Veteran
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 Posts: 1969
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd really just use stable for everything for the _first_ install, and then add
unstable for only the things you really need (or which are significantly broken).
Bits of Gnome post-2.28 are in fact broken, but they don't cause major
problems - I wouldn't go for Gnome 3.x for a while yet, though.
Will |
|
Back to top |
|
|
drwook Veteran
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 1324 Location: London
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been running unstable for everything for years now... in amd64's case I recall (some time back! ) that 'stable' was if anything less so than unstable, and since jumping I don't think I've looked back. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|