Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Arch vs. Gentoo?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lufthanza
n00b
n00b


Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 3
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:27 am    Post subject: Arch vs. Gentoo? Reply with quote

I hear there is a rivalry (maybe one-sided) between gentoo and arch. I looked into Arch to see what it's like and they use 90% precompiled packages!! How can they even compare themselves to Gentoo?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Telexen
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 189

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They can compare because they make claims about Gentoo off the bat to their users that are about 95% false. I don't care if someone wants to use Arch, it just bugs the hell out of me when they go off and compare it as a faster Gentoo.

- Portage is better...it offers MUCH more customization, but doesn't force it on users any more than Arch does
- You're not limited to source with Gentoo like *most* of their users will claim...there are plenty of binary host servers to use if you want binary packages
- Sure it may be optimized for i686 or x86_64, but if you really care about the optimization, you can easily pull more from Gentoo
- They claim their packages are more bleeding edge - how this is possible with portage's masking system is beyond me. All it takes for me to use the same if not newer packages is one line in package.keywords
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AgentMat
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 161

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I use both, and I must admit that arch is "almost" as flexible than gentoo (no use flag but my arch install is actually smaller in size (less headers, ...), is as fast than my optimized but still safe gentoo install (march=prescott -02 -fomit-frame-pointer) and you have a working arch installation (and I mean a complete one, with all the packages I use, DE, applications, OOO, ...) in 20 minutes. Updating it is as simple as typing pacman -Syu and I haven't had any problem with it yet.

I still prefer gentoo because I really like to be able to customize everything, but for my old laptop arch is a bliss.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 1468

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lets not get too rose tinted here - There are loads of things which are either not in portage, or are very behind; gnutls is one example I recently made an overlay for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
d2_racing
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 13046
Location: Ste-Foy,Canada

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah Arch is a binary distro, but you can compile from source like Gentoo with a PKGBUIILD..so some peoples say that Arch is a Gentoo binairy distro.
_________________
Sysadmin of GentooQuébec.org
Wiki
Signature
IRC on Freenode : #gentoo-quebec
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paapaa
l33t
l33t


Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 955
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it is pure fanboyism for any Gentoo user to bash Arch. I have not tried Arch but this is what I think:

1. Both allow great deal of customization and allow you to install only the packages you truly need.
2. Arch can be installed/maintained a lot faster because no compilation is needed. This also makes it probably more stable.
3. Come on, who actually thinks the so called "Gentoo Ricer-Oplizitimatlitions" really matter shit in the actual usage? I think the only exceptions are some very CPU bound scientific software etc. Normal software only need a HD with low seek time...
4. USE flags? Well, to be honest, I don't give a shit if a program takes 855kB of disk space instead of 870KB had I removed some feature from it using USE flags.

Hmm, why DO I use Gentoo in the first place? Mostly because I know it. Not because it is faster, leaner, meaner.
_________________
Paludis, the way packages are meant to be managed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AllenJB
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 1283
Location: Ashford, Kent

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cyker wrote:
Lets not get too rose tinted here - There are loads of things which are either not in portage, or are very behind; gnutls is one example I recently made an overlay for.

Err....
Latest version from GNU TLS home page - 1.6.3
Latest version in portage - 1.6.3
How exactly is that way behind?

Paapaa wrote:
4. USE flags? Well, to be honest, I don't give a shit if a program takes 855kB of disk space instead of 870KB had I removed some feature from it using USE flags.


USE flags control major features as well as minor ones. For example, a binary distro may compile in support for all the sound daemons available, thus requiring you to have 3 or more sound daemons installed at any one time. With Gentoo, you can have a pure ALSA system with OSS compatibiltiy, and need nothing else.
_________________
http://gentoo-wiki.com :: http://lug.org.uk :: http://www.linux.org/groups/ :: User Blogs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AgentMat
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 161

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paapaa wrote:
I think it is pure fanboyism for any Gentoo user to bash Arch. I have not tried Arch but this is what I think:

1. Both allow great deal of customization and allow you to install only the packages you truly need.
2. Arch can be installed/maintained a lot faster because no compilation is needed. This also makes it probably more stable.
3. Come on, who actually thinks the so called "Gentoo Ricer-Oplizitimatlitions" really matter shit in the actual usage? I think the only exceptions are some very CPU bound scientific software etc. Normal software only need a HD with low seek time...
4. USE flags? Well, to be honest, I don't give a shit if a program takes 855kB of disk space instead of 870KB had I removed some feature from it using USE flags.

Hmm, why DO I use Gentoo in the first place? Mostly because I know it. Not because it is faster, leaner, meaner.


I agree on points 1,2,3. I sorta disagree on point 4. USE flags is not just a matter of smaller executables.

let's take an example : you want to install links to browse some pages in console mode. Links itself is really small. But if you can't disable X flag you have to install xorg as a dependancy ! (so if you don't want to install xorg it's quite a problem)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
didymos
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AllenJB wrote:

Latest version from GNU TLS home page - 1.6.3
Latest version in portage - 1.6.3
How exactly is that way behind?


Well, I think Cyker was referring to these:
Quote:

2007-08-16 GnuTLS 1.7.18 released. Last call before release of v2.0!
2007-08-15 GnuTLS 1.7.17 released. Last call before release of v2.0!


and other 1.7.* versions. They aren't stable releases though, so I don't think it's that a big deal that Gentoo doesn't yet have them in the tree; but in fairness, a lot of unstable/devel branch stuff is in the tree.
_________________
Thomas S. Howard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paapaa
l33t
l33t


Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 955
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AgentMat wrote:
let's take an example : you want to install links to browse some pages in console mode. Links itself is really small. But if you can't disable X flag you have to install xorg as a dependancy ! (so if you don't want to install xorg it's quite a problem)


That is completely true - I stand corrected. My main gripe is those small and insignificant USE flags which only make things complex.

And in the case of links, why is X a dependency if it is not mandatory? Or does links have to know at compile time if X will be present or not?
_________________
Paludis, the way packages are meant to be managed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rob1n
l33t
l33t


Joined: 29 Nov 2003
Posts: 714
Location: Cambridge, UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paapaa wrote:
And in the case of links, why is X a dependency if it is not mandatory? Or does links have to know at compile time if X will be present or not?

If you want to link it against the X libraries at compile time then they (and the corresponding header files) need to be installed. Gentoo packages tend to assume that you'll be running apps locally so usually insist on install a full X implementation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
didymos
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paapaa wrote:
And in the case of links, why is X a dependency if it is not mandatory?


Why not? It can make use of X, but it's optional. Perfect demonstration of why USE flags exist in the first place. Activate the flag: X is a dep. De-activate: it's not.
_________________
Thomas S. Howard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paapaa
l33t
l33t


Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 955
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

didymos wrote:
Why not? It can make use of X, but it's optional. Perfect demonstration of why USE flags exist in the first place. Activate the flag: X is a dep. De-activate: it's not.


I'd always think from user's perspective:

When you install your system, you most likely first install X and then links - in this case links should use X. And very rarely user wants to have X installed when installing links on X-less machine - so if X is not present, don't install it ever. So what I'd _like_ to see:

1. X is never a dependency for links.
2. Links uses X if it is present and doesn't use if not. Don't know if this is easy to implement.
3. No USE flags to mess with.
_________________
Paludis, the way packages are meant to be managed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
didymos
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paapaa wrote:

I'd always think from user's perspective:


I'm a user, and I see no problem at all with it.

Quote:

When you install your system, you most likely first install X and then links - in this case links should use X.


Maybe you install X first. Usually, I do links first so I have a browser while I fetch and emerge other stuff . And no, it shouldn't use X unless I want it to. The X flag just happens to be a default setting, and only if you've chosen the desktop profile.

Quote:

And very rarely user wants to have X installed when installing links on X-less machine - so if X is not present, don't install it ever.


Technically, if you start fresh, every machine is X-less, so it should be installed, and often. And if you intend for the machine to remain X-less? Well, that's what USE flags and profiles are for.

Quote:

So what I'd _like_ to see:

1. X is never a dependency for links.


The USE flag is making it configurable. X is a dep if links builds against it. Being automatic doesn't make it any less a dependency. It just makes it uncontrollable.

Quote:

2. Links uses X if it is present and doesn't use if not. Don't know if this is easy to implement.


Actually, there's a decent amount of effort put into avoiding silent dependencies like that. Packages could end up linking to all sorts of crap just because it happens to be available, not because it's actually wanted or needed. That's called dependency-hell and makes package management even more of a bitch than it already is.

Quote:

3. No USE flags to mess with.


OK, so one of Gentoo's main features is one you'd prefer it not have?
_________________
Thomas S. Howard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
omp
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 10 Sep 2005
Posts: 1018
Location: Glendale, California

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

- Both are nice and small.
- Gentoo is definitely more customisable.
- Gentoo will obviously run on more systems, as packages are compiled.
- Arch's core is binary-based, but they allow source packages; look up the AUR.
- Gentoo is completely source-based, but it does allow you to install binary packages.
- Both have great communities. (#archlinux is definitely a fun place to be.)

I haven't really used Arch for much more than an hour or so, so I can't give you too many details about it. If you can not decide, I would recommend trying both out for a short period of time and seeing which you like more. You can't come to the users of one of the two distributions and expect an unbiased answer when it comes to opinions. :)
_________________
meow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4103
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I have Arch on my server simply because I under-clocked the CPU to remove one fan and under-volt the other to keep it quiet and I needed a binary distro (moving house soon so should be able to find a place for the server and put it back to stock & put gentoo on it).

I settled on Arch cause it was the only one I found that supplied the all the drivers for my hardware out of the box (sensor and CPU-clock the main two)
The problem is... its a binary distro and as such you are stuck with what they think is best

Take for example... VIM

Code:

Fluid-Server ~ # pacman -S vim
resolving dependencies... done.
looking for inter-conflicts... done.

Targets: libice-1.0.4-1  xproto-7.0.10-1  libsm-1.0.3-1  libxau-1.0.2-1  libxdmcp-1.0.2-1  libx11-1.1.3-1  libxt-1.0.5-1  vim-7.1.87-1

Total Package Size:   4.89 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] n


VIM is pulling in X !!!! Why does a Command-line editor need X!!!. Thats just stupid, but that is what they want and that is what is available
When queried Arch-dev's response (when stated I don't want X, its a headless terminal) was: "alias vim to vi then"
...



Also their kernel names:
Code:

Fluid-Server ~ # ls /boot
System.map26  grub  kconfig26  kernel26-fallback.img  kernel26.img  vmlinuz26
Fluid-Server ~ # ls /lib/modules/
2.6.22-ARCH


In the last few days there have been a few bumps in kernel's but they don't install each kernel in its own right, they nuke the modules directory.
A few weeks ago they bumped the kernel from 2.6.21-ARCH (whatever minor version...) to 2.6.22-ARCH (again whatever version number) so straight away I lost on a live system the 2.6.21-ARCH modules folder (don't reboot much) and I was just about to play around with iptables for the server but modprobe couldn't load the relevant kernel modules... cause Arch-Developers decided to have stupid non-independent names for their kernels AND nuke the old modules directory (STUPID!!!! esp if yr system for some reason wouldn't boot with the 2.6.22 kernel in the way they configured it...)

The Arch dev's keep going on how pacman is soo much faster then portage for searching and stuff since it is implemented in C (but fail to mention that there are C/C++ based Portage replacements that remove that issue). They also fail to really highlight the fact that the number of ebuilds available is HUGE on Gentoo while the packages in pacman is very limited! There is nothing to say IF archlinux got anywhere near the packages that gentoo provides that pacman would still perform just as well (back when there wern't alot of packages portage performed well, then the Gentoo explosion occured and cracks in the portage implementation were seen by some).

Yes ther is the AUR system (the files are like ebuild files \o/) to compliment their packages, BUT you must check for updates AND That is compile-from-source and for me I was after a strict binary distro (just for the short-term)

At the end of the day it's a binary distribution and as such yr system is pretty much what they think a system should be. IF Arch provides packages that you want it is a good binary distro, otherwise its worse then gentoo and/or any other binary distro

gentoo > * in all honesty and can't wait to get it on my server. Arch is nice (as far as binary distro's go) and its base-install is light, just enough to get the system booting (a bit like SYSTEM in gentoo) and only those libs/apps needed for a prog to work gets installed. This results in a very light /etc directory (something I appreciate alot!)
_________________
A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. Where men have the habit of liberty, the Press will continue to be the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roderick
l33t
l33t


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 908
Location: St. John's, NL CANADA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paapaa wrote:

1. X is never a dependency for links.
2. Links uses X if it is present and doesn't use if not. Don't know if this is easy to implement.
3. No USE flags to mess with.


Can anyone else see why this is so broken and can only lead to disaster?

One day I have links, with X installed. Decided I no longer need X and removed it. Now I want to use links to browse the net... CRASH. It fails as it was built against X and needs to be rebuilt.

Ok, in the case of Gentoo's nice USE flags, X would be unset on links now, as we do not want X, so revdep-rebuild or emerge -avuND world can correctly fix.

If you case of non-deterministic build environment, you would have a completely unstable and unusable system in no time.

Anyone manages a distribrution knows you have to be deterministic when it comes to building a system. That's why when the binary distro's build their packages, the link in certain support and have certain requirements. If a package has X capabilities, on a binary distro, it doesn't necessariliy mean X is supported in that package as they cannot guarantee X is built.

So, we all have deps to live with. Under Gentoo, we allow the user to control the deps via use flags.
_________________
If God were a pickle, I'd still say "no pickle on my burger".
http://roderick-greening.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dusik
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 129
Location: Durham, NC, USA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paapaa wrote:
2. Links uses X if it is present and doesn't use if not. Don't know if this is easy to implement.

Actually, Portage used to work that way until fairly recently. Once you installed X, USE="X" was set as default, when you installed xmms, USE="xmms" was set as default. It caused more problems than it solved. When you installed a packages like X or xmms, you'd get a whole lot of results with emerge -uDvpN world, and chances are you really meant not to include USE="X" for those packages back when you were emerging them the first time, so then you'd need to go set "-X" for all of them.

Either that, or you just didn't know what you were doing, which would mean you're still learning the basics of Gentoo. It does have a learning curve, you do need to learn to manage things yourself, and the tools shouldn't intrude unnecessarily. That's what Gentoo is all about.

Just my $0.02 :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
didymos
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dusik wrote:
Actually, Portage used to work that way until fairly recently.


What's fairly recently?
_________________
Thomas S. Howard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
StifflerStealth
l33t
l33t


Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 955

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used Arch since February this year. I don't have anything bad to say about it. It is a great distro, and they name the 64 bit branch correctly: x64. Gentoo calls it AMD64, which is completely stupid because it's not called that. The x86 architecture was started by Intel, and AMD made a compatible chip to that architecture, so the correct name is x86 for it. Like x64 is the correct name for the 64 bit series, well x86_64 I guess would be more correct, but everyone calls it x64. That and Intel people need to call their processor an AMD64.

Yeah, Arch is binary, but so what? There are a lot of Gentoo packages that don't have USE flags and you really don't get any more speed out of it if you compile it with every optimization you find in the GCC handbook than if it is juct compiled with the standard defaults that both Gentoo and Arch devs use. There are only a couple packages that should not be distributed as binary. One is the kernel and one other is the nVidia drivers ... you can see what packages I mean by those two. ;) With the nVidia drivers, Arch needs to have specially compiled drivers for all teh different kernels and if you make your own kernel you need to make your own nvidia package. In Gentoo it's sane with nVidia, just install it no matter what kernel you have since it compiles to it.

There was only one thing that I could not do right in Arch and that is the networking. It never really worked right since I installed it for the first time. Web pages would take about 9 seconds to load, by that, I mean the browser would stay blank and nothing would appear for 9 seconds and then the page would load. Then just recently I did an update, a big massice update because I haven't done one for two months, and this is where my network became weird. I mean, google.com would not be found, but I could go to other websites. :S Some just worked and others didn't. I booted up with a Gentoo LiveDVD 2007.0 and the network worked perfectly. Weird. It might be a configure error or something.

Honestly, do I think one is better than the other? No I don't. Gentoo and Arch both have very strong features and work very well. However, they both also have weak points as well. Some people criticize Arch for not having a lot of packages, well there are many user repositories and the Arch repos do have a lot. They have all that most people will need. Only the few people that need some obscure program will not find it in the arch repos. I personally think Gentoo has too many programs. A lot of it could be cut out to personal repos that only a handful of people would ever use. There is the saying about the kid in the candy store trying to decide what he wants but there are so many choices he doesn't know what he wants and that applies to Gentoo. Some of Gentoo could be cut off and split and put else where, say in overlays.g.o. Then there wouldn't be so much and portage would be screaming fast.

My rant/2 cents.

EDIT: Oh, Arch didn't have the expat 2.0.x upgrade headache. :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AaronPPC
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 517
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Honestly, do I think one is better than the other? No I don't. Gentoo and Arch both have very strong features and work very well. However, they both also have weak points as well. Some people criticize Arch for not having a lot of packages, well there are many user repositories and the Arch repos do have a lot. They have all that most people will need. Only the few people that need some obscure program will not find it in the arch repos.

Well said. Arch is young and I think that criticism of any young distro on the basis of the quantity of packages is unfair. There was a time when Gentoo lacked packages. In the history of all major distros there has been a time when they didn't have a large number of packages.

Gentoo will remain more flexible both in the configuration options and architectural support, but Arch will not make decisions for you like the distros on the other end of the linux spectrum.

Does arch have multilib support yet?
_________________
--Aaron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
96140
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 1324

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

--

Last edited by 96140 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AaronPPC
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 517
Location: Tucson, AZ

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't argue with that philosophy--I agree with it. It'll be painful for them in the short term though.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. I'll do some more reading.
_________________
--Aaron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david_e
n00b
n00b


Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 51
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have used Arch Linux for about one year until I switched to Gentoo about a month ago... Arch is a great distribution and despite the small size of its repos it had almost everything I used. The only real weakness I found in its repos was the lack of scientific software. For example the full ATLAS-Lapack implementation, while Gentoo is simply the best with that stuff... but that is not really a standard desktop package. :D

The main difference I feel between Gentoo and Arch, apart from the binary vs. source major difference (and the reason of my change), is the approach. Arch is strictly KISS. For example it has not something like the "rc-update" but one has to write down an array of daemons to start at boot time in the exact order he wants them to start (there is no checking for services dependencies). The main (and only AFAIK) package builder script is written in BASH: makepkg and PKGBUILDS are really straight-forward to be written (I used to write some PKGBUILD for the stuff I wanted to install but where not in the repos). All Arch sysadmin is made using only pacman and vim...

Gentoo is not that simple and the use of various tools to administrate the system is really needed (rc-update,etc-conf,revdep-rebuild etc...), but it's much more flexible.

As of up-to-dateness Arch packages are more or less as new as ~ARCH packages are in Gentoo, while the stable branch of Gentoo is far more conservative, and I like this approach as I don't mind waiting for the new gnome a couple of months to have more tested packages.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ion Silverbolt
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 203

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have used both and like both. I prefer Gentoo as I think what it offers is better. More flexability, easier to manage, and more packages. There were at least 5 or 6 programs Arch didn't have that I wanted to install.

Still, if I needed to install something quick, I can't think of a better binary distro than Arch if you like a more custom slimlined install than the other distros provide. And Pacman is top knotch. I think it's better than apt-get but then again, I think apt-get is overrated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 1 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum