Dralnu wrote:Um, I think Arch is closer to the "binary heaven" you speak of then Sabayon is, mainly because from what I've heard, they are kind of insane...
Haven't actually tried Arch yet, interesting though, will try out once I got some spare time. Sabayon comes with KDE (I like Gnome much more) and when I tried to install, it just failed right away, so I just dropped it. It might have improved since then, but I wouldn't want a desktop with KDE. Speaking of desktop, I can't imagine there is a better way to get a rocking stable server than with a hardened Gentoo setup! I mean, I got to know ISPs that setup CentOS, leaving things as they are: SELinux enabled with root logins on ssh enabled without iptables configured... and they really think their setup is more secure.... Of course, it's not a matter of the distro, still, knowing about Gentoo gives you more knowledge about the system than knowing about yum etc. So, another point for Gentoo, it keeps you up to date with knowledge, you just have to deal with it.
One big discussion always pulled in is the one about performance and what difference it makes compiling binaries from sources. I indeed experienced higher performance doing so, it's not about insane cflags, I am convinced though that a binary which is compiled and optimized for a certain cpu
does get improvement. Not only performance matters, I also experienced more stability with self-compiled binaries and would say that this really matters, even more than performance does...