On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 02:29:12 +0300, Mike Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm sure others will disagree, but I really think if Gentoo is going to
become a cornerstone in the desktop's replacement (like for thin clients)
then there should probably be an option for a binary 'version' of
portage.
Gentoo is great in so many ways, but having to compile everything is
sometimes just very unnecessary. I mean it's great if you want to teak
your
desktop, but it's just time consuming on a server or a slower embedded
machine, and worst of all there's no benefit for compiling things in
those
areas. The other problem thing that will hold it back, I believe
anyway, is
the constant updating instead of release cycles. This can make
administration very harsh on a system that you can only access remotely.
AFAIK Gentoo is a meta-distribution. That is, its goal is to make it
easier to create other distributions. When somebody installs Gentoo,
compiles packages, and uses the resulting binaries for whatever purpose,
there is a possibility to wrongfully conclude that the Gentoo distribution
is being used by an end user. In fact, it has been used by a distribution
developer to create a customized distribution which in its own turn has
been used by an end user, while the fact that the distro developer and the
end user are the same person is mere coincidence.
Is it still true?
If it is still true, then why should Gentoo, as represented by its
developers, care if there are any servers too busy to compile anything and
too deep in production to allow for testing upgrades?
Indeed, how can Gentoo distribute binary packages when it does not know
your CFLAGS and USE? One answer could be to run a server that takes CFLAGS
and USE returning the resulting binary package. The server can be run by
the Gentoo Foundation if it finds that the idea has business sense, but
this issue is transcendental to Gentoo as a Distribution.
How can Gentoo test if an update brakes something when it does not know
the state of the system before the update? Possibly it could, if the
portage tree had versions and users were severely limited in what
configuration changes they can do. But how is it different from creating
another distribution that is just based on Gentoo like Ubuntu is based on
Debian?
How
could
Gentoo increase its market share if such a potential future is to occur,
or
even better: how could Gentoo Foundation become pivotal in making it
happen
while retaining its values.
Does Gentoo Foundation need greater market share? My impression is that
developers need more good developers, not home users. I do not know what
the Trustees want to achieve, but I guess that influence can be measured
not only in the number of users, but also by the probability that Gentoo
patches are accepted upstream, the number of application developers that
release ebuilds, and the number of distributions that are based on or
using Gentoo (really do not know how to find out if Gentoo is used by
other distribution developers).
As far as typical home users go, they don't really buy into things unless
it's easy to use. Mainly because they are wanting a tool to accomplish a
task. If Gentoo can provide that tool, then getting it into the living
room
wouldn't be a big deal. As it is now, unfortunately, Gentoo is not
designed
to be 'easy to use' in the sense of the average user's experience. Once
it
is, then it will be easier to market. I like the ability to tinker with
Gentoo, but I just wish it wasn't a requirement to use it.
I agree that a pretty good easy to use distribution for typical home users
can be built with Gentoo. I do not care if it is built or not, but if it
will make Gentoo more "healthy" or pleases Gentoo developers or Trustees
in whatever way, I wish it is built. I do not want current Gentoo
developers to spend their valuable time building such a distribution.
--
Andrei Gerasimenko
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
