[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
Grant Edwards wrote: Whenever I see a write-up of Gentoo, it's describe as a system similar to BSD "ports" where you build packages from source. The main benefit claimed for this approach is that you get better performance because all executables are optimized for exactly the right instruction set. Where did that bit of apocrypha come from, and why is it parroted by so many people? AFAICT, the "performance" benefit due to compiler optimization is practically nil in real-world usage. I get a bit of a performance boost in some corner cases, like encoding videos with x264. But these small stand-alone programs can be compiled from source with custom optimization options easily even in binary distros. So all in all, I agree. Using Gentoo is nowadays not so much a matter of performance optimization but of better control of how to build the packages and the rolling release nature (I'm tired of major updates every 6 months in the majority of binary distros.) I also like the USE flags which let me chose how to build something and get rid of dependencies I don't need. Administrative features like dispatch-conf are also very useful. A downside is that you'll need fast machines to comfortably build packages. I wouldn't use it on my Pentium 3 800Mhz for example. That would take ages to compile system/world with recent GCC versions. I guess GCC was much faster in the 2.x versions back then?
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
Grant Edwards visi.com> writes: > Whenever I see a write-up of Gentoo, it's describe as a system > similar to BSD "ports" where you build packages from source. > The main benefit claimed for this approach is that you get > better performance because all executables are optimized for > exactly the right instruction set. > is practically nil in real-world usage. Not true. You can eliminate many non-essential portions of a compiled program, via use flag and the freedom you get to select software, as opposed to other distros. Smaller executables are usually always faster. One *BIG* difference is when the GPUs on video cards are used as co-processors on systems. ATI and Nv are working on making general purpose "C" languages for programs to take advantage of the power of the GPU. Look for Gentoo to beat the other distros, by the very nature of how it compiles code for everything. It's an approaching revolution, and thats is where AMD is going to slaughter Intel.. Bet on Gentoo, in this area, smoking even Microsoft! Cheers, James
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On 2009-02-04, James wrote: > Grant Edwards visi.com> writes: > >> Whenever I see a write-up of Gentoo, it's described as a system >> similar to BSD "ports" where you build packages from source. >> The main benefit claimed for this approach is that you get >> better performance because all executables are optimized for >> exactly the right instruction set. is practically nil in >> real-world usage. > > Not true. You can eliminate many non-essential portions of a > compiled program, via use flag and the freedom you get to > select software, as opposed to other distros. Smaller > executables are usually always faster. You're right, that's another big advantage: you can control what features get included/enabled in an application. Leaving out features you don't use makes a big difference in many applications load/startup times and library dependancies. For example, leaving out the Gnome and/or KDE support in some apps makes a pretty big difference. If you only use mutt with "mbox" formatted mailboxes, you can leave out imap, ssl, pop, and maildir support. But that wasn't what I was talking about, and AFAICT that's not what reviewers are talking about when they talk about adjusting compiler flags to optimize performance. They seem to be talking about building for Athlon instead of P4 (or vice-versa). Perhaps I've always completely misunderstood the articles I've read, and they were indeed talking about USE flags that control options passed to "configure" and not about things like gcc's -march and -O options. > One *BIG* difference is when the GPUs on video cards are used > as co-processors on systems. ATI and Nv are working on making > general purpose "C" languages for programs to take advantage > of the power of the GPU. Look for Gentoo to beat the other > distros, by the very nature of how it compiles code for > everything. That would indeed be interesting. -- Grant
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Sebastián Magrí wrote: Also, Gentoo is a great school. If you want to learn how a Linux system works, and really want to learn about Unix systems, then Gentoo is the best for you. I don't get that argument. I didn't learn how Linux or Unix works with Gentoo. I didn't even find my prior knowledge of Unix and Linux of much use either. Typing "emerge package" and "dispatch-conf" doesn't offer me much knowledge. It's as simple as Debian in this regard. If I wanted a "learn Unix" distro, I would be using Slackware :P
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On 2009-02-04, Paul Hartman wrote: > This thread is not complete without the obligatory link: > > http://funroll-loops.info/ Brilliant! I really like this one: To me, an extra 0.1% performance increase, even if I am only imagining it to be faster, is certainly worth one day a week recompiling all of the latest packages from source code. Even if I do occasionally get my CFLAGS in a muddle! And this one pretty much echos my feelings: Real Gentoo users understand, it's not about OPTIMILAZIATIONS, it's about USE flags. Apparently I'm one of the "people who think Gentoo rules because they can't use RPM properly". ;) -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! This PORCUPINE knows at his ZIPCODE ... And he has visi.com"VISA"!!
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-04, Jes?s Guerrero wrote: > El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 8:39, Alan McKinnon escribi?: >> On Wednesday 04 February 2009 09:27:31 Christopher Walters wrote: >> >> I personally don't view Gentoo as a "distro" in the traditional sense. To >> me, it's a build system, an app - portage or paludis - and the devs that >> make cool input files for that app. Building a distro from scratch for >> embedded devices is a painful process if you don't have an automated build >> system. It's not quite a trivial exercise, but portage does make it a >> whole lot easier. > > That's mostly what I call a "metadistro". A set of tools and > instructions to build a proper distro that suits you, and maintain > it. Except that what you build and maintain isn't a "distro", it's a single machine. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Are you still an at ALCOHOLIC? visi.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
Paul Hartman gmail.com> writes: > >> One *BIG* difference is when the GPUs on video cards are used > >> as co-processors on systems. ATI and Nv are working on making > >> general purpose "C" languages for programs to take advantage > >> of the power of the GPU. Look for Gentoo to beat the other > >> distros, by the very nature of how it compiles code for > >> everything. > http://funroll-loops.info/ According to your logic, Nvidia and ATI(AMD) are ricers? http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cg_toolkit.html http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15886 Or maybe the folks at CMU are ricers? http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cil/v-source.html Surely these folks at StonyBrook are ricers? http://www.ecsl.cs.sunysb.edu/fir/ Not to mention these folks at Stanford, http://novembertech.blogspot.com/2006/10/stanford-atis-gpu-can-calculate-much.html And all of these scientists are ricers? http://gpgpu.org/ I count myself proud to be among this company of "ricers" as you put it.. James
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-04, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:25:49 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > >> Except that what you build and maintain isn't a "distro", it's >> a single machine. > > Why? Do you distribute what you're building as a something for others to use to install Linux? I don't, and none of the other Gentoo users I know do. They're all building and maintaining installations on individual machines. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! My life is a patio at of fun! visi.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On 2009-02-04, James wrote: > Paul Hartman gmail.com> writes: > > > >> >> One *BIG* difference is when the GPUs on video cards are used >> >> as co-processors on systems. ATI and Nv are working on making >> >> general purpose "C" languages for programs to take advantage >> >> of the power of the GPU. Look for Gentoo to beat the other >> >> distros, by the very nature of how it compiles code for >> >> everything. > > >> http://funroll-loops.info/ > > > According to your logic, Nvidia and ATI(AMD) are ricers? > > > http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cg_toolkit.html > http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15886 > > Or maybe the folks at CMU are ricers? > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cil/v-source.html > > Surely these folks at StonyBrook are ricers? > http://www.ecsl.cs.sunysb.edu/fir/ > > Not to mention these folks at Stanford, > http://novembertech.blogspot.com/2006/10/stanford-atis-gpu-can-calculate-much.html > > > And all of these scientists are ricers? > http://gpgpu.org/ > > > I count myself proud to be among this company > of "ricers" as you put it.. And some of us count ourselves proud to be amongh the company of people who have a sense of humor. ;) -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! This PIZZA symbolizes at my COMPLETE EMOTIONAL visi.comRECOVERY!!
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Jesús Guerrero wrote: [...] A big big advantage is that besides the huge number of packages that we have, we also have dozens of overlays. [...] and some of them are really bug. QFT ;)
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
Hazen Valliant-Saunders gmail.com> writes: > No they would never be useful for anything other then rendering > bouncing bobbies! ;) Bouncing bobbies? Sound like a fraternity game for new recruits... So Searching and Sorting, are documented to orders of magnitude faster on GPU (SIMD) machines. Are those 'bouncing bobbies' algorithms that form much of our software foundation? common, How could you look at video or play video games without the GPU. It's opening up and going mainstream. Gentoo is naturally positioned to be the distro of choice. Watch, wait and learn. James
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Jesús Guerrero wrote: El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 14:19, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: Sebastián Magrà wrote: Also, Gentoo is a great school. If you want to learn how a Linux system works, and really want to learn about Unix systems, then Gentoo is the best for you. I don't get that argument. I didn't learn how Linux or Unix works with Gentoo. I didn't even find my prior knowledge of Unix and Linux of much use either. Typing "emerge package" and "dispatch-conf" doesn't offer me much knowledge. It's as simple as Debian in this regard. If I wanted a "learn Unix" distro, I would be using Slackware :P Gentoo forces you to use linux in the sense that you need to do all the work by yourself to install it. What you describe is just the regular update/install process, which is simple enough as you said. It was very easy for me. The first I came in tough with Gentoo was with the 2007 DVD. I booted, double clicked the installer icon, clicked "next" a few times with checking some tickboxes too, and then emerged -e system and world and the packages I need. After that I was asking myself where the difficulty lies many people refer to when it comes to installing Gentoo. Seriously, I didn't learn anything. Maybe CLFAGS and USE flags.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Sebastián Magrí wrote: The installation experience with the traditional method must be mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is deprecated... That's not good. It hurts Gentoo's popularity if it's not easy to install. But since there are not enough devs left for the GUI installer, not much that can be done. Gentoo isn't unsuitable for a GUI installer. It's stage 3, after all.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Jesús Guerrero wrote: El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 7:07, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: Sebastián Magrà wrote: The installation experience with the traditional method must be mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is deprecated... That's not good. It hurts Gentoo's popularity if it's not easy to install. But since there are not enough devs left for the GUI installer, not much that can be done. Gentoo isn't unsuitable for a GUI installer. It's stage 3, after all. That's definitely good. It never worked and newbies came to Gentoo thinking that it as some kind of uberfaster ubuntu thing that could be installed by just clicking next. Than I'll rephrase my statement: Gentoo would need a non-bugged GUI installer ;) Then they ran away yelling how bad this gentoo crap is that doesn't work at all unless you do a lot of black magic on the command line! "Because I want full control over my system, but only clicking next. The OS should read my mind!" I don't think anyone should care about that. Installation and maintenance are two different things. A good GUI installer would pretty much allow you to do the same things as the CLI installer. It's just a different interface. And besides, installation is much more "standardized" than actual maintenance. There's no reason why a GUI installer can't do the same things as the CLI one. You'll just have GUI widgets instead of text-mode characters, maybe with a lot of automation and safe defaults thrown in. Personally, even though I'm an old fart (I installed Slackware when it first came out, used it for years), I prefer GUI installers. Installation is *boring*. I need to do the steps manually even though they're pretty much the same every time you install. I'm OK with CLI maintenance. But for the installer I really prefer GUI. If we clear that from the beginning so everyone knows what to expect from gentoo AND WHAT GENTOO EXPECTS FROM YOU then that problem is gone. You don't need to make such a statement through the installer. There are other, more suitable places for this. Like in the docs, website, or a notice in the... installer :) Also, Gentoo isn't really black magic. There's no good reason why emerge for example isn't GUI based. Or revdep-rebuild. Or layman. Or... I hope you get the point ;) Yes, those things need a lot of work and there are no people willing to do the task. But I'm just trying to make a point here: the way you do maintenance in Gentoo isn't based on the traditional Unix tools. That means, you could have GUIs for all of them. But I'm drifting. The installer is pretty much separated from all this. After all, "all" it needs to do is set up stage3 and tweak the settings. Some would call this a nazi attidute of mine, I would say that you can't drive an f-17 unless you are willing to prepare yourself to do so before. It's called realism. You need to learn before you can do. Even a child can understand that. Yes, but learning is made a lot easier through a GUI interface. Not all GUIs are created equal. You can have a simple "click next" wizard (not suitable for learning) or a collection of GUI tools that do different things but offer many options without actually obfuscating what's going on. A GUI for emerge for example, could simply have a line at the bottom where the actual command is shown that would be executed with the chosen option. The user knows here that he can simply type that command himself. That's different to tools like openSUSE's YaST for example, where you have no clue how it actually does what it does. GUIs for the simple things is good. Maybe CLI for the hairy stuff. Someone would argue that's too hard to start, but that's why we have excellent docs, mailing lists, forums and irc, with a very high traffic and lots of friendly people giving away their time for free to help you. So, whomever can't find a way is either too lazy or too shy to talk to the people around. Gentoo was never meant to win a popularity price. I prefer to stay without nothing at all that to have the lot of problems that the installer has been creating during 3 years of existence. It harmed the gentoo popularity (if you like that argument) much more than the lack of a installer. But popularity is good for the project. It ensures that it stays healthy, supported and can draw in new devs. If popularity gows down, devs leave, more bugs show up that don't get fixed, etc. Besides that, there's no easy way that you will understand Gentoo if you are not going to read the handbook. And even then, it takes time to become familiar with the way that USE flags truly work (and I mean to understand it, and not just do -qt -kde +gnome +gtk blindly that most users do (or the other way around) without even knowing what's behind the scene and how USE flags and ebuilds relate to each other. Now this is actually a pro-GUI argument. Why? In a GUI interface, you c
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Alan McKinnon wrote: On Thursday 05 February 2009 09:28:50 Jesús Guerrero wrote: There are enough easy-to-use distros. Let us, "masochists", live in peace. We love pain, why do people care so much about what we do with our privacy? :P [it's a joke, in case anyone didn't notice] There have been several attempts to make a decent installer. They all failed miserably and got abandoned. Why? Because to tell the truth, no one has an authentic interest in the matter. The simple answer is most probably the right one. To add to you (excellent) arguments: There is no GUI admin tool for gentoo. You drive this puppy on the command line with tools like emerge, equery, genlop, layman and q. That's how it works, we are all comfortable with this, and this is good. We are all comfortable with this because the people who are not comfortable left. I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a different manner to the way the thing will be used. Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Sebastián Magrí wrote: The installation experience with the traditional method must be mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is deprecated... That's not good. It hurts Gentoo's popularity if it's not easy to install. But since there are not enough devs left for the GUI installer, not much that can be done. Gentoo isn't unsuitable for a GUI installer. It's stage 3, after all. gentoo had its highest popularity when there were no gui installer (and no stable tree). This kept the stupid ' I don't want to read docs' crowd away. That's a contradicting statement. How was the popularity at highest if it kept a crowd away?
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
Steven Lembark wrote: A downside is that you'll need fast machines to comfortably build packages. I wouldn't use it on my Pentium 3 800Mhz for example. That would take ages to compile system/world with recent GCC versions. I guess GCC was much faster in the 2.x versions back then? How painful is it, really, to run the job when you are asleep or away from the machine? Cron the update or use "at" to get the changes you want when you are away from the console. Well, to answer you question, it is very painful.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:. I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a different manner to the way the thing will be used. Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better. wrong. The installation needs a certain difficulty to keep idiots away. Nobody needs idiots (except maybe ubuntu). That is insulting. My mother uses Ubuntu. Thanks for calling her an idiot. Obviously if someone wants to use his computer in order to get something done without doing a Ph.D on Portage and /etc first, then that person is an idiot. Great thinking. Fortunately, there are people (like the Ubuntu folks) who don't think that way and are trying to make Linux more popular to people who need a computer to do tasks that are not related to the computer itself.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-05, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:13:54 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> > I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in >> > a different manner to the way the thing will be used. >> >> Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better. > > There is an automated installer in development. It is script based, so > you avoid the boredom factor without shielding people from the fact that > they will need to use the terminal and text files once it is installed. > > http://agaffney.org/quickstart.php That sounds like something I wished I had several times in the past few weeks. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Do you guys know we at just passed thru a BLACK visi.comHOLE in space?
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-05, Dirk Uys wrote: > The type of user I don't like is the ignorant type. Innocent > users are ok, they don't know, but ignorant users choose not > to know. Surely there are things you use without knowing how they work. You probably use a phone, but do you _really_ know how the cellular system works? How about the landline phone system? The water supply system? Sewage treatment? Do you know how a refinery works? A chemical plant? How about the CPU in your computer. Do you actually know how it works? > And so often these ignorant users demand that they should be > able to do anything on a computer. If you wish to benefit from > using computers, you should be prepared to spend some time to > get to know how the stuff works. The more you want to do, the > more you need to know. Not: "I want amarok without mysql and > xyz plugin running all silky and smooth, but don't give me any > command line run-arounds or lots of talk about USE flags". We're all ignorant about 99% of the things we use. You just happened to choose a different 1% than some other people. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I am covered with at pure vegetable oil and I am visi.comwriting a best seller!
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On 2009-02-05, Steven Lembark wrote: > >> A downside is that you'll need fast machines to comfortably build >> packages. I wouldn't use it on my Pentium 3 800Mhz for example. That >> would take ages to compile system/world with recent GCC versions. I >> guess GCC was much faster in the 2.x versions back then? > > How painful is it, really, to run the job when you > are asleep or away from the machine? Cron the update > or use "at" to get the changes you want when you are > away from the console. If you can spend a week installing Gentoo, it's not a problem. If you need to have a machine up and running in an hour, it's a problem. Building OOo on the last install I did took well over 30 hours. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! HOORAY, Ronald!! at Now YOU can marry LINDA visi.comRONSTADT too!!
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
Stroller wrote:
[...]
To be honest, I am surprised this notion of "optimised executables" has
stuck around long enough that you've heard it, but it's an old joke to
many of us who were around in 2004.
But AFAIK, it *was* faster because Gentoo used the egcs fork of GCC
which did produce faster code. This was probably the origin of the
"Gentoo performance" thingy. It was true. Wikipedia also notes this,
and further states that the name "Gentoo" was chosen (previously it was
"Enoch") because of this speed difference between Gentoo and other
Distros ("the Gentoo species is the fastest swimming penguin").
Soon after though, egcs merged back to gcc and all other distros became
just as fast. So "it was good while it lasted". But this "Gentoo
performance" cliché seems to stick around till today.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: gentoo's installer is EASY if you just read the docs. I'd rather be installing and waiting for the installer to tell me what to do rather than go read docs somewhere else :P
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: gentoo's installer is EASY if you just read the docs. I'd rather be installing and waiting for the installer to tell me what to do rather than go read docs somewhere else :P and when the nice installer fucks up, you are screwed. You're screwed anyway if you can't use the CLI installer correctly. Reading the docs is fine, but they're written for geeks, not normal people. Normal people don't have a clue what the docs are talking about :)
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Saphirus Sage wrote: Nikos Chantziaras wrote: You're screwed anyway if you can't use the CLI installer correctly. Reading the docs is fine, but they're written for geeks, not normal people. Normal people don't have a clue what the docs are talking about :) It seems to me that not to many "normal people" would use Gentoo anyway. By and large, we're probably geeks...I mean, c'mon, this is a mailing list for users of a distro of linux. Your normal "My computer gets myspace" group isn't exactly our audience. It seems Sabayon Linux did quite some good work here. And it's still Gentoo. Too bad they broke quite stuff, but the idea is nice: A Gentoo that isn't only for geeks and gurus.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Jesús Guerrero wrote: It's not "The community vs. you", you are part of the community since the very moment you start using linux. Most people don't want to be some part of some weird community. They just want to use a computer. If they were looking for friends, they might try the local sports club. Linux has reached a point where it tries to appeal to users. You don't ask them anymore to go fix the problems. You have to fix them yourself. I believe any distro that doesn't adopt a development model where user support and QA are important, is going to die at some point. Linux doesn't seem to have gathered new users since ages; 2003 maybe? Or 2004? No visible growth since then. With no new users, and most users converting to Ubuntu and openSUSE, there's simply not enough users left to keep other distros alive.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Joshua D Doll wrote: I think the Handbook and other Official gentoo docs are well and written. I feel they are so well written and informative that a new user could read and follow what the doc is trying to convey. I'll just quote Linux Hater here: "Write tons of documentation on complicated procedures to make things work, instead of making things work." That the best damn thing I ever read about telling users to RTFM.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-06, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Friday 06 February 2009 15:29:21 Neil Bothwick wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:58:56 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> > > I prefer man. Even huge manpages. You can easily search them and if >> > > you don't know what you are looking for you can glanze them over >> > > quickly. >> > >> > The kde ioslave for info makes this somewhat tolerable. At least you >> > move around in a webpage-like environment that feels familiar. >> >> Which begs the question, why not use HTML? It can be read on just about >> anything, searched and either split into chapters or presented as a single >> page. > > The cynic in me says that it's because Tim Berners-Lee > invented HTML, not Richard M Stallman. Info has been around a lot longer than HTML, but I think you're largely correct. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! LBJ, LBJ, how many at JOKES did you tell today??! visi.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-06, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:17:46 +0100 (CET), Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> Well, in that sense, ALL the man pages of for anything that's more >> complext than ls will be horrible. There's no way to can shorten >> it unless you take features off from bash. It's a very powerful >> shell. >> >> Same goes for my other example: fvwm. > > And for mplayer/mencoder. The problem is that man pages are > single pages and therefore only suitable for fairly short > documents. The alternative, as used by zsh, is to split the > information into several man pages, then you never know which > one to look at. procmail is a good example of how to do this > badly, with procmailrc's documentation being split across > three man pages. > > That's why info is a much better format for complex or > multipurpose programs. That's one opinion, but I think info very difficult to use. I much prefer a single page. Stuff in info is always broken up into pieces that are way too small. Whatever organization there is supposed to be in info is impossible to perceive while you're looking at a page, and it's way to easy to end up in documentation for something completely unrelated. > You'd expect to find a list of contents, chapters and an index > in a printed reference book, electronic documentation should > be no different. Perhaps, but I think info is an awful implementation. A single large man page is much better, and a single large html page with links in it is far, far, better. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! HELLO, everybody, at I'm a HUMAN!! visi.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-06, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > except that info is horrible. I hate info. If you don't know > exactly what you are looking for, you are lost. And you can > never sure in which part they hid the information you are > looking for. Oh - and the navigation? A nightmare. Exaclty! > I prefer man. Even huge manpages. Yes! > You can easily search them and if you don't know what you are > looking for you can glanze them over quickly. > > I hate info. I'm glad I'm not the only one. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Well, O.K. at I'll compromise with my visi.comprinciples because of EXISTENTIAL DESPAIR!
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-06, Saphirus Sage wrote: Which begs the question, why not use HTML? It can be read on just about anything, searched and either split into chapters or presented as a single page. >>> >>> The cynic in me says that it's because Tim Berners-Lee >>> invented HTML, not Richard M Stallman. >> >> Info has been around a lot longer than HTML, but I think you're >> largely correct. > > I'd wager to think that if we did use HTML, we'd simply argue > about the order of it's presentation or use of bold and > underlines. And let's not forget Flashing Text! (shudder). -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... I see TOILET at SEATS ... visi.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-06, Saphirus Sage wrote: >>> I'd wager to think that if we did use HTML, we'd simply argue >>> about the order of it's presentation or use of bold and >>> underlines. >>> >> >> And let's not forget Flashing Text! (shudder). >> >> > Oh no, it's 1999's geocities all over again! Yeah, I'd rather not see > man or info come to that...well, at least man. If the HTML was automatically generated from some somewhat restricted source format (docbook, texinfo, nroff, etc.) then we could probably avoid the worst of the atrocities. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I demand IMPUNITY! at visi.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Grant Edwards writes: >> The cynic in me says that it's because Tim Berners-Lee >> invented HTML, not Richard M Stallman. > > Info has been around a lot longer than HTML, but I think you're > largely correct. There is entirely to much made of RMS. I don't know him personally and just a tiny bit from direct correspondence (beginning on an emacs.help list) on several occasions. I found Richard to be responsive and helpful. He cuts right to the chase and lays out the problem. On the other hand, I'm no emacs developer or even a very skilled user. But yrs of emacs use has taught me that the tools RMS has participated in are serious tools and well developed always heavy on documentation. Emacs has very good documentation in a variety of places and formats. But getting to the point about `info'. The texinfo format is an excellent one for handling text only documentation. The hyperlinking makes it easy to jump around in large documents. I recommend that people use emacs to read `info'. They work really well together and the vast arsenal of search and other tools in emacs are brought to bare in `info' reading. Once you used emacs for `info' reading the standalone `Info' reader will seem pretty primitive. One of the major advantages of `info' is that things like the bash manual are indexed allowing an `i' index search for most things. Inside emacs you press `C-h i' to get to the base list of `info' documentation... then press: `m' (which prompts you for a menu item), type in `bash ' (to get to the bash table of contents) (replace bash with NAME as needed, of course). Once inside the bash documentation you have a variety of tools at your disposal including emacs bookmarks. The `i' index search that finds things in the index and takes you to the concomitant sections is accompanied by the `s' search which searches the entire bash document for a regex. As well as the always useful `incremental search' for searching individual pages. Once you've mastered the navigation commands it is (almost) a pleasure to read documentation in `info' using emacs. Any subject referred to in the documentation is usually hyperlinked so you can review it instantly... then press `l' to return to the main documentation (or last place you were reading) There is also a whole mode for editing `info' documents... probably not so useful for reading up on a command but can be really helpful if you want to leave your own notes in there somewhere. Possibly the examples you've figured out.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Volker Armin Hemmann writes: > and what do I, if I need to read info to be able to install emacs to read > info? You appear to be taking a potshot, not really adding to the discussion. I know you are not incapable of installing emacs and we both know you can read info without it quite well. So I'm left wondering why you add this combative post. People are discussing HTML, which of course needs some reader... I'm pointing out a more advanced way to use info that may appeal to some. And of course you can install emacs... for lots of reasons as I do. Its an excellent editor in console or X. Reading info with it is just one more of its excellent capabilities.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Dirk Heinrichs writes: > Am Freitag, 6. Februar 2009 22:27:12 schrieb Sebastian Günther: > >> Did you ever read anything the Windows Installer > > What the heck is a "Windows Installer"? > > *SCNR* > Thirty five reboots and several hours
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Volker Armin Hemmann writes: > On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote: >> Volker Armin Hemmann writes: >> > and what do I, if I need to read info to be able to install emacs to read >> > info? >> >> You appear to be taking a potshot, not really adding to the >> discussion. >> >> I know you are not incapable of installing emacs and we both know you >> can read info without it quite well. So I'm left wondering why you >> add this combative post. > > easy - what if you need info to get networking working - and without > networking you can not download emacs? Once more: users can read info with the stand alone info reader just fine. (No need to install anything) Users who want a more advanced way to read info may consider using emacs. It is worth installing for many other reasons as well. Similar to using `less' for man pages instead of the default `more'. At least on many OS's Emacs is not for when you don't yet have a network. Then its not an option. Why do you continue to repeat that? > man is easy to read. Always. Info? Not. I respect your experience, talent and especially many contributions to this list. But, you present your opinions as if they are acts of nature. Its good to remember its only your opinion not a law of physics or some other indisputable fact. Further more its actually wrong too. The bash manual is not easier to read in `man' as opposed to `info'. Unless you don't know how to use info. If you do then an indexed document with a table of contents, is going to be `easier', in the sense that you will be able to navigate it better and pull in relevant comments on related matters easily. Therefore you will learn more, quicker. If all you need is a quick search for something minor you've forgotten then man will be the way to go. You will already have a good idea what to search for. >> People are discussing HTML, which of course needs some reader... I'm >> pointing out a more advanced way to use info that may appeal to some. > > less can do html just fine. None the less, a second application is required. If I recall correctly less is not part of a stage[23] install and therefore must be installed. But even if I'm wrong, and it is, and you don't have to install something, we aren't necessarily talking here about the barest bone case. You keep raising that but I've seen no one argue against man in that event. At least not me. Because man is available without a network does not mean it is always better or that one should use it exclusively with or without a network. In a `no network' situation: Once I've tried `man' and still have trouble, I use the stand alone info reader.. In other words, man is my first choice. I agree that for many things man can't be beat, but for something like the bash documentation info is vastly superior. And if you have the opportunity to use emacs to read the info documents.. that's all the better. [...] > I used xemacs in the past - which is even better. But today kate and nano > replaced it for me. Once again your opinion is presented as hard fact. My opinion is that Xemacs is NOT better and in fact is inferior in many ways, but that is for another thread... and probably not worth the effort anyway since that argument will take on religious overtones very quickly.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Sebastian Günther wrote: * Nikos Chantziaras (rea...@arcor.de) [05.02.09 09:12]: Than I'll rephrase my statement: Gentoo would need a non-bugged GUI installer ;) No, Gentoo needs no GUI or CLI installer. It is very good, that if you install Gentoo for the first time, you must actually read the documentation, because it introduces you in the whole managing Gentoo stuff. What is important in the Handbook are not the commandline examples, but the surrunding text. Also you cannot just click away any defaults: Gentoo is about choise and YOU have to make the choices even when you are just installing. I'm not gonna duplicate what I wrote. Read it again :P
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:53:20 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: I'm not gonna duplicate what I wrote. Read it again :P Repeating something does not increase its validity. That's why I didn't repeat it in the first place maybe? You stated that Gentoo needs a GUI installer. The number of people using it without one shows that is simply not true. Hmm. OK, how 'bout this: Someone says that Linux is general is needed. The number of people using their computers without it shows that is simply not true.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Jesús Guerrero writes: > El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 22:00, Harry Putnam escribió: >> Grant Edwards writes: >> >> The cynic in me says that it's because Tim Berners-Lee invented HTML, not Richard M Stallman. >>> >>> Info has been around a lot longer than HTML, but I think you're >>> largely correct. >> > [...] >> I recommend that people use emacs to read `info'. They work really well >> together and the vast arsenal of search and other tools in emacs are >> brought to bare in `info' reading. Once you used emacs for `info' reading >> the standalone `Info' reader will seem pretty primitive. > > Well, I'd first need to use info to use emacs to use info, > you get the point :p Ahh no. You'd first need to pay attention to the thread. Then if you want to learn about emacs you might consider using emacs to learn about emacs rather than info. Emacs is thoroughly documented on board. So wrong on both counts. ; ) > A manual system should be simple enough that a newbie can > start to use it without knowing anything about emacs. Hell, > even less is a hard thing to use on man pages for a newcomer, > let alone emacs or vi. Your first requirement is not true of info OR THE MANUAL SYSTSEM. ... again... pay attention. Newbies are saying the manual system is basically worthless to them. Far as I know... no one but newbies think the manuals are written for newbies. They are not. Neither is the info system. But it does have considerably more detail in some manuals and usually a hypertexted index and tables of contents. That alone (in many cases) renders it more usable. That may be why documentary books are usually not just a flat sheet 27 feet long with headings and text with cryptic notations.. They usually have some sensible format for digesting the information. Like indexes and tables of contents. > Once you are proficient with emacs, then info vs. man is > probably a non-issue for you anyway, so I don't get your > point there. Please... if you paid attention you'd know that the emacs thing was offered as an advanced method of using info. Note the keyword "advanced". That already precludes newbies. Further, how is that being proficient in emacs renders man or info a non-issue? Once more for those who are unwilling to read the thread before posting. The first line of inquiry is the man pages.. If that is not satisfactory I move to info for possibly a fuller treatment. Some man pages even direct the user to info for a fuller treatment. If I want to get fancy, like reading the bash documentation... I'd break out emacs for an easier learning experience. There should be no posts beyond this point proclaiming how tuff it is to use emacs if you have no network on a fresh install... Or having to suffer through learning info to learn emacs to ah but who knows.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Volker Armin Hemmann writes: > where? Because of the 'xemacs is even better'? Well, you are stating all the > time that info is perfect for big things like bash - and then you are > critizing me for stating unsupportable hard facts? Pretty ironic, don't you > think? Hehe... maybe so. You'll note though that my argument is based on learning `info'... and I did bring in some hard facts. Info has indexes and tables of contents, it really isn't so terribly hard as you portray. Apparently you got disgusted after a few quick attempts...(I did too at first) and didn't bother to rtfm at `info info'. Where the first page has these hyperlinks you find so difficult to navigate. * Help-Small-Screen:: Starting Info on a Small Screen. * Help::How to use Info. * Help-P:: Returning to the Previous node. * Help-^L:: The Space, DEL, B and ^L commands. * Help-Inv::Invisible text in Emacs Info. * Help-M:: Menus. * Help-Xref:: Following cross-references. * Help-Int::Some intermediate Info commands. * Help-Q:: Quitting Info.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Jesús Guerrero writes: >> There should be no posts beyond this point proclaiming how tuff it is >> to use emacs if you have no network on a fresh install... Or having to >> suffer through learning info to learn emacs to ah but who knows. > > So you word is definitive and infallible. Where did that come from? I'm saying the mumbo jumbo about some kind of catch22 with emacs and info is non-sense. The item has been cleared up. Using emacs to read info was only proposed as an advanced way to read info. That's all nothing more.
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2009-02-08, Graham Murray wrote: > Neil Bothwick writes: > >> Everyone's more or less agreeing here, that the info format is >> useful but the standard info reader sucks. Once you start >> reading info pages in a decent reader, like Konqueror, they >> are useful for more complex documents. Although I'd still >> prefer HTML, mainly because of the wide choice of readers >> available. > > Yet much (I would even suggest most) HTML documentation does > not take much advantage of the HTML format. It is rare for it > to contain many hyperlinks within the text. Often it is > formatted more like a book with each page just having > previous, next, up and contents links at top and/or bottom > with few, if any, hyperlinks in the text. And that format completely sucks for much the same reason that info sucks. I hate it when a large HTML document is broken up into chunks 1-2 paragraphs long with prev/next buttons. Such documents are impossible to search either by eye or using a browser's search feature. Unfortunately, when HTML is generated from info or docbook formats, the default seems to be to generated a completely factured, disconnected heap if small HTML pages. The Python documentation is like that. The Gentoo docs are a pretty decent example of how to do HTML documentation right. -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2009-02-04, James wrote: >> Grant Edwards visi.com> writes: >> >>> Whenever I see a write-up of Gentoo, it's described as a system >>> similar to BSD "ports" where you build packages from source. >>> The main benefit claimed for this approach is that you get >>> better performance because all executables are optimized for >>> exactly the right instruction set. is practically nil in >>> real-world usage. >> >> Not true. You can eliminate many non-essential portions of a >> compiled program, via use flag and the freedom you get to >> select software, as opposed to other distros. Smaller >> executables are usually always faster. > > You're right, that's another big advantage: you can control > what features get included/enabled in an application. Leaving > out features you don't use makes a big difference in many > applications load/startup times and library dependancies. For > example, leaving out the Gnome and/or KDE support in some apps > makes a pretty big difference. If you only use mutt with > "mbox" formatted mailboxes, you can leave out imap, ssl, pop, > and maildir support. > > But that wasn't what I was talking about, and AFAICT that's not > what reviewers are talking about when they talk about adjusting > compiler flags to optimize performance. They seem to be talking > about building for Athlon instead of P4 (or vice-versa). > Perhaps I've always completely misunderstood the articles I've > read, and they were indeed talking about USE flags that control > options passed to "configure" and not about things like gcc's > -march and -O options. > >> One *BIG* difference is when the GPUs on video cards are used >> as co-processors on systems. ATI and Nv are working on making >> general purpose "C" languages for programs to take advantage >> of the power of the GPU. Look for Gentoo to beat the other >> distros, by the very nature of how it compiles code for >> everything. > > That would indeed be interesting. This thread is not complete without the obligatory link: http://funroll-loops.info/ :)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wednesday 04 February 2009 01:48:34 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > So all in all, I agree. Using Gentoo is nowadays not so much a matter > of performance optimization but of better control of how to build the > packages and the rolling release nature (I'm tired of major updates > every 6 months in the majority of binary distros.) I also like the USE > flags which let me chose how to build something and get rid of > dependencies I don't need. Administrative features like dispatch-conf > are also very useful. This is the main benefit of Gentoo for me. I have to use SuSE or RHEL at work for the database machines - Sybase will not support any other other distro - and the 1G+ base install from those distros drive me nuts. Contrast that with the DNS caches which run FreeBSD, the difference is about a factor of 5 if not more. I also get sick and tired of installing postfix on a database machine purely to send nagios alerts, and watching the distro "helpfully" want to pull in PostgreSQL, MySQL, LDAP, SASL, Courier and some fancy MTA-switcher thingy. All because the maintainer enables those features and now I gotta have them. No thanks. Rather give me USE so I say what goes on the box. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 01:48:34 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> So all in all, I agree. Using Gentoo is nowadays not so much a matter >> of performance optimization but of better control of how to build the > I also get sick and tired of installing postfix on a database machine purely > to send nagios alerts, and watching the distro "helpfully" want to pull in > PostgreSQL, MySQL, LDAP, SASL, Courier and some fancy MTA-switcher thingy. > All because the maintainer enables those features and now I gotta have them. > > No thanks. Rather give me USE so I say what goes on the box. I'd have to agree. The main advantage of Gentoo over binary distributions is that it is a great deal more configurable than any of the major binary distributions. *I* choose, through USE flags, what I want to be pulled in, compiled and merged. I have tried Debian, *BSD, Ubuntu, SuSE, RedHat, Fedora Core, and others. I have found them to be bloated and slower, compared to Gentoo (any time you have to pull in over 500 binary packages to install a single package, there is definite bloat). I will mention that the performance optimizations for Gentoo mainly lie in the kernel configuration (the binary distributions compile just about everything you can imagine into their kernels), and in fine tuning the USE flags, so you you don't pull in anything you neither want nor need, thus limiting bloat. JMHO. Regards, Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJJiUNdAAoJEIAhA8M9p9DApqoP/0HN0uJHfbjQ63yq0lwubW6k NqLrchH9/xzczxuK2Vj/cat7xtxK4BdDHq92Hur5M+zj2qd3sOIroVxQLNp/K6Qo gy8efsI5HGoWSFLhLdXJp3xuncD5EL0kERFqQ0TSa9ugRVK2b0M2dukMQ08D5lMg 0lBLa5kZKnaYy7QJhAAwRMgHjkr/tIDn2KcPMaC39xwcxWh/iDKa8kVODYsmt6gX yvTuaLJMpUWLhAYAf9tWSo7zE29wNRoBQCE0K8m1A25hf+dZ5+Iw+poM7qAPkssE eD/FDqyl21LfpILQgp8SwqXOKNnVZ8sU/fRihlsixYfA2UDNtscjk6DmNRfq8r5L UrhcU3BFCExu5Yg180Q3G8WcmCs1WgE9tEY95DTyuE7p4KH9fkIi/fUMSSnLdYmP NCO75iq+HTOFImMHdsaYP5l4QJp5ktVJzyxzEZKo3lbkiKODRovj8IQOkzltGgIS rbfhbiyTG0xAbK3IlhzR+tH4ncYyNWOTql+bbXgD35P4awolR/zWVaTSsiCwDsQg XWfoN/J+XoasjJd363PpwHCFe8G+4dM75dUQkri6lgMcRrrVeLCpNdr5ae3AXEMb CHRMZt9OlTaam6VjQGGTDahWoU8dFIy4GYLF2bMaOnU0VrPOu/ENoEjECXm4mjiq OcwGvpSdLX6Mvan0iX9l =vtJv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wednesday 04 February 2009 09:27:31 Christopher Walters wrote: > I will mention that the performance optimizations for Gentoo mainly lie in > the kernel configuration (the binary distributions compile just about > everything you can imagine into their kernels), and in fine tuning the USE > flags, so you you don't pull in anything you neither want nor need, thus > limiting bloat. Gentoo is also great if you want to run it on any out-of-the-ordinary hardware, or if you have niche needs. I personally don't view Gentoo as a "distro" in the traditional sense. To me, it's a build system, an app - portage or paludis - and the devs that make cool input files for that app. Building a distro from scratch for embedded devices is a painful process if you don't have an automated build system. It's not quite a trivial exercise, but portage does make it a whole lot easier. With overlays and ebuilds I write myself, I get all the benefits of compiling from source, plus all the benefits of a sane package manager, without any of the downsides of trying to combine them. I've tried to include third party rpm repos on RHEL, it was a disaster. 4 years later I still can't make head or tail of what the heck urpmi wants me to do. But an ebuild, well that's just a simple bash include file. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:58:23AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 01:48:34 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > So all in all, I agree. Using Gentoo is nowadays not so much a matter > > of performance optimization but of better control of how to build the > > packages and the rolling release nature (I'm tired of major updates > > every 6 months in the majority of binary distros.) I also like the USE > > flags which let me chose how to build something and get rid of > > dependencies I don't need. Administrative features like dispatch-conf > > are also very useful. > > This is the main benefit of Gentoo for me. I have to use SuSE or RHEL at work > for the database machines - Sybase will not support any other other distro - > and the 1G+ base install from those distros drive me nuts. Contrast that with > the DNS caches which run FreeBSD, the difference is about a factor of 5 if > not more. > > I also get sick and tired of installing postfix on a database machine purely > to send nagios alerts, and watching the distro "helpfully" want to pull in > PostgreSQL, MySQL, LDAP, SASL, Courier and some fancy MTA-switcher thingy. > All because the maintainer enables those features and now I gotta have them. > > No thanks. Rather give me USE so I say what goes on the box. > > -- > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his built-from-source firefox. Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package, while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for every particolar package. Is that statement correct? === TopperH === pgp2P5xwzz7JV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 14:03 +0100, Momesso Andrea escribió: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:58:23AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 01:48:34 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > > So all in all, I agree. Using Gentoo is nowadays not so much a matter > > > of performance optimization but of better control of how to build the > > > packages and the rolling release nature (I'm tired of major updates > > > every 6 months in the majority of binary distros.) I also like the USE > > > flags which let me chose how to build something and get rid of > > > dependencies I don't need. Administrative features like dispatch-conf > > > are also very useful. > > > > This is the main benefit of Gentoo for me. I have to use SuSE or RHEL at > > work > > for the database machines - Sybase will not support any other other distro > > - > > and the 1G+ base install from those distros drive me nuts. Contrast that > > with > > the DNS caches which run FreeBSD, the difference is about a factor of 5 if > > not more. > > > > I also get sick and tired of installing postfix on a database machine > > purely > > to send nagios alerts, and watching the distro "helpfully" want to pull in > > PostgreSQL, MySQL, LDAP, SASL, Courier and some fancy MTA-switcher thingy. > > All because the maintainer enables those features and now I gotta have them. > > > > No thanks. Rather give me USE so I say what goes on the box. > > > > -- > > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com > > > > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his > built-from-source firefox. > > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package, > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for > every particolar package. > > Is that statement correct? > > === > TopperH > === I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, but if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some -unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want. It is more about choices... signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:45:50AM -0430, Sebastián Magrí wrote: [snip] > > > > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his > > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his > > built-from-source firefox. > > > > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible > > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package, > > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe > > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for > > every particolar package. > > > > Is that statement correct? > > > > === > > TopperH > > === > > I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, but > if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing > per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis > bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can > research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can > keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some > -unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want. > > It is more about choices... Sure, I've used per-package optimizations myself in some particular cases, but that's not the point. A package manteiner *should* know better than an average user which optimizations will tune better their own package. My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific optimiziations that gentoo allows? === TopperH === pgp5Jqrnm0iHU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 11:08, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: > Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> [...] >> A big big advantage is that besides the huge number of packages >> that we have, we also have dozens of overlays. [...] and some of them are >> really bug. > > QFT ;) Ouch, I meant "big", though that applies as well :lol: -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:31:26 +0100, Momesso Andrea wrote: > Sure, I've used per-package optimizations myself in some particular > cases, but that's not the point. > > A package manteiner *should* know better than an average user which > optimizations will tune better their own package. But the user knows their own needs and system better. If the user is using -Os, it is reasonable to assume they have a reason for doing so and not override it. The only time ebuilds should override user CFLAGS is when the build is known to fail with certain settings. -- Neil Bothwick Top Oxymorons Number 36: Alone together signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Wednesday 04 February 2009 15:19:39 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Sebastián Magrí wrote: > > Also, Gentoo is a great school. If you want to learn how a Linux system > > works, and really want to learn about Unix systems, then Gentoo is the > > best for you. > > I don't get that argument. I didn't learn how Linux or Unix works with > Gentoo. I didn't even find my prior knowledge of Unix and Linux of much > use either. Typing "emerge package" and "dispatch-conf" doesn't offer > me much knowledge. It's as simple as Debian in this regard. > > If I wanted a "learn Unix" distro, I would be using Slackware :P s/Slackware/Linux From Scratch/ there ya go, fixed that for ya :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 14:31 +0100, Momesso Andrea escribió: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:45:50AM -0430, Sebastián Magrí wrote: > [snip] > > > > > > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his > > > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his > > > built-from-source firefox. > > > > > > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible > > > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package, > > > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe > > > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for > > > every particolar package. > > > > > > Is that statement correct? > > > > > > === > > > TopperH > > > === > > > > I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, but > > if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing > > per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis > > bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can > > research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can > > keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some > > -unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want. > > > > It is more about choices... > > Sure, I've used per-package optimizations myself in some particular > cases, but that's not the point. > > A package manteiner *should* know better than an average user which > optimizations will tune better their own package. > > My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package > optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific > optimiziations that gentoo allows? > > > === > TopperH > === It does, but I am almost sure that most of the binary distro's package maintainers can't ship a package with hard optimisations because it will possibly work fine on his box but not in the user's box. There is where we heard histories about binary distros users compiling their apps to improve it's performance, possibly breaking their system at the same time. Gentoo maintainers *should* also know better than the users which optimisations can be given to the user for a package to build and work fine... Other case is when it represents a risk of having unstable apps, in that case dropping optimisations is necessary in order to have more stable apps. signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:25:49 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > Except that what you build and maintain isn't a "distro", it's > a single machine. Why? -- Neil Bothwick WinErr 01B: Illegal error - You are not allowed to get this error. Next time you will get a penalty for that. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 8:39, Alan McKinnon escribió: > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 09:27:31 Christopher Walters wrote: > > I personally don't view Gentoo as a "distro" in the traditional sense. To > me, it's a build system, an app - portage or paludis - and the devs that > make cool input files for that app. Building a distro from scratch for > embedded devices is a painful process if you don't have an automated build > system. It's not quite a trivial exercise, but portage does make it a > whole lot easier. That's mostly what I call a "metadistro". A set of tools and instructions to build a proper distro that suits you, and maintain it. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
With unit processors approaching up to 128 Cores on a single GPU I can see why the guys at all those institutions want to put EL lights in their big hawking 4 card SLI rigs? That's like 1600 Cores on a single system, Even Blue Gene L only has Dual Core PowerPC 440's, whith AMD's 4870 having 800 SPU's on a single die, the X2 has two of them; oh and did we mention they are cheap? (Blue Gene cost 100 million, right now a 4870x2 is only $500). No they would never be useful for anything other then rendering bouncing bobbies! ;) On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:07 AM, James wrote: > Paul Hartman gmail.com> writes: > > > >> >> One *BIG* difference is when the GPUs on video cards are used >> >> as co-processors on systems. ATI and Nv are working on making >> >> general purpose "C" languages for programs to take advantage >> >> of the power of the GPU. Look for Gentoo to beat the other >> >> distros, by the very nature of how it compiles code for >> >> everything. > > >> http://funroll-loops.info/ > > > According to your logic, Nvidia and ATI(AMD) are ricers? > > > http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cg_toolkit.html > http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15886 > > Or maybe the folks at CMU are ricers? > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cil/v-source.html > > Surely these folks at StonyBrook are ricers? > http://www.ecsl.cs.sunysb.edu/fir/ > > Not to mention these folks at Stanford, > http://novembertech.blogspot.com/2006/10/stanford-atis-gpu-can-calculate-much.html > > > And all of these scientists are ricers? > http://gpgpu.org/ > > > I count myself proud to be among this company > of "ricers" as you put it.. > > > > James > > > > -- Hazen Valliant-Saunders IT/IS Consultant (613) 355-5977
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Mittwoch 04 Februar 2009, Momesso Andrea wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:58:23AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 01:48:34 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > > So all in all, I agree. Using Gentoo is nowadays not so much a matter > > > of performance optimization but of better control of how to build the > > > packages and the rolling release nature (I'm tired of major updates > > > every 6 months in the majority of binary distros.) I also like the USE > > > flags which let me chose how to build something and get rid of > > > dependencies I don't need. Administrative features like dispatch-conf > > > are also very useful. > > > > This is the main benefit of Gentoo for me. I have to use SuSE or RHEL at > > work for the database machines - Sybase will not support any other other > > distro - and the 1G+ base install from those distros drive me nuts. > > Contrast that with the DNS caches which run FreeBSD, the difference is > > about a factor of 5 if not more. > > > > I also get sick and tired of installing postfix on a database machine > > purely to send nagios alerts, and watching the distro "helpfully" want to > > pull in PostgreSQL, MySQL, LDAP, SASL, Courier and some fancy > > MTA-switcher thingy. All because the maintainer enables those features > > and now I gotta have them. > > > > No thanks. Rather give me USE so I say what goes on the box. > > > > -- > > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com > > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his > built-from-source firefox. > > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package, > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for > every particolar package. > > Is that statement correct? partly. Gentoo CFLAGS don't replace the ones already there. Except stuff like OX where the package has something like O99 set (mplayer, hello) and you set O2 or Os. O99 = O3. But you shouldn't see any difference.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:01:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > If I wanted a "learn Unix" distro, I would be using Slackware :P > > s/Slackware/Linux From Scratch/ That just teaches you to read and repeat the same commands over and over. You learn about Linux by administering it, not installing it. -- Neil Bothwick By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:19:17 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > >> Except that what you build and maintain isn't a "distro", it's > >> a single machine. > > > > Why? > > Do you distribute what you're building as a something for > others to use to install Linux? I don't, and none of the other > Gentoo users I know do. They're all building and maintaining > installations on individual machines. It doesn't have to be for others. What about someone maintaining a network of machines? -- Neil Bothwick EMail - garbage at the speed of light. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wednesday 04 February 2009 15:31:26 Momesso Andrea wrote: > My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package > optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific > optimiziations that gentoo allows? That can only be answered with valid benchmarks on paper in front of you. Have you performed valid benchmark tests? -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:59:44PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 15:31:26 Momesso Andrea wrote: > > My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package > > optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific > > optimiziations that gentoo allows? > > That can only be answered with valid benchmarks on paper in front of you. > > Have you performed valid benchmark tests? > Nope, if I had there would have been no reason to ask... :) === TopperH === pgpbhLQnjMuRe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 7:17, Grant Edwards escribió: > On 2009-02-04, James wrote: > >> Grant Edwards visi.com> writes: >> >> >>> Whenever I see a write-up of Gentoo, it's described as a system >>> similar to BSD "ports" where you build packages from source. The main >>> benefit claimed for this approach is that you get better performance >>> because all executables are optimized for exactly the right >>> instruction set. is practically nil in real-world usage. >> >> Not true. You can eliminate many non-essential portions of a >> compiled program, via use flag and the freedom you get to select >> software, as opposed to other distros. Smaller executables are usually >> always faster. > [...] > But that wasn't what I was talking about, and AFAICT that's not > what reviewers are talking about when they talk about adjusting compiler > flags to optimize performance. They seem to be talking about building for > Athlon instead of P4 (or vice-versa). > Perhaps I've always completely misunderstood the articles I've > read, and they were indeed talking about USE flags that control options > passed to "configure" and not about things like gcc's -march and -O > options. USe flags can be used for anything. Note that ebuilds are ultimately bash scripts. And USE flags are just that: f-l-a-g-s. Flags are used in a script to control things that can be run -or not- depending on a condition, things like "if in amd64 do this, if not, if hardened do that, if yes and hardened to anything else"... That includes things like activating concrete portions of arch dependent code or a patch, things like passing a simple option to add or remove a dependency, and any other things that you could do manually on a shell. It can of course be used as well to adjust CFLAGS and other things depending on the architecture or whatever condition you want. And even more, they can be used to filter CFLAGS that the developers know that are harmful (and that's a big part of the portage stability, because in the past users used to shot themselves on the feet by adding a 20 lines long CFLAGS declaration into their make.conf's. Note that reviewers usually test a thing for 2 days, and then they think they are qualified to talk about whatever thing. Some times, these reviews are useless for this reason. They only scratch the surface, giving a bad impression or just a poor one. Note that I said "some times", though I think that "most times" is potentially a more correct qualifier. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 14:19, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: > Sebastián Magrà wrote: > >> Also, Gentoo is a great school. If you want to learn how a Linux system >> works, and really want to learn about Unix systems, then Gentoo is the >> best for you. > > I don't get that argument. I didn't learn how Linux or Unix works with > Gentoo. I didn't even find my prior knowledge of Unix and Linux of much > use either. Typing "emerge package" and "dispatch-conf" doesn't offer me > much knowledge. It's as simple as Debian in this regard. > > If I wanted a "learn Unix" distro, I would be using Slackware :P Gentoo forces you to use linux in the sense that you need to do all the work by yourself to install it. What you describe is just the regular update/install process, which is simple enough as you said. But installing the OS is another thing. Not too difficult, but without a doubt you need to know or learn the basics of linux to be able to handle it. Most distros just require that you put the cd in the tray and press next, then you appear into a kde or gnome desktop. In Gentoo the installation is manual and you need to deal with a lot of basic stuff. For an experienced user, to install Gentoo is a piece of cake, no doubt. Also, note that he said "linux", and not "unix". If you want to learn "Unix", then slackware is no more Unix-like than gentoo, it might be even less. For a unix-like OS look into solaris or any bsd flavor instead. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 16:25, Grant Edwards escribió: > On 2009-02-04, Jes?s Guerrero wrote: > >> El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 8:39, Alan McKinnon escribi?: >> >>> On Wednesday 04 February 2009 09:27:31 Christopher Walters wrote: >>> >>> >>> I personally don't view Gentoo as a "distro" in the traditional >>> sense. To me, it's a build system, an app - portage or paludis - and >>> the devs that make cool input files for that app. Building a distro >>> from scratch for embedded devices is a painful process if you don't >>> have an automated build system. It's not quite a trivial exercise, but >>> portage does make it a whole lot easier. >> >> That's mostly what I call a "metadistro". A set of tools and >> instructions to build a proper distro that suits you, and maintain it. > > Except that what you build and maintain isn't a "distro", it's > a single machine. That I only know ;) It's up to you if you reuse the distro on a second machine or on a whole cluster. And certainly, Gentoo provide the means to reutilize whatever you compiled and configured on many machines, like with catalyst and the newer metro tool from drobbins. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 17:19, Grant Edwards escribió: > On 2009-02-04, Neil Bothwick wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:25:49 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: >> >> >>> Except that what you build and maintain isn't a "distro", it's >>> a single machine. >> >> Why? >> > > Do you distribute what you're building as a something for > others to use to install Linux? I don't, and none of the other Gentoo > users I know do. They're all building and maintaining installations on > individual machines. Not true at all. Lost of uses do stage4 and stage5 stuff to deploy them in lots of places. Even the official stage3 have been built using Gentoo of course, and the livecds using the Gentoo tools and catalyst. So, as you see, some of the stuff created with this metadistro is deployed in thosands of machines. Oh, and don't forget about the drobbins stuff in funtoo, which is also built using to a lesser degree the Gentoo stuff. There are some other projects that build a distro starting from a Gentoo base which could fit better in your concept of what a distro is, like vidalinux or sabayon. But even if that was the case, that doesn't change the fact that you are building your own distro using the Gentoo tools. A linux distribution is not called so because it's distributed world wide. A linux distribution is defined as a linux kernel with some userland tools. Even if it's just a kernel with vi on a floppy. So, gentoo is a metadistro that you use to build a distro. Even if the only consumer for that distro is going to be you. It's like writing songs. They are songs, even if no one ever hear them but you and your parents, or your girlfriend, or whomever. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 18:48, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: > Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 14:19, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: >> >>> Sebastián Magrà wrote: >>> >>> Also, Gentoo is a great school. If you want to learn how a Linux system works, and really want to learn about Unix systems, then Gentoo is the best for you. >>> I don't get that argument. I didn't learn how Linux or Unix works >>> with Gentoo. I didn't even find my prior knowledge of Unix and Linux >>> of much use either. Typing "emerge package" and "dispatch-conf" >>> doesn't offer me much knowledge. It's as simple as Debian in this >>> regard. >>> >>> If I wanted a "learn Unix" distro, I would be using Slackware :P >>> >> >> Gentoo forces you to use linux in the sense that you need to >> do all the work by yourself to install it. What you describe is just the >> regular update/install process, which is simple enough as you said. > > It was very easy for me. The first I came in tough with Gentoo was with > the 2007 DVD. I booted, double clicked the installer icon, clicked "next" > a few times with checking some tickboxes too, and then emerged -e system > and world and the packages I need. > > After that I was asking myself where the difficulty lies many people > refer to when it comes to installing Gentoo. > > Seriously, I didn't learn anything. Maybe CLFAGS and USE flags. You used the installer. Which should never be used because it's buggy and crappy, it has caused lots of problems, and for me it spoils the whole gentoo thing because lots of newcomers that use it have nothing but problems. In addition, they don't learn the basic linux stuff we were talking about, and hence, they have problems administering their machines, dealing with packages, mixing software branches, creating overlays, configuring their systems and many more. Problems whose solution they wouldn't need to ask (spamming the lists and forums in the way) if they had used the handbook in first place. In my opinion that buggy livecd was in all sense a bad thing and should have never existed. Gentoo is installed by hand usually, following the handbook, and not clicking next. Once you read the whole handbook you can have an opinion if a new user would learn a thing or two by using it or not. A wouldn't have expected that a brave slacker would choose the graphical installer ;) -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:07 AM, James wrote: > Paul Hartman gmail.com> writes: > > > >> >> One *BIG* difference is when the GPUs on video cards are used >> >> as co-processors on systems. ATI and Nv are working on making >> >> general purpose "C" languages for programs to take advantage >> >> of the power of the GPU. Look for Gentoo to beat the other >> >> distros, by the very nature of how it compiles code for >> >> everything. > > >> http://funroll-loops.info/ > > > According to your logic, Nvidia and ATI(AMD) are ricers? > > > http://developer.nvidia.com/object/cg_toolkit.html > http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15886 > > Or maybe the folks at CMU are ricers? > http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~cil/v-source.html > > Surely these folks at StonyBrook are ricers? > http://www.ecsl.cs.sunysb.edu/fir/ > > Not to mention these folks at Stanford, > http://novembertech.blogspot.com/2006/10/stanford-atis-gpu-can-calculate-much.html > > > And all of these scientists are ricers? > http://gpgpu.org/ > > > I count myself proud to be among this company > of "ricers" as you put it.. > > > > James It's not my site... I was just putting it out there in case anyone hadn't seen it before. It's ld. I'm a happy Gentoo user for many years. :) Paul
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Wednesday 04 February 2009 19:48:27 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > Gentoo forces you to use linux in the sense that you need to > > do all the work by yourself to install it. What you describe is > > just the regular update/install process, which is simple enough > > as you said. > > It was very easy for me. The first I came in tough with Gentoo was with > the 2007 DVD. I booted, double clicked the installer icon, clicked > "next" a few times with checking some tickboxes too, and then emerged -e > system and world and the packages I need. You should have been around in the days when stage1 was still supported. Now that was fun. For varying definitions of "fun" of course :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Wednesday 04 February 2009 18:55:07 Momesso Andrea wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 03:59:44PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 15:31:26 Momesso Andrea wrote: > > > My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package > > > optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific > > > optimiziations that gentoo allows? > > > > That can only be answered with valid benchmarks on paper in front of you. > > > > Have you performed valid benchmark tests? > > Nope, if I had there would have been no reason to ask... :) Then your question is nonsensical and is best answered as: mu As so many others have stated, the mythical performance benefits of gentoo are no longer applicable in the main. When i386 was the standard optimization things were different, but no longer. The major benefit of Gentoo to most users is USE, not CFLAGS -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 22:24 +0200, Alan McKinnon escribió: > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 19:48:27 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > > Gentoo forces you to use linux in the sense that you need to > > > do all the work by yourself to install it. What you describe is > > > just the regular update/install process, which is simple enough > > > as you said. > > > > It was very easy for me. The first I came in tough with Gentoo was with > > the 2007 DVD. I booted, double clicked the installer icon, clicked > > "next" a few times with checking some tickboxes too, and then emerged -e > > system and world and the packages I need. > > You should have been around in the days when stage1 was still supported. > > Now that was fun. For varying definitions of "fun" of course :-) > The installation experience with the traditional method must be mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is deprecated... signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Sebastián Magrí wrote: > El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 22:24 +0200, Alan McKinnon escribió: >> On Wednesday 04 February 2009 19:48:27 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> > > Gentoo forces you to use linux in the sense that you need to >> > > do all the work by yourself to install it. What you describe is >> > > just the regular update/install process, which is simple enough >> > > as you said. >> > >> > It was very easy for me. The first I came in tough with Gentoo was with >> > the 2007 DVD. I booted, double clicked the installer icon, clicked >> > "next" a few times with checking some tickboxes too, and then emerged -e >> > system and world and the packages I need. >> >> You should have been around in the days when stage1 was still supported. >> >> Now that was fun. For varying definitions of "fun" of course :-) >> > > The installation experience with the traditional method must be > mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is > deprecated... > I think my first attempt to install Gentoo was a stage 1, several years ago on a box with a network card not supported by the drivers on the Live CD... and of course the distfiles CD did not have the current versions since I was using a portage snapshot from that day. My printed install guide didn't help because i couldn't google when things didn't work the way it said they should work :) now that was a fun experience :) I, of course, realized it was fruitless and went stage2 instead... and did emerge -e world when it was all up & running on the network. and the rest is history. I don't think I've ever seen the graphical installer for gentoo. I don't have a problem with a simple "click here to have a working gentoo installation", I don't think installing an OS should be an educational experience necessarily, sometimes if you already know how Gentoo works you just want to get it over with. Of course if gentoo stores certain configs in unique places compared to other distros, and the whole portage system in general, having some early exposure could make it easier once it's all up and running, but someone who can read the manual should have no trouble either way. (assuming the installer works)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 7:07, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: > Sebastián Magrà wrote: > >> The installation experience with the traditional method must be >> mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is >> deprecated... > > That's not good. It hurts Gentoo's popularity if it's not easy to > install. But since there are not enough devs left for the GUI installer, > not much that can be done. > > Gentoo isn't unsuitable for a GUI installer. It's stage 3, after all. That's definitely good. It never worked and newbies came to Gentoo thinking that it as some kind of uberfaster ubuntu thing that could be installed by just clicking next. Then they ran away yelling how bad this gentoo crap is that doesn't work at all unless you do a lot of black magic on the command line! "Because I want full control over my system, but only clicking next. The OS should read my mind!" If we clear that from the beginning so everyone knows what to expect from gentoo AND WHAT GENTOO EXPECTS FROM YOU then that problem is gone. Some would call this a nazi attidute of mine, I would say that you can't drive an f-17 unless you are willing to prepare yourself to do so before. It's called realism. You need to learn before you can do. Even a child can understand that. Someone would argue that's too hard to start, but that's why we have excellent docs, mailing lists, forums and irc, with a very high traffic and lots of friendly people giving away their time for free to help you. So, whomever can't find a way is either too lazy or too shy to talk to the people around. Gentoo was never meant to win a popularity price. I prefer to stay without nothing at all that to have the lot of problems that the installer has been creating during 3 years of existence. It harmed the gentoo popularity (if you like that argument) much more than the lack of a installer. Besides that, there's no easy way that you will understand Gentoo if you are not going to read the handbook. And even then, it takes time to become familiar with the way that USE flags truly work (and I mean to understand it, and not just do -qt -kde +gnome +gtk blindly that most users do (or the other way around) without even knowing what's behind the scene and how USE flags and ebuilds relate to each other. Let's assume it: you are building a distro. It's easy enough as it is. Usability is good, but the only way that Gentoo could get easier is just by taking features away and lowering the degree of control that the users have. There are enough easy-to-use distros. Let us, "masochists", live in peace. We love pain, why do people care so much about what we do with our privacy? :P [it's a joke, in case anyone didn't notice] There have been several attempts to make a decent installer. They all failed miserably and got abandoned. Why? Because to tell the truth, no one has an authentic interest in the matter. The simple answer is most probably the right one. By the way, did I already said that anyone that can read can also install Gentoo? Lost of people with no experience with linux did it with very little or no help. -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Thursday 05 February 2009 09:28:50 Jesús Guerrero wrote: > There are enough easy-to-use distros. Let us, "masochists", live in > peace. We love pain, why do people care so much about what we do > with our privacy? :P [it's a joke, in case anyone didn't notice] > > There have been several attempts to make a decent installer. They > all failed miserably and got abandoned. Why? Because to tell the > truth, no one has an authentic interest in the matter. The simple > answer is most probably the right one. To add to you (excellent) arguments: There is no GUI admin tool for gentoo. You drive this puppy on the command line with tools like emerge, equery, genlop, layman and q. That's how it works, we are all comfortable with this, and this is good. I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a different manner to the way the thing will be used. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Sebastián Magrí wrote: > > The installation experience with the traditional method must be > > mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is > > deprecated... > > That's not good. It hurts Gentoo's popularity if it's not easy to > install. But since there are not enough devs left for the GUI > installer, not much that can be done. > > Gentoo isn't unsuitable for a GUI installer. It's stage 3, after all. gentoo had its highest popularity when there were no gui installer (and no stable tree). This kept the stupid ' I don't want to read docs' crowd away.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Jesús Guerrero wrote: > > By the way, did I already said that anyone that can read can also > install Gentoo? Lost of people with no experience with linux did > it with very little or no help. > > I used Mandrake 9.1 for a little while then tried to upgrade to 9.2. I installed Gentoo the hard way and have learned a lot but still have a long way to go yet. Hard to teach a old dog new tricks but if I can do it with the little knowledge that I had at the time, anybody should give it a good, honest, put in the effort try. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Thursday 05 February 2009 09:28:50 Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> There are enough easy-to-use distros. Let us, "masochists", live in >> peace. We love pain, why do people care so much about what we do >> with our privacy? :P [it's a joke, in case anyone didn't notice] >> >> There have been several attempts to make a decent installer. They >> all failed miserably and got abandoned. Why? Because to tell the >> truth, no one has an authentic interest in the matter. The simple >> answer is most probably the right one. >> > > To add to you (excellent) arguments: > > There is no GUI admin tool for gentoo. You drive this puppy on the command > line with tools like emerge, equery, genlop, layman and q. That's how it > works, we are all comfortable with this, and this is good. > > I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a > different manner to the way the thing will be used. > > Does porthole count? I use it sometimes and it is well all right. I miss etcat myself. Just as I was starting to get used to it, it disappeared. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Thursday 05 February 2009 09:57:38 Dale wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Thursday 05 February 2009 09:28:50 Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> There are enough easy-to-use distros. Let us, "masochists", live in > >> peace. We love pain, why do people care so much about what we do > >> with our privacy? :P [it's a joke, in case anyone didn't notice] > >> > >> There have been several attempts to make a decent installer. They > >> all failed miserably and got abandoned. Why? Because to tell the > >> truth, no one has an authentic interest in the matter. The simple > >> answer is most probably the right one. > > > > To add to you (excellent) arguments: > > > > There is no GUI admin tool for gentoo. You drive this puppy on the > > command line with tools like emerge, equery, genlop, layman and q. That's > > how it works, we are all comfortable with this, and this is good. > > > > I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a > > different manner to the way the thing will be used. > > Does porthole count? I use it sometimes and it is well all right. I > miss etcat myself. Just as I was starting to get used to it, it > disappeared. You're just stirring the pot Dale :-) I know for a fact that you can hold your own with emerge and eix :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Thursday 05 February 2009 09:57:38 Dale wrote: > >> Alan McKinnon wrote: >> >>> On Thursday 05 February 2009 09:28:50 Jesús Guerrero wrote: >>> There are enough easy-to-use distros. Let us, "masochists", live in peace. We love pain, why do people care so much about what we do with our privacy? :P [it's a joke, in case anyone didn't notice] There have been several attempts to make a decent installer. They all failed miserably and got abandoned. Why? Because to tell the truth, no one has an authentic interest in the matter. The simple answer is most probably the right one. >>> To add to you (excellent) arguments: >>> >>> There is no GUI admin tool for gentoo. You drive this puppy on the >>> command line with tools like emerge, equery, genlop, layman and q. That's >>> how it works, we are all comfortable with this, and this is good. >>> >>> I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a >>> different manner to the way the thing will be used. >>> >> Does porthole count? I use it sometimes and it is well all right. I >> miss etcat myself. Just as I was starting to get used to it, it >> disappeared. >> > > You're just stirring the pot Dale :-) > > I know for a fact that you can hold your own with emerge and eix :-) > > > I do OK with emerge. Eix, I know two uses. eix-sync and eix . I do know a few equery commands tho. I suspect it will disappear soon since I am learning a little bit about it. lol Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> >> On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> >>> Sebastián Magrí wrote: The installation experience with the traditional method must be mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is deprecated... >>> >>> That's not good. It hurts Gentoo's popularity if it's not easy to >>> install. But since there are not enough devs left for the GUI >>> installer, not much that can be done. >>> >>> Gentoo isn't unsuitable for a GUI installer. It's stage 3, after all. >> >> gentoo had its highest popularity when there were no gui installer (and no >> stable tree). This kept the stupid ' I don't want to read docs' crowd away. > > That's a contradicting statement. How was the popularity at highest if it > kept a crowd away? Because once those who know what they were doing have to resort to "Learn to read", "Read The Friendly Manual", and "Ever heard of Google?" so often, after likely having answered the same questions 10+times each, they all get a bad reputation, hurting the real popularity of the system. Also, you can't count popularity of something like Gentoo from the number that start to try it and give up half way through the install... but rather by those who're still using it some meaningful amount of time. All... *entirely* wild guesses, though. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 9:11, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: > Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >> El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 7:07, Nikos Chantziaras escribió: >> >>> Sebastián Magrà wrote: >>> >>> The installation experience with the traditional method must be mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is deprecated... >>> That's not good. It hurts Gentoo's popularity if it's not easy to >>> install. But since there are not enough devs left for the GUI >>> installer, not much that can be done. >>> >>> Gentoo isn't unsuitable for a GUI installer. It's stage 3, after >>> all. >> >> That's definitely good. It never worked and newbies came to >> Gentoo thinking that it as some kind of uberfaster ubuntu >> thing that could be installed by just clicking next. > > Than I'll rephrase my statement: Gentoo would need a non-bugged GUI > installer ;) I wouldn't have anything against that. But after seeing one failure after another I think that lots of users are scared to see yet-another-one that will only make our lives more difficult. I wouldn't mind about it if it's developed as experimental stuff and NEVER ever again included as a valid method of installation in the handbook unless A) it's as rock solid as the command line B) the user ends the procedure knowing the same things about gentoo that you would know if you installed by hand (i am particularly concerned about this one, and I simply can't see how a GUI would accomplish this one at all) >> Then they ran away yelling how bad this gentoo crap is that >> doesn't work at all unless you do a lot of black magic on the command >> line! "Because I want full control over my system, but only clicking >> next. The OS should read my mind!" > > I don't think anyone should care about that. Well, I only said that because you talked about popularity. Otherwise, we agree: I don't care at all. You made some good arguments about GUIs, and I understand them. We could have a simplified and standardized installer that work with a standard config. However I don't wanna live yet another nightmare. > Also, Gentoo isn't really black magic. There's no good reason why > emerge for example isn't GUI based. Or revdep-rebuild. Or layman. Or... > I hope you get the point ;) Yes, those things need a lot of work > and there are no people willing to do the task. But I'm just trying to > make a point here: the way you do maintenance in Gentoo isn't based on the > traditional Unix tools. That means, you could have GUIs for all of them. > > But I'm drifting. The installer is pretty much separated from all this. > After all, "all" it needs to do is set up stage3 and tweak the settings. Well. I suppose it's about tastes. But the shell is where emerge and ebuilds belong for me. After all, the ebuilds are nothing but bash scripts. You could do frontends to it, but it would still be a lot of python and bash code behind that. With these tools it happens the same that with the installer. At one point, tools like these appear, they are developed for some time and work mostly ok but not perfect, then they get stagnated, they break more and more and more with the time, until it comes the day they are unusable and the project dies. I guess that -again- because there's zero interest. When you need to compile something: A) it can't get any simpler, nicer nor faster than doing emerge something, really B) the last thing you needs is a heavy interface taking away your ram and cpu, emerge itself is heavy enough as it is, there's no need to add weight to the thing C) you won't like when X is closed in the middle of emerge that's why you run emerges on an vt or a screen session, in text mode And probably many more. I would love, though, to see a curses frontend where I can dive into my portage dirs in an mc-ish fashion, which is where portage frontens make any sense for me: when you just want to take a look around and see what's in there :) -- Jesús Guerrero
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:13:54 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in > > a different manner to the way the thing will be used. > > Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better. There is an automated installer in development. It is script based, so you avoid the boredom factor without shielding people from the fact that they will need to use the terminal and text files once it is installed. http://agaffney.org/quickstart.php -- Neil Bothwick A phaser is the universal communicator. þ Worf signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
> A downside is that you'll need fast machines to comfortably build > packages. I wouldn't use it on my Pentium 3 800Mhz for example. That > would take ages to compile system/world with recent GCC versions. I > guess GCC was much faster in the 2.x versions back then? How painful is it, really, to run the job when you are asleep or away from the machine? Cron the update or use "at" to get the changes you want when you are away from the console. -- Steven Lembark85-09 90th St. Workhorse Computing Woodhaven, NY, 11421 lemb...@wrkhors.com +1 888 359 3508
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Steven Lembark wrote: > > How painful is it, really, to run the job when you > are asleep or away from the machine? Cron the update > or use "at" to get the changes you want when you are > away from the console. > Not painful, uncomfortable: When I get back home my room will be hot and the current build would probably fail again on kde-base/systemsettings :) Regards Dirk
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> Sebastián Magrí wrote: > >>> The installation experience with the traditional method must be > >>> mandatory... That's why I think we are better now that GLI is > >>> deprecated... > >> > >> That's not good. It hurts Gentoo's popularity if it's not easy to > >> install. But since there are not enough devs left for the GUI > >> installer, not much that can be done. > >> > >> Gentoo isn't unsuitable for a GUI installer. It's stage 3, after all. > > > > gentoo had its highest popularity when there were no gui installer (and > > no stable tree). This kept the stupid ' I don't want to read docs' crowd > > away. > > That's a contradicting statement. How was the popularity at highest if > it kept a crowd away? because it kept the 'i am too cool to read the docs' idiots away. Being forced to read the documentation is a good thing - and it did not hurt gentoo's popularity. Only after it started to catering to idiots and more and more of loud mouthed 'I am the centre of the universe, I don't need to read docs, use google or bugzilla. I demand an answer and help NOW' assholes came on board, the popularity went down.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
my style has always been to get the minimal installer. chroot, install kernel to my specs then boot to hard drive, then start building it to how i want it built. the handbook is pretty specific and straight-forward. one just has to follow it. i've done N installs over the years and i still turn to the handbook, just to keep track. anyway. if people find the installer difficult maybe gentoo isn't for them. On 02 5, 09, at 7:01 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:. I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a different manner to the way the thing will be used. Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better. wrong. The installation needs a certain difficulty to keep idiots away. Nobody needs idiots (except maybe ubuntu). yes, installation is VERY boring. that's part of the compromise, i guess. Cocoy www.twitter.com/cocoy "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware" -- Alan Kay
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:. > > > >>> I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a > >>> different manner to the way the thing will be used. > >> > >> Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better. > > > > wrong. The installation needs a certain difficulty to keep idiots away. > > Nobody needs idiots (except maybe ubuntu). > > That is insulting. My mother uses Ubuntu. Thanks for calling her an > idiot. no, I didn't call her 'idiot'. I am just stating that ubuntu tries to cater for idiots. > Obviously if someone wants to use his computer in order to get > something done without doing a Ph.D on Portage and /etc first, then that > person is an idiot. no. He is an idiot if he does not read the docs. Simple. Like people who don't read the manual to their car or vcr and then complaining if something does not work. Idiots.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> wrong. The installation needs a certain difficulty to keep idiots away. >> Nobody needs idiots (except maybe ubuntu). > > That is insulting. My mother uses Ubuntu. Thanks for calling her an idiot. > Obviously if someone wants to use his computer in order to get something > done without doing a Ph.D on Portage and /etc first, then that person is an > idiot. > > Great thinking. Fortunately, there are people (like the Ubuntu folks) who > don't think that way and are trying to make Linux more popular to people who > need a computer to do tasks that are not related to the computer itself. > Idiot is such a strong word (I should probably get another name for my dog). The type of user I don't like is the ignorant type. Innocent users are ok, they don't know, but ignorant users choose not to know. And so often these ignorant users demand that they should be able to do anything on a computer. If you wish to benefit from using computers, you should be prepared to spend some time to get to know how the stuff works. The more you want to do, the more you need to know. Not: "I want amarok without mysql and xyz plugin running all silky and smooth, but don't give me any command line run-arounds or lots of talk about USE flags". Regards Dirk
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:36:45 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Great thinking. Fortunately, there are people (like the Ubuntu folks) > who don't think that way and are trying to make Linux more popular to > people who need a computer to do tasks that are not related to the > computer itself. Kudos to Ubuntu for that and for what they have done in popularising Linux. But Gentoo is not Ubuntu, the distros have different aims and a different set of users. Gentoo should no more aim for their target user base than their colour scheme. -- Neil Bothwick Cereal Killer Strikes Again! Cap'n Crunch found dead... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:22:35 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > How painful is it, really, to run the job when you > > are asleep or away from the machine? Cron the update > > or use "at" to get the changes you want when you are > > away from the console. > > Well, to answer you question, it is very painful. man at will ease the pain. Neil - compiling KDE 4.2 on a 900MHz netbook. -- Neil Bothwick "We are Microsoft of Borg. Prepare to" The application "assimilation" has caused a General Protection Fault and must exit immediately. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:. > > > I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a > > different manner to the way the thing will be used. > > Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better. wrong. The installation needs a certain difficulty to keep idiots away. Nobody needs idiots (except maybe ubuntu).
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 02:26:40AM -0600, Dale wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Thursday 05 February 2009 09:57:38 Dale wrote: > > > >> Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> > >>> On Thursday 05 February 2009 09:28:50 Jesús Guerrero wrote: > >>> > There are enough easy-to-use distros. Let us, "masochists", live in > peace. We love pain, why do people care so much about what we do > with our privacy? :P [it's a joke, in case anyone didn't notice] > > There have been several attempts to make a decent installer. They > all failed miserably and got abandoned. Why? Because to tell the > truth, no one has an authentic interest in the matter. The simple > answer is most probably the right one. > > >>> To add to you (excellent) arguments: > >>> > >>> There is no GUI admin tool for gentoo. You drive this puppy on the > >>> command line with tools like emerge, equery, genlop, layman and q. That's > >>> how it works, we are all comfortable with this, and this is good. > >>> > >>> I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a > >>> different manner to the way the thing will be used. > >>> > >> Does porthole count? I use it sometimes and it is well all right. I > >> miss etcat myself. Just as I was starting to get used to it, it > >> disappeared. > >> > > > > You're just stirring the pot Dale :-) > > > > I know for a fact that you can hold your own with emerge and eix :-) > > > > > > > > I do OK with emerge. Eix, I know two uses. eix-sync and eix > . I do know a few equery commands tho. I suspect it will > disappear soon since I am learning a little bit about it. lol [OT] I give you another nice use for eix: "update-eix-remote update" [/OT] === TopperH === pgpplx6fJfiAY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >> >>> On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:. >>> >>> > I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a > different manner to the way the thing will be used. > Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better. >>> wrong. The installation needs a certain difficulty to keep idiots away. >>> Nobody needs idiots (except maybe ubuntu). >>> >> That is insulting. My mother uses Ubuntu. Thanks for calling her an >> idiot. >> > > no, I didn't call her 'idiot'. I am just stating that ubuntu tries to cater > for idiots. > > >> Obviously if someone wants to use his computer in order to get >> something done without doing a Ph.D on Portage and /etc first, then that >> person is an idiot. >> > > no. He is an idiot if he does not read the docs. Simple. Like people who > don't > read the manual to their car or vcr and then complaining if something does > not > work. Idiots. > > > > > And this is why RTFM is a good and common acronym.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
Cocoy Dayao wrote: > my style has always been to get the minimal installer. chroot, install > kernel to my specs then boot to hard drive, then start building it to > how i want it built. > > the handbook is pretty specific and straight-forward. one just has to > follow it. i've done N installs over the years and i still turn to the > handbook, just to keep track. > > anyway. if people find the installer difficult maybe gentoo isn't > for them. > > On 02 5, 09, at 7:01 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > >> On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:. >>> I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in a different manner to the way the thing will be used. >>> >>> Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better. >> >> wrong. The installation needs a certain difficulty to keep idiots >> away. Nobody >> needs idiots (except maybe ubuntu). >> > > yes, installation is VERY boring. that's part of the compromise, i guess. > > > Cocoy > www.twitter.com/cocoy > "People who are really serious about software should make their own > hardware" -- Alan Kay > > There are certain situations where the "step-by-step" installer isn't adequate. For instance, when I was installing gentoo on my G4, it was straight forward and easy, but when I decided to do a minimal install on my Everex laptop, I needed to use initrd, which I previoiusly had no experience with and the Gentoo handbook didn't mention. Granted, it eventually worked, but I would be hesitent to say that there was adequate documentation on it.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Saphirus Sage wrote: > Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > >>> On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:. > >>> > > I can't think of a single reason why the installer should operate in > > a different manner to the way the thing will be used. > > Because installation is boring. The easier it is, the better. > >>> > >>> wrong. The installation needs a certain difficulty to keep idiots away. > >>> Nobody needs idiots (except maybe ubuntu). > >> > >> That is insulting. My mother uses Ubuntu. Thanks for calling her an > >> idiot. > > > > no, I didn't call her 'idiot'. I am just stating that ubuntu tries to > > cater for idiots. > > > >> Obviously if someone wants to use his computer in order to get > >> something done without doing a Ph.D on Portage and /etc first, then that > >> person is an idiot. > > > > no. He is an idiot if he does not read the docs. Simple. Like people who > > don't read the manual to their car or vcr and then complaining if > > something does not work. Idiots. > > And this is why RTFM is a good and common acronym. exactly. If someone read the docs and still has a question - that is ok. Googled and did not find what he looked for. Happens all the time. Nothing wrong with asking a question. Nobody expects somebody to understand everything or find every answer in the manuals. But somebody who didn't even try to find the answer for himself - that person does not deserve help. Only pity that he is such an idiot.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2009-02-05, Dirk Uys wrote: > > The type of user I don't like is the ignorant type. Innocent > > users are ok, they don't know, but ignorant users choose not > > to know. > > Surely there are things you use without knowing how they work. > You probably use a phone, but do you _really_ know how the > cellular system works? that is not needed. But reading the manual of the phone is. > How about the landline phone system? > The water supply system? Sewage treatment? Do you know how a > refinery works? A chemical plant? How about the CPU in your > computer. Do you actually know how it works? irrelevant to the problem discussed. But yes, I know how sewage treatment works. > We're all ignorant about 99% of the things we use. You just > happened to choose a different 1% than some other people. no. Some people read the manuals that come with the tools they get, others don't and then complain when something does not work or sue someone because they hurt themselves. The second group are idiots. There are lots of idiots - but you should NEVER cater for them or you create more of them. And the last thing this world needs is more idiots.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:26:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > If you can spend a week installing Gentoo, it's not a problem. > If you need to have a machine up and running in an hour, it's a > problem. Building OOo on the last install I did took well over > 30 hours. The GRP packages were certainly useful for that. I installed Gentoo on an iBook, including a full KDE desktop, in a little over an hour. But that was several years ago,when GRP CDs were available. Of course, it wasn't optimised to my needs, but changing the USE flags and an emerge -e world (while the computer was in use) fixed that. Compiling that lot on a 1GHz G4 took over a day, about 2 days when you included OOo. -- Neil Bothwick WinErr 003: Dynamic linking error - Your mistake is now in every file signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> Stroller wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> To be honest, I am surprised this notion of "optimised executables" has
>> stuck around long enough that you've heard it, but it's an old joke to many
>> of us who were around in 2004.
>
> But AFAIK, it *was* faster because Gentoo used the egcs fork of GCC which
> did produce faster code. This was probably the origin of the "Gentoo
> performance" thingy. It was true. Wikipedia also notes this, and further
> states that the name "Gentoo" was chosen (previously it was "Enoch") because
> of this speed difference between Gentoo and other Distros ("the Gentoo
> species is the fastest swimming penguin").
>
> Soon after though, egcs merged back to gcc and all other distros became just
> as fast. So "it was good while it lasted". But this "Gentoo performance"
> cliché seems to stick around till today.
>
The power of good marketing! ;-)
- Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?
On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Stroller wrote: > > [...] > > To be honest, I am surprised this notion of "optimised executables" has > > stuck around long enough that you've heard it, but it's an old joke to > > many of us who were around in 2004. > > But AFAIK, it *was* faster because Gentoo used the egcs fork of GCC > which did produce faster code. gentoo never did that.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On 2/5/2009 7:01 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: no. He is an idiot if he does not read the docs. Simple. Like people who don't read the manual to their car or vcr and then complaining if something does not work. Idiots. "They should read the manual" is *not* a valid design goal for a system. At best, it's a justification or rationalization when outside constraints force a design to be non-intuitive. Given the choice between two otherwise equally functional systems (of any sort -- electronic, mechanical, digital, etc); if one requires me to spend extensive time reading an instruction manual to use and the other is designed to be easy to use out of the box -- the "idiot" is the person wasting their time reading instead of being productive. To use your own example, I have no problem figuring out how to start my car, turn on the A/C, tune my radio, and drive to work without reading the automobile manual. If Gentoo's installer *has* to be difficult because it's the only way to supply additional benefits or features, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. If Gentoo's installer is *stuck* being difficult because there is a lack of resources interested in making it better, that's an upsetting, but equally reasonable argument. If Gentoo's installer is difficult *on purpose* just to make Gentoo hard to use, that's ridiculous. --K
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?
On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Mike Edenfield wrote: > On 2/5/2009 7:01 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > no. He is an idiot if he does not read the docs. Simple. Like people who > > don't read the manual to their car or vcr and then complaining if > > something does not work. Idiots. > > "They should read the manual" is *not* a valid design goal for a system. > At best, it's a justification or rationalization when outside > constraints force a design to be non-intuitive. > > Given the choice between two otherwise equally functional systems (of > any sort -- electronic, mechanical, digital, etc); if one requires me to > spend extensive time reading an instruction manual to use and the other > is designed to be easy to use out of the box -- the "idiot" is the > person wasting their time reading instead of being productive. and not one single complex system is 'idiotproof'. > To use > your own example, I have no problem figuring out how to start my car, > turn on the A/C, tune my radio, and drive to work without reading the > automobile manual. but before you were even allowed to drive a car you had to take lessons and pass a test. > > If Gentoo's installer *has* to be difficult because it's the only way to > supply additional benefits or features, that's a perfectly reasonable > argument. If Gentoo's installer is *stuck* being difficult because > there is a lack of resources interested in making it better, that's an > upsetting, but equally reasonable argument. > > If Gentoo's installer is difficult *on purpose* just to make Gentoo hard > to use, that's ridiculous. gentoo's installer is EASY if you just read the docs.
