From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from <gentoo-server+bounces-2770-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>) id 1Ho27M-0006EC-Nq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 18:51:29 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4FIorVx005073; Tue, 15 May 2007 18:50:53 GMT Received: from mail.genotec.ch (gic-bal-bsd-002.genotec.ch [82.195.224.26]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l4FImrRA002592 for <gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 15 May 2007 18:48:53 GMT Received: from mars.int.worreby.ch (159-201.2-85.cust.bluewin.ch [85.2.201.159]) by mail.genotec.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA65416C6C30 for <gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 15 May 2007 20:48:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from galactica.int.worreby.ch (galactica.int.worreby.ch [192.168.68.249]) by mars.int.worreby.ch with esmtp; Tue, 15 May 2007 20:48:52 +0200 id 000AB663.464A0094.00000873 From: Robert Worreby <linux@worreby.ch> Organization: RoCoWo Consulting To: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked. Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:48:51 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <4645C473.4080809@gentoo.org> <4649C64F.9020908@gentoo.org> <4649EA40.1010200@hyperreal.org> In-Reply-To: <4649EA40.1010200@hyperreal.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-server+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-server+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-server+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-server.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-server@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705152048.51764.linux@worreby.ch> X-Archives-Salt: f52265bc-e574-4a48-a52d-e359d67caa71 X-Archives-Hash: b0fcc907d81b818fd1d072c0471a1f18 I can only agree with Mark, I use Gentoo extensively at home, and love it. But at work (Telco environment) I wouldn't recommend it, there we go with Red Hat Linux (surprise surprise ;-) ) when it comes to Linux, otherwise we're using HP-Unix and Sun Solaris extensively. Personally I'd prefer for a server environment Debian which for a company got a stable and long release cyclus (even though it's nowhere as flexible as Gentoo....) It's basically all boils down to production stability and knowing your environment from a to z. --Robert On Tuesday 15 May 2007 19:13, Mark Rudholm wrote: > Andrew Gaffney wrote: > > A. Khattri wrote: > >> I have no problem with change as long as there is an easy way to keep > >> what > >> we have. After all, Gentoo is about having a choice and removing the > >> apache flag from PHP without providing some other mechanism to keep it > >> is simply removing choice. > > > > I see this type of argument used all the time. Some people just don't > > seem to get the fact that all Gentoo devs are volunteers, and we will do > > whatever makes it easier on *us*. If you don't like it, don't bitch > > about choice. You have the *choice* to learn how to maintain the stuff > > yourself and not complain. You don't pay for Gentoo, so you don't have > > the right to tell any Gentoo dev what to do with their volunteer > > time.</rant> > > If people are using this argument all the time, it might be > worth considering why they are. > > Gentoo tends to remove packages or change them in a way that > is not rearward-compatible more readily than other distributions. > I understand that the labor is all volunteer, however, other, > more stable/mature distributions are also all-volunteer, but yes, > that's the way it is. People spend their volunteer time as they > see fit, I understand this completely. > > The result, however, is that Gentoo becomes an inappropriate > choice for a production server deployment. I haven't suggested > Gentoo for production servers to anyone (especially my employers) > since somewhere around 2003 for this reason. > > At work, my team of a few dozen people support tens of thousands > of Linux servers. We wrote our own tools for installation, > distribution, and maintenance of OSes and package sets. There was > a time when I considered that we could use Gentoo. Our own custom > Portage repositories could be maintained, and the portage tools > would cover a lot of the things we need to do very nicely. It'd > be great to build on the work of other Gentoo contributors, and > we'd no doubt join the larger community of contributors. But I > simply can't recommend this. The Gentoo developers and packagers > in general seem more interested in the latest shiny thing rather > than stability, reliability, and predictability. Fine for a desktop, > but antithetical to the needs of people running mission-critical > server farms. As you point out, it's entirely the prerogative of > the developers and packagers to set their own priorities, and I > agree of course, but do be aware of the results of the choices of > Gentoo packagers and developers and how they collectively create > the personality of the distro and how that personality effects the > choices of other potential contributors and users of Gentoo Linux. > > -Mark (who uses Gentoo on his personal systems these days) -- gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list