[gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Jamie Dobbs]

I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using Ubuntu but 
find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because of the level of 
customization that I can do with it.
However, I do have a few worries - why has there been no 2007.1 release 
(there was a 2006.1 from what I recall)? There also appears to have been 
a bit of turmoil in the Gentoo 'management;' - has this affected the 
long term viability of running Gentoo?
Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_ advantage 
to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
Just a few questions before I plunge in to it again :-)

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dale]

Jamie Dobbs wrote:
> I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using Ubuntu 
> but find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because of the level 
> of customization that I can do with it.
> However, I do have a few worries - why has there been no 2007.1 
> release (there was a 2006.1 from what I recall)? 

There wasn't a 2007.1 release because there was so much changes to so 
many packages and things just never lined up stability wise so there 
could be one.  That's my understanding of it anyway.  It just seems 
there was always something blocking progress.  I have read that 2008 
should be out real soon.  A couple weeks I think.  May want to wait and 
install from that depending on your situation.   
http://www.gentoo.org/news/20080123_releng_beta.xml

> There also appears to have been a bit of turmoil in the Gentoo 
> 'management;' - has this affected the long term viability of running 
> Gentoo?

The Foundation had some "legal" issues for a bit, long bit, which has 
been discussed on here and the forums at length but is either corrected 
now or in the process.  I think it is corrected now but not 100% sure of 
that.  Gentoo is very much alive and kicking tho.  The tree and distro 
itself is humming right along.  I see updates every day to packages so 
that is no worry.  As far as I know, the tree has not slowed down at 
all.  Just needed some lawyers involved on the foundation end.  < pukes 
at the idea > 

> Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_ 
> advantage to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
> Just a few questions before I plunge in to it again :-)
>

No clue on this one.  I'm not building a 64 bit rig until I know I can 
use it and it is supported 100%.  Since you already got one, may as well. 

Hope that helps.

Dale

:-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[KH]

Dale wrote:
> Jamie Dobbs wrote:
>
>> Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_ 
>> advantage to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
>> Just a few questions before I plunge in to it again :-)
>>
>
> No clue on this one.  I'm not building a 64 bit rig until I know I can 
> use it and it is supported 100%.  Since you already got one, may as well.
> Hope that helps.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)

only thing I found out until now is that flash is not working. Maybe 
this is fixed by now.

kh
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 319 bytes --]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:39:39 +0100, KH wrote:

> only thing I found out until now is that flash is not working. Maybe 
> this is fixed by now.

Install nspluginwrapper and the vast majority of flash sites work.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Actually, Microsoft is sort of a mixture between the Borg and the Ferengi.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:39:39 +0100, KH wrote:
>
>   
>> only thing I found out until now is that flash is not working. Maybe 
>> this is fixed by now.
>>     
>
> Install nspluginwrapper and the vast majority of flash sites work.
>
>
>   


Progress is being made then.  The last I heard the vast majority of 
software worked so maybe by the time I can build a rig it will be 100% 
working.  $$$$ is my issue right now.

I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in all.  
Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Uwe Thiem]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:

> I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in
> all. Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.

You and everybody else.

Plus tons of ram, 1TB storage and a good graphics subsystem. Yeah!

Uwe

-- 
Informal Linux Group Namibia:
http://www.linux.org.na/
SysEx (Pty) Ltd.:
http://www.SysEx.com.na/
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Kristian Poul Herkild]

> On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
>
>> I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in
>> all. Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.
>
> You and everybody else.
>
> Plus tons of ram, 1TB storage and a good graphics subsystem. Yeah!
>
> Uwe
>
> --
> Informal Linux Group Namibia:
> http://www.linux.org.na/
> SysEx (Pty) Ltd.:
> http://www.SysEx.com.na/
> --
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

Make it 2 TB - 1 TB is not enough. But what a machine to compile OO.o
with... not bad, ehh? *drooling*

-kristian poul herkild

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Robert Stockdale IV]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 836 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Kristian Poul Herkild <kristian@herkild.dk>
wrote:

> > On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
> >
> >> I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in
> >> all. Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.
> >
> > You and everybody else.
> >
> > Plus tons of ram, 1TB storage and a good graphics subsystem. Yeah!
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> > --
> > Informal Linux Group Namibia:
> > http://www.linux.org.na/
> > SysEx (Pty) Ltd.:
> > http://www.SysEx.com.na/
> > --
> > gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> >
>
> Make it 2 TB - 1 TB is not enough. But what a machine to compile OO.o
> with... not bad, ehh? *drooling*
>
> -kristian poul herkild
>
> --
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
Why not 2 Quad core Phenom processors that would make it 8 cores.
Bob

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1549 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dale]

Robert Stockdale IV wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:29 AM, Kristian Poul Herkild 
> <kristian@herkild.dk <mailto:kristian@herkild.dk>> wrote:
>
>     > On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
>     >
>     >> I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in
>     >> all. Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.
>     >
>     > You and everybody else.
>     >
>     > Plus tons of ram, 1TB storage and a good graphics subsystem. Yeah!
>     >
>     > Uwe
>     >
>     > --
>     > Informal Linux Group Namibia:
>     > http://www.linux.org.na/
>     > SysEx (Pty) Ltd.:
>     > http://www.SysEx.com.na/
>     > --
>     > gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>     <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> mailing list
>     >
>     >
>
>     Make it 2 TB - 1 TB is not enough. But what a machine to compile OO.o
>     with... not bad, ehh? *drooling*
>
>     -kristian poul herkild
>
>     --
>     gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
>     mailing list
>
>
> Why not 2 Quad core Phenom processors that would make it 8 cores.
> Bob


Do they make them with dual AMD sockets?  Do they make them with quad 
AMD sockets?  I know they did at one time but not sure any more.  I'm a 
AMD person.  Nothing against Intel, just like AMD is all. 

Since I am on a stinking dial-up still, drive space is not a issue for 
me.  :'( 

I do have a old Compaq Presario with quad CPUs and a whooping 128MBs of 
ram tho.  I used to run folding on it.  It's a table right now.  Big 
enough table too.  LOL

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-) 

P. S.  Is this coming through as plain text?
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
> P. S.  Is this coming through as plain text?

Yes. They all do that, sir :-)

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
>   
>> P. S.  Is this coming through as plain text?
>>     
>
> Yes. They all do that, sir :-)
>
>   


Thanks.  Any time they don't, let me know.  Here or any other list.  
I'll get my hammer if needed.  :-@

Dale

:-)  :-) 
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 319 bytes --]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:29:59 +0100 (CET), Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:

> Make it 2 TB - 1 TB is not enough. But what a machine to compile OO.o
> with... not bad, ehh? *drooling*

Forget compiling OOo, that machine would be fast enough to run it ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

In space, no one can hear you fart.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Amar Cosic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 122 bytes --]

There should be gentoo-chat list


-- 
Amar Ćosić
amar.cosic@gmail.com
amar@amar.co.ba
+38761240095
http://www.amar.co.ba

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 274 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Amar Cosic wrote:
> There should be gentoo-chat list

There is one. We call it gentoo-user.

It's a rite-of-passage thing. When you figure out the *real* purpose of 
gentoo-user, then we let you into the inner circle.

Next week's lesson is to figure out the *real* mailing list where you 
can get valuable support for user apps.

See you next week.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Iain Buchanan]

On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 12:59 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Amar Cosic wrote:
> > There should be gentoo-chat list
> 
> There is one. We call it gentoo-user.
> 
> It's a rite-of-passage thing. When you figure out the *real* purpose of 
> gentoo-user, then we let you into the inner circle.

lol.  So long as I don't have to eat the cookie.

-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

You can't have everything.  Where would you put it?
		-- Steven Wright

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Uwe Thiem]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:29:59 +0100 (CET), Kristian Poul Herkild 
wrote:
> > Make it 2 TB - 1 TB is not enough. But what a machine to compile
> > OO.o with... not bad, ehh? *drooling*
>
> Forget compiling OOo, that machine would be fast enough to run it
> ;-)

Indead, forget about compile time of OOo. It will use only one 
core. :-(

Uwe

-- 
Informal Linux Group Namibia:
http://www.linux.org.na/
SysEx (Pty) Ltd.:
http://www.SysEx.com.na/
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
> I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in all.
>   Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.

Huh. Dunno about that. I have a Core2 Duo with 2G RAM here and took 
kdeenablefinal out of USE last night. Started emerge world at midnight, 
wanted to remerge 240+ packages, at 7am this morning it was up to #200 
or thereabouts.

So either these cpus aren't all they are cracked up to be or the 
software is just HUGE. I'm going with the latter :-)

I also see that kde-4.0.2 just hit portage, complete with 345M of 
sources to be downloaded. The other lads in the office here think I am 
completely and utterly mentally defective to want to run Gentoo. I 
think I'm starting to see why they might think that <evil_grin>

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
>   
>> I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in all.
>>   Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.
>>     
>
> Huh. Dunno about that. I have a Core2 Duo with 2G RAM here and took 
> kdeenablefinal out of USE last night. Started emerge world at midnight, 
> wanted to remerge 240+ packages, at 7am this morning it was up to #200 
> or thereabouts.
>
> So either these cpus aren't all they are cracked up to be or the 
> software is just HUGE. I'm going with the latter :-)
>
> I also see that kde-4.0.2 just hit portage, complete with 345M of 
> sources to be downloaded. The other lads in the office here think I am 
> completely and utterly mentally defective to want to run Gentoo. I 
> think I'm starting to see why they might think that <evil_grin>
>
>   

My old AMD 2500+ with 1Gb of ram does pretty good.  I would just like to 
be able to type in cat /proc/cpuinfo and see it list those CPUs.  LOL 

I agree, the software is just huge.  It just seems to keep creeping up 
on us.  Compile times just keep going up too. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

root@smoker / # emerge -ep world | genlop -p
These are the pretended packages: (this may take a while; wait...)

<<  SNIP one loooooooong list  >>


Estimated update time: 1 day, 20 hours, 53 minutes.
root@smoker / # 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That used to be about 23 hours or so.  More bells and whistles tho.  o_O

I'm sticking with KDE 3 right now.  With this dial-up and the frequency 
of updates, it's just not worth it right now.  By the time I get it 
updated a new set of updates is coming out.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:


> root@smoker / # emerge -ep world | genlop -p
> These are the pretended packages: (this may take a while; wait...)
>
> <<  SNIP one loooooooong list  >>
>
>
> Estimated update time: 1 day, 20 hours, 53 minutes.
> root@smoker / #

Hmmm. Mine's about the same :-)

Estimated update time: 1 day, 16 hours, 10 minutes.

On my previous notebook, that was 11 hours!

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Naga]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008 11:02:16 Dale wrote:
[...]
> I'm sticking with KDE 3 right now.  With this dial-up and the frequency
> of updates, it's just not worth it right now.  By the time I get it
> updated a new set of updates is coming out.

Guess I'm nuts since I run kde-svn... ;)

-- 
Naga
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Naga wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008 11:02:16 Dale wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I'm sticking with KDE 3 right now.  With this dial-up and the
> > frequency of updates, it's just not worth it right now.  By the
> > time I get it updated a new set of updates is coming out.
>
> Guess I'm nuts since I run kde-svn... ;)

wellwhaddayaknow. There's at least one person in the world more nuts 
than me:

kde-4.0.2
e17-cvs

:-)



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> wellwhaddayaknow. There's at least one person in the world more nuts 
> than me:
>
> kde-4.0.2
> e17-cvs
>
> :-)
>   

Make that two.  o_O 

Dale

:-)  :-) 
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > wellwhaddayaknow. There's at least one person in the world more
> > nuts than me:
> >
> > kde-4.0.2
> > e17-cvs
> >
> > :-)
>
> Make that two.  o_O


Bugger. Here's me thinking I was unique in the world.

I reckon that fellow who was hinting earlier that this thread should 
move to a -chat list is probably pulling his hair out by now 
harharhar :-)


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 252 bytes --]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:08:59 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Bugger. Here's me thinking I was unique in the world.

You are, just like everyone else :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Did you hear about the blind prostitute? You have to hand it to her.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Uwe Thiem]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> I also see that kde-4.0.2 just hit portage, complete with 345M of
> sources to be downloaded. 

It's compiling here right now. On two boxes using distcc.

BTW, you can reduce the downloads by a large margin using deltup. 

> The other lads in the office here think I 
> am completely and utterly mentally defective to want to run Gentoo.
> I think I'm starting to see why they might think that <evil_grin>

The gentoo "community" is slowly growing here in Namibia - since the 
introduction of ADSL. ;-)

Uwe

-- 
Informal Linux Group Namibia:
http://www.linux.org.na/
SysEx (Pty) Ltd.:
http://www.SysEx.com.na/
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dale]

Uwe Thiem wrote:
>
> BTW, you can reduce the downloads by a large margin using deltup. 
>   
>
> Uwe
>
>   

Dial-up user reporting in here.  What is this "feature" you speak of 
here?  How does this work?

Dale

:-)  :-) 
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Uwe Thiem]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
> Uwe Thiem wrote:
> > BTW, you can reduce the downloads by a large margin using deltup.
> >
> >
> > Uwe
>
> Dial-up user reporting in here.  What is this "feature" you speak
> of here?  How does this work?

Instead of downloading the whole tarball of a new version of a 
package, it downloads a delta between the latest old version and the 
new version (kind of diff). It then produces the new tarball locally 
from the old one and the delta.

Simply emerge deltup and add the following line to 
your /etc/make.conf:
FETCHCOMMAND="/usr/bin/getdelta.sh \${URI}"

It can reduce your downloads by up to 95% depending on how much the 
new tarballs differs from the old one.

And now the downside:

1.
It doesn't help you when you emerge a new package for the first time.

2.
At times, it simply doesn't work. It will then fall back to 
downloading the whole tarball.

Give it a try. If it doesn't suit you, you can simple delete the line 
above from make.conf.

Uwe

-- 
Informal Linux Group Namibia:
http://www.linux.org.na/
SysEx (Pty) Ltd.:
http://www.SysEx.com.na/
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1067 bytes --]

Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 schrieb ext Alan McKinnon:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dale wrote:
> > I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in all.
> >   Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.
>
> Huh. Dunno about that. I have a Core2 Duo with 2G RAM here and took
> kdeenablefinal out of USE last night. Started emerge world at midnight,
> wanted to remerge 240+ packages, at 7am this morning it was up to #200
> or thereabouts.

KDE 3 is known for its long build times. Thanks to the new build system, KDE 
4 builds orders of magnitude faster (kdelibs 4 build takes way less than an 
hour on my Core 2 Duo laptop, while kdelibs 3 takes more than 3 hours).

Bye...

	Dirk
-- 
Dirk Heinrichs          | Tel:  +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager   | Fax:  +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland   | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Wanheimerstraße 68      | Web:  http://www.capgemini.com
D-40468 Düsseldorf      | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Uwe Thiem]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:

> KDE 3 is known for its long build times. Thanks to the new build
> system, KDE 4 builds orders of magnitude faster (kdelibs 4 build
> takes way less than an hour on my Core 2 Duo laptop, while kdelibs
> 3 takes more than 3 hours).

Oh, oh, oh. 1 hour vs. 3 hours isn't orders of magnitude. Even in 
binary, it would only be 1 oder of magnitude. ;-)  Otherwise, I 
agree, cmake is much faster than autotools.

Uwe

-- 
Informal Linux Group Namibia:
http://www.linux.org.na/
SysEx (Pty) Ltd.:
http://www.SysEx.com.na/
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --]

Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 schrieb ext Uwe Thiem:
> On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > KDE 3 is known for its long build times. Thanks to the new build
> > system, KDE 4 builds orders of magnitude faster (kdelibs 4 build
> > takes way less than an hour on my Core 2 Duo laptop, while kdelibs
> > 3 takes more than 3 hours).
>
> Oh, oh, oh. 1 hour vs. 3 hours isn't orders of magnitude.

That's kdelibs only. The savings sum up to a difference of several hours for 
all of KDE (if I remember right, KDE 4 was built in 4-5 hours last time).

Bye...

	Dirk
-- 
Dirk Heinrichs          | Tel:  +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager   | Fax:  +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland   | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Wanheimerstraße 68      | Web:  http://www.capgemini.com
D-40468 Düsseldorf      | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Iain Buchanan]

On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 04:12 -0500, Dale wrote:

> I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in all.  
> Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.

<brag> I just installed Gentoo on a quad-core dual-cpu Xeon E5420
(2.50GHz).  8Gb RAM, 800Gb raid.  It's not mine - I've only convinced
the sysadmin to let me play until it needs to be used for something real
(what a waste to have those cpu's doing nothing, I thought, so let's
install Gentoo :)

MAKEOPTS="-j9"

...
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody 
appreciates how difficult it was."
-- Walt West

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Matthias Bethke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 870 bytes --]

Hi Iain,
on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 04:53:40PM +0930, you wrote:
> <brag> I just installed Gentoo on a quad-core dual-cpu Xeon E5420
> (2.50GHz).  8Gb RAM, 800Gb raid.  It's not mine - I've only convinced
> the sysadmin to let me play until it needs to be used for something real
> (what a waste to have those cpu's doing nothing, I thought, so let's
> install Gentoo :)

FSC made a mistake with their price lists for us these weeks, they seem
to have deducted academic institution discount twice---and as they have
to give 30 days notice upon raising prices according to their contract
with university, they couldn't just correct it right away. Guess who got
himself a machine pretty much like that... <snicker>

scnr,
	Matthias
-- 
I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665
Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0A A6FC DF0D 19B0  8DEF 48D9 1700 FAC3 7665

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Chris Brennan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

just go 4x4 :D 16 CPU's and 128G of ram .... drool

Dale wrote:
| Neil Bothwick wrote:
|> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:39:39 +0100, KH wrote:
|>
|>
|>> only thing I found out until now is that flash is not working. Maybe
|>> this is fixed by now.
|>>
|>
|> Install nspluginwrapper and the vast majority of flash sites work.
|>
|>
|>
|
|
| Progress is being made then.  The last I heard the vast majority of
| software worked so maybe by the time I can build a rig it will be 100%
| working.  $$$$ is my issue right now.
|
| I would love to build a rig with two dual core CPUs, 4 cores in all.
| Compile times would be pretty short.  ;-)  Woooooo Ooooooo.
|
| Dale
|
| :-)  :-)  :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH2s2C8hUIAnGfls4RApjwAJ0Z6XRw4vtbXz94Iu733nxO6Q++BwCfdDnd
Tdrc2qtZM71ku4u63si1O64=
=xD7X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[KH]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:39:39 +0100, KH wrote:
>
>   
>> only thing I found out until now is that flash is not working. Maybe 
>> this is fixed by now.
>>     
>
> Install nspluginwrapper and the vast majority of flash sites work.
>
>
>   
cool. Never missed it but it's nice to have it. Thanx
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[BRM]

--- Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:39:39 +0100, KH wrote:
> > only thing I found out until now is that flash is not working.
> Maybe 
> > this is fixed by now.
> Install nspluginwrapper and the vast majority of flash sites work.

Yep, running AMD64 at home. For the most part, no problems. I've got
nspluginwrapper installed - and it was working at one point, but
doesn't seem to be any longer (not sure why). I did notice that Firefox
had problems with having tv.yahoo.com up AND another flash site
(youtube, google video, etc.) in different tabs or windows running
through the same instance; seems to work okay if you use profiles to
run multiple instances.

The only other issue I've run into is having a good port of Java for
the 64-bit environment - Sun's JDK builds to the 32-bit right now;
would be nice for it to support 64-bit too.

Overall, with my 1 GB RAM, AMD Athon AMD64 3200+ I really like running
it in the 64-bit mode. Things work pretty well, and I have no
complaints whatsoever - of course, it probably helps I have other
non-64-bit systems to mitigate any issues, like the Flash issue.

Ben
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[KH]

Jamie Dobbs wrote:
> I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using Ubuntu 
> but find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because of the level 
> of customization that I can do with it.
> However, I do have a few worries - why has there been no 2007.1 
> release (there was a 2006.1 from what I recall)? There also appears to 
> have been a bit of turmoil in the Gentoo 'management;' - has this 
> affected the long term viability of running Gentoo?
> Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_ 
> advantage to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
> Just a few questions before I plunge in to it again :-)
>
you can find anonther to your question in the mailing list. this is an 
email chris brennan wrote some days ago:

> The problem is that we don't believe in tales about witches and 
> premonition, do we? ;)

I do, does that count?

> Some people call it yellow press (though in my country it would be 
> translated
> to "pink press" :P. This gets kind of boring, because every two or 
> three days a similar thread arises in the forum or here. Once a year I 
> answer this kind
> of topic (I usually just silently ignore them).

Bad press In general should just about do it. If in doubt, /. it first. 
If it's been /.'d, dig, if you can dig it. Something is afoot, and we 
all need to be paying attention :D

> Right now, gentoo is stronger than ever. Monthly newsletter works 
> again, and
> they are better than ever. The legal issues with the foundation (about 
> papers
> and bureaucracy) are all now solved and portage is maintained and updated
> everyday. I figure how a person that use gentoo can question these 
> things...
> So I figure if any of the persons who open this kind of threads are 
> really using
> Gentoo for anything else than installing it to be cooler.

Gentoo is like a cult ... it can't easily be killed.

"Every generation has a mythology. Every millenium has a doomsday cult. 
Every legend gets the distortion knob wound up until the speaker melts. 
Archeologists at the University of Helsinki today uncovered what could 
be the earliest known writings from the Cult of Tux, a fanatical 
religious sect that flourished during the early Silicon Age, around the 
dawn of the third millenium AD..." Gospel of Tux, Verse I

> No offense intended. As I said, this just gets boring after 1000 posts 
> telling
> the same. It kind of seems like spam to me.

It's dead, squashed, flattened, ya hear :D (very poor Capone imitation)

> Saludos :)
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Mike Mazur]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Jamie Dobbs <jamie.dobbs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using Ubuntu but
>  find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because of the level of
>  customization that I can do with it.
>  However, I do have a few worries - why has there been no 2007.1 release
>  (there was a 2006.1 from what I recall)? There also appears to have been
>  a bit of turmoil in the Gentoo 'management;' - has this affected the
>  long term viability of running Gentoo?

Gentoo is doing just fine. Welcome back!

Mike
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Matthias Fechner]

Hi Jamie,

Jamie Dobbs schrieb:
> Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_ advantage 
> to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
> Just a few questions before I plunge in to it again :-)

you need a 64-bit system only if you have more then 4GB memory on your 
pc. If not I would suggest to use x86.

Bye,
Matthias

-- 
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to 
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to 
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." -- 
Rich Cook
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 11 March 2008 07:22:38 Jamie Dobbs wrote:

> I do have a few worries - why has there been no 2007.1 release (there was
> a 2006.1 from what I recall)?

Gentoo does not have versions. What you're quoting is the version of the 
installation CD, which doesn't have to keep up with the installed system.

> Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_ advantage
> to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?

Why are you telling us what you're not running? It's hard to answer your 
question in this form.

-- 
Rgds
Peter
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Mark Knecht]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Jamie Dobbs <jamie.dobbs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using Ubuntu but
>  find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because of the level of
>  customization that I can do with it.

Well then, welcome back.

<SNIP>
>  Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_ advantage
>  to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?

I run an amd64 as my desktop system. It' started as my 3rd machine so
at the time it was 64-bit for fun. today I just live with it. There
are some limitations on the 64-bit platform with web-based media, but
beyond that I find 32 and 64-bit machines to be pretty similar in
performance. I run old windows games under Wine on 64-bit and they
work OK. I think Flash and Java have been the two larger issues for me
over time. A few win32codec issues also. However if I wanted to get
around those I could probably do something in a chroot but I'm not
that motivated.

If I was building a desktop machine today I wouldn't build 64-bit. I
see no advantage and a few disadvantages, but either way you go you'll
probably be fine.

Cheers,
Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dan Farrell]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:00:41 -0700
"Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Jamie Dobbs
> <jamie.dobbs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using Ubuntu
> > but find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because of the
> > level of customization that I can do with it.
> 
> Well then, welcome back.
> 
> <SNIP>
> >  Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_
> > advantage to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
> 
> I run an amd64 as my desktop system. It' started as my 3rd machine so
> at the time it was 64-bit for fun. today I just live with it. There
> are some limitations on the 64-bit platform with web-based media, but
> beyond that I find 32 and 64-bit machines to be pretty similar in
> performance. I run old windows games under Wine on 64-bit and they
> work OK. I think Flash and Java have been the two larger issues for me
> over time. A few win32codec issues also. However if I wanted to get
> around those I could probably do something in a chroot but I'm not
> that motivated.
> 
> If I was building a desktop machine today I wouldn't build 64-bit. I
> see no advantage and a few disadvantages, but either way you go you'll
> probably be fine.

I use a 64 bit myself and have done so ever since I got tired of
running 32bit and wasting half my CPU.  I recommend running a 32bit
firefox, but other than that, there's no real problems here.  Wine
seems to run a little better in 64 bit than I've seen it perform on
other systems but it's hard to be sure.  

Anyhow, just wanted to say I switched from 64 to 32 originally, as Mark
suggested, and switched back very quickly.  I don't know if the speed
really changed, but it made me feel better about myself.  

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:00:41 -0700
>  "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Jamie Dobbs
>  > <jamie.dobbs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>  > > I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using Ubuntu
>  > > but find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because of the
>  > > level of customization that I can do with it.
>  >
>  > Well then, welcome back.
>  >
>  > <SNIP>
>  > >  Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_
>  > > advantage to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
>  >
>  > I run an amd64 as my desktop system. It' started as my 3rd machine so
>  > at the time it was 64-bit for fun. today I just live with it. There
>  > are some limitations on the 64-bit platform with web-based media, but
>  > beyond that I find 32 and 64-bit machines to be pretty similar in
>  > performance. I run old windows games under Wine on 64-bit and they
>  > work OK. I think Flash and Java have been the two larger issues for me
>  > over time. A few win32codec issues also. However if I wanted to get
>  > around those I could probably do something in a chroot but I'm not
>  > that motivated.
>  >
>  > If I was building a desktop machine today I wouldn't build 64-bit. I
>  > see no advantage and a few disadvantages, but either way you go you'll
>  > probably be fine.
>
>  I use a 64 bit myself and have done so ever since I got tired of
>  running 32bit and wasting half my CPU.  I recommend running a 32bit
>  firefox, but other than that, there's no real problems here.  Wine
>  seems to run a little better in 64 bit than I've seen it perform on
>  other systems but it's hard to be sure.
>
>  Anyhow, just wanted to say I switched from 64 to 32 originally, as Mark
>  suggested, and switched back very quickly.  I don't know if the speed
>  really changed, but it made me feel better about myself.
>

It's an interesting question and one I've not tried to test. Does an
AMD64 machine running a 32-bit or 64-bit install run faster or slower
with one or the other. For all of my everyday work - Gnome, Firefox,
web browsing, email, MythTV, etc., it's been my assumption that there
wouldn't be any noticeble difference. I run 64-bit but assume I'd run
at more or less the same speed if I ran 32-bit. I may be wrong. Anyone
have any measured data? Same machine, two installs?

I should see about 1) getting my chroot working again and then 2)
getting it to boot and doing a check.

Thanks,
Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dan Farrell]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:06:07 -0700
"Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:00:41 -0700
> >  "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Jamie Dobbs
> >  > <jamie.dobbs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >  > > I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using
> >  > > Ubuntu but find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because
> >  > > of the level of customization that I can do with it.
> >  >
> >  > Well then, welcome back.
> >  >
> >  > <SNIP>
> >  > >  Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_
> >  > > advantage to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
> >  >
> >  > I run an amd64 as my desktop system. It' started as my 3rd
> >  > machine so at the time it was 64-bit for fun. today I just live
> >  > with it. There are some limitations on the 64-bit platform with
> >  > web-based media, but beyond that I find 32 and 64-bit machines
> >  > to be pretty similar in performance. I run old windows games
> >  > under Wine on 64-bit and they work OK. I think Flash and Java
> >  > have been the two larger issues for me over time. A few
> >  > win32codec issues also. However if I wanted to get around those
> >  > I could probably do something in a chroot but I'm not that
> >  > motivated.
> >  >
> >  > If I was building a desktop machine today I wouldn't build
> >  > 64-bit. I see no advantage and a few disadvantages, but either
> >  > way you go you'll probably be fine.
> >
> >  I use a 64 bit myself and have done so ever since I got tired of
> >  running 32bit and wasting half my CPU.  I recommend running a 32bit
> >  firefox, but other than that, there's no real problems here.  Wine
> >  seems to run a little better in 64 bit than I've seen it perform on
> >  other systems but it's hard to be sure.
> >
> >  Anyhow, just wanted to say I switched from 64 to 32 originally, as
> > Mark suggested, and switched back very quickly.  I don't know if
> > the speed really changed, but it made me feel better about myself.
> >
> 
> It's an interesting question and one I've not tried to test. Does an
> AMD64 machine running a 32-bit or 64-bit install run faster or slower
> with one or the other. For all of my everyday work - Gnome, Firefox,
> web browsing, email, MythTV, etc., it's been my assumption that there
> wouldn't be any noticeble difference. 

for all of the above, the cpu probably isn't going to effect you either
way.  Network/Hard disk is likely to be the bottleneck for all of
them.  MythTV uses an SQL backend and should benefit a little from 64
bit - databases are one of the few places that really benefit from
those extra bits, not sure why.  

GIMP also seems to benefit a little, as does encoding pretty much any
media (especially video).  I'd imagine that inkscape and blender, etc.
would also benefit significantly.  But these results aren't tested,
just mildly observed.  

> I run 64-bit but assume I'd run
> at more or less the same speed if I ran 32-bit. I may be wrong. Anyone
> have any measured data? Same machine, two installs?
> 
I never measured anything, but I wouldn't expect to see too much of a
difference.  If you want to waste your processor's registers, go 32
bit.  If you want to jump through hoops to deal with the greater web
community (flash, java, etc) go 64 bit.  Those are the downsides of
each.  

I highly recommend multilib, though I never chroot into a native 32bit
environment.  You'll want to run a few of your programs 32bit,
probably.  But the two get together really well.  
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:06:07 -0700
>  "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx>
>  > wrote:
>  > > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:00:41 -0700
>  > >  "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Jamie Dobbs
>  > >  > <jamie.dobbs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>  > >  > > I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using
>  > >  > > Ubuntu but find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because
>  > >  > > of the level of customization that I can do with it.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Well then, welcome back.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > <SNIP>
>  > >  > >  Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_
>  > >  > > advantage to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
>  > >  >
>  > >  > I run an amd64 as my desktop system. It' started as my 3rd
>  > >  > machine so at the time it was 64-bit for fun. today I just live
>  > >  > with it. There are some limitations on the 64-bit platform with
>  > >  > web-based media, but beyond that I find 32 and 64-bit machines
>  > >  > to be pretty similar in performance. I run old windows games
>  > >  > under Wine on 64-bit and they work OK. I think Flash and Java
>  > >  > have been the two larger issues for me over time. A few
>  > >  > win32codec issues also. However if I wanted to get around those
>  > >  > I could probably do something in a chroot but I'm not that
>  > >  > motivated.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > If I was building a desktop machine today I wouldn't build
>  > >  > 64-bit. I see no advantage and a few disadvantages, but either
>  > >  > way you go you'll probably be fine.
>  > >
>  > >  I use a 64 bit myself and have done so ever since I got tired of
>  > >  running 32bit and wasting half my CPU.  I recommend running a 32bit
>  > >  firefox, but other than that, there's no real problems here.  Wine
>  > >  seems to run a little better in 64 bit than I've seen it perform on
>  > >  other systems but it's hard to be sure.
>  > >
>  > >  Anyhow, just wanted to say I switched from 64 to 32 originally, as
>  > > Mark suggested, and switched back very quickly.  I don't know if
>  > > the speed really changed, but it made me feel better about myself.
>  > >
>  >
>  > It's an interesting question and one I've not tried to test. Does an
>  > AMD64 machine running a 32-bit or 64-bit install run faster or slower
>  > with one or the other. For all of my everyday work - Gnome, Firefox,
>  > web browsing, email, MythTV, etc., it's been my assumption that there
>  > wouldn't be any noticeble difference.
>
>  for all of the above, the cpu probably isn't going to effect you either
>  way.  Network/Hard disk is likely to be the bottleneck for all of
>  them.

And I submit that my usage is probably pretty common for most desktop
Linux users. The only performance issue might be emerge.

> MythTV uses an SQL backend and should benefit a little from 64
>  bit - databases are one of the few places that really benefit from
>  those extra bits, not sure why.

Not going to help me. The backend is on a 32-bit SMP machine. I'm
frontend only in my office.

>
>  GIMP also seems to benefit a little, as does encoding pretty much any
>  media (especially video).  I'd imagine that inkscape and blender, etc.
>  would also benefit significantly.  But these results aren't tested,
>  just mildly observed.

Yeah, makes sense.

>
>  > I run 64-bit but assume I'd run
>  > at more or less the same speed if I ran 32-bit. I may be wrong. Anyone
>  > have any measured data? Same machine, two installs?
>  >
>  I never measured anything, but I wouldn't expect to see too much of a
>  difference.  If you want to waste your processor's registers, go 32
>  bit.  If you want to jump through hoops to deal with the greater web
>  community (flash, java, etc) go 64 bit.  Those are the downsides of
>  each.

Yep. I understand the second first hand and probably cannot verify the first.

>
>  I highly recommend multilib, though I never chroot into a native 32bit
>  environment.  You'll want to run a few of your programs 32bit,
>  probably.  But the two get together really well.

As an end-user, non-developer, home-only Gentoo sys admin I don't even
know what multilib is although I see it popping up all the time.
Please don't feel the need to write up anything major. Point me at
some doc that explains why I'd care and I'll read that. Thanks!

Cheers,
Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 14 March 2008, Mark Knecht wrote:
> It's an interesting question and one I've not tried to test. Does an
> AMD64 machine running a 32-bit or 64-bit install run faster or slower
> with one or the other.

Simple logic dictates that 32 and 64 apps will *generally* run at 
exactly the same speed, mostly because the amd64 arch is x86 with 64 
bit extensions. Unless your app is compiled to actually use the 64 bit 
features (you'd be surprised just how few are), 32 and 64 bit code 
tends to run at exactly the same speed using exactly the same opcodes 
at exactly the same clock rate.

For any app not using intensive 64 bit arithmetic (super-duper math/sci 
stuff and seriously intensive graphics are the only ones I can think of 
off-hand) it's hard to see a benefit for amd64 with current desktop 
memory loads.

The real benefit of amd64 becomes very obvious when you are dealing with 
apps that consume huge amounts of memory and 3G of addressable space 
for all apps just doesn't cut it. This is the problem amd64 was 
primarily designed to solve. When you have an app that does benefit 
from amd64 - like Sybase IQ just to pull a random selection from a 
hat :-) the difference is astounding.

Conventional desktops? Never seen a benefit yet on a normal desktop.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Filipe Sousa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark Knecht wrote:
| On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx> wrote:
| 
| It's an interesting question and one I've not tried to test. Does an
| AMD64 machine running a 32-bit or 64-bit install run faster or slower
| with one or the other. For all of my everyday work - Gnome, Firefox,
| web browsing, email, MythTV, etc., it's been my assumption that there
| wouldn't be any noticeble difference. I run 64-bit but assume I'd run
| at more or less the same speed if I ran 32-bit. I may be wrong. Anyone
| have any measured data? Same machine, two installs?

I have a few numbers from genlop -t

*32-bit*

~ * www-client/mozilla-firefox
~     Sat Dec 29 00:35:39 2007 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.11
~       merge time: 11 minutes and 30 seconds.

~     Sat Feb  9 12:43:52 2008 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.12
~       merge time: 10 minutes and 44 seconds.

~ * mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird
~     Sat Aug  4 13:25:28 2007 >>> mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird-2.0.0.6
~       merge time: 18 minutes and 49 seconds.

~     Fri Nov 23 12:57:01 2007 >>> mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird-2.0.0.9
~       merge time: 10 minutes and 37 seconds.

~ * kde-base/kdelibs
~     Sat Dec 29 09:31:18 2007 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.7-r3
~       merge time: 18 minutes and 56 seconds.

~     Sat Dec 29 11:07:40 2007 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.7-r3
~       merge time: 19 minutes and 37 seconds.

~     Wed Jan 30 20:38:52 2008 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.8-r3
~       merge time: 18 minutes and 19 seconds.

~     Tue Feb 26 20:16:28 2008 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.8-r3
~       merge time: 21 minutes and 38 seconds.

* app-office/openoffice
~ Fri Nov 23 19:14:12 2007 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.0
~       merge time: 1 hour and 48 seconds.

~     Sat Dec 29 01:35:35 2007 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1
~       merge time: 59 minutes and 56 seconds.

~     Tue Feb  5 11:51:26 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1-r1
~       merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 28 seconds.


*64-bit*

* www-client/mozilla-firefox
~     Tue Jan  1 14:14:50 2008 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.11
~       merge time: 8 minutes and 43 seconds.

~     Wed Feb 20 21:39:03 2008 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.12
~       merge time: 8 minutes and 39 seconds.

* mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird
~     Tue Jan  1 14:25:01 2008 >>> mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird-2.0.0.9
~       merge time: 9 minutes and 9 seconds.

~     Sun Mar  9 01:22:43 2008 >>> mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird-2.0.0.12
~       merge time: 8 minutes and 2 seconds.

* kde-base/kdelibs
~     Tue Jan  1 11:04:37 2008 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.7-r3
~       merge time: 16 minutes and 47 seconds.

~     Wed Feb 20 22:01:22 2008 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.8-r3
~       merge time: 18 minutes and 12 seconds.

* app-office/openoffice
~     Fri Mar 14 21:23:57 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1-r1
~       merge time: 48 minutes and 45 seconds.

These times are from the same machine: 
abit ip35 pro, c2quad q6600 (2.4ghz), 4gb ram, (320+320) sataII raid0 (155-MB/s)

- --
Filipe Sousa
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH2wABbQdNYqwwwCwRAvWsAKCSjwXXHIT2agHd7Hh+7ZwaTOzQeQCdG1Ct
M29wU4QkWfsgkRO1jgipuKw=
=5cdc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dan Farrell]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:45:21 +0000
Filipe Sousa <natros@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> I have a few numbers from genlop -t
>

Thanks much!  This was interesting for me to read.  I am surprised by
how much faster 64bit system was for compiling these things.  
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Filipe Sousa <natros@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> | On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx> wrote:
>  |
>  | It's an interesting question and one I've not tried to test. Does an
>  | AMD64 machine running a 32-bit or 64-bit install run faster or slower
>
> | with one or the other. For all of my everyday work - Gnome, Firefox,
>  | web browsing, email, MythTV, etc., it's been my assumption that there
>  | wouldn't be any noticeble difference. I run 64-bit but assume I'd run
>
> | at more or less the same speed if I ran 32-bit. I may be wrong. Anyone
>  | have any measured data? Same machine, two installs?
>
>  I have a few numbers from genlop -t
>
<SNIP>
>
>  These times are from the same machine:
>  abit ip35 pro, c2quad q6600 (2.4ghz), 4gb ram, (320+320) sataII raid0 (155-MB/s)
>
>  - --
>  Filipe Sousa

Nice numbers and nice machine. Must have set you back a bit. ;-)

It seems when I match up exact revisions you're getting something
between a 10-15% speed increase. Quite nice.

Do we know that the amount code compiled is identical? I imagine
everything you show is correct since the speed increase is pretty
consistent from app to app.

Great stuff. Thanks.

Cheers,
Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Filipe Sousa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark Knecht wrote:
| On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Filipe Sousa <natros@gmail.com> wrote:

| Nice numbers and nice machine. Must have set you back a bit. ;-)

this machine was built by me just for gentoo.

| It seems when I match up exact revisions you're getting something
| between a 10-15% speed increase. Quite nice.
|
| Do we know that the amount code compiled is identical? I imagine
| everything you show is correct since the speed increase is pretty
| consistent from app to app.

the numbers may not be 100% accurate because i'm doing other things
while compiling but i'm pretty happy with the result.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH2xC4bQdNYqwwwCwRAkrhAJ4vz4wfdiginX2kZey1ryk5Ypz5zwCeN0Ct
x5quz7ViyYgRXwaFFo/d66Q=
=8vmC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Richard Marzan]

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> | On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx> wrote:
> | 
> | It's an interesting question and one I've not tried to test. Does an
> | AMD64 machine running a 32-bit or 64-bit install run faster or slower
> | with one or the other. For all of my everyday work - Gnome, Firefox,
> | web browsing, email, MythTV, etc., it's been my assumption that there
> | wouldn't be any noticeble difference. I run 64-bit but assume I'd run
> | at more or less the same speed if I ran 32-bit. I may be wrong. Anyone
> | have any measured data? Same machine, two installs?
> 
> I have a few numbers from genlop -t
> 
> *32-bit*
> 
> ~ * www-client/mozilla-firefox
> ~     Sat Dec 29 00:35:39 2007 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.11
> ~       merge time: 11 minutes and 30 seconds.
> 
> ~     Sat Feb  9 12:43:52 2008 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.12
> ~       merge time: 10 minutes and 44 seconds.
> 
> ~ * mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird
> ~     Sat Aug  4 13:25:28 2007 >>> mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird-2.0.0.6
> ~       merge time: 18 minutes and 49 seconds.
> 
> ~     Fri Nov 23 12:57:01 2007 >>> mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird-2.0.0.9
> ~       merge time: 10 minutes and 37 seconds.
> 
> ~ * kde-base/kdelibs
> ~     Sat Dec 29 09:31:18 2007 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.7-r3
> ~       merge time: 18 minutes and 56 seconds.
> 
> ~     Sat Dec 29 11:07:40 2007 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.7-r3
> ~       merge time: 19 minutes and 37 seconds.
> 
> ~     Wed Jan 30 20:38:52 2008 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.8-r3
> ~       merge time: 18 minutes and 19 seconds.
> 
> ~     Tue Feb 26 20:16:28 2008 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.8-r3
> ~       merge time: 21 minutes and 38 seconds.
> 
> * app-office/openoffice
> ~ Fri Nov 23 19:14:12 2007 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.0
> ~       merge time: 1 hour and 48 seconds.
> 
> ~     Sat Dec 29 01:35:35 2007 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1
> ~       merge time: 59 minutes and 56 seconds.
> 
> ~     Tue Feb  5 11:51:26 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1-r1
> ~       merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 28 seconds.
> 
> 
> *64-bit*
> 
> * www-client/mozilla-firefox
> ~     Tue Jan  1 14:14:50 2008 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.11
> ~       merge time: 8 minutes and 43 seconds.
> 
> ~     Wed Feb 20 21:39:03 2008 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.12
> ~       merge time: 8 minutes and 39 seconds.
> 
> * mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird
> ~     Tue Jan  1 14:25:01 2008 >>> mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird-2.0.0.9
> ~       merge time: 9 minutes and 9 seconds.
> 
> ~     Sun Mar  9 01:22:43 2008 >>> mail-client/mozilla-thunderbird-2.0.0.12
> ~       merge time: 8 minutes and 2 seconds.
> 
> * kde-base/kdelibs
> ~     Tue Jan  1 11:04:37 2008 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.7-r3
> ~       merge time: 16 minutes and 47 seconds.
> 
> ~     Wed Feb 20 22:01:22 2008 >>> kde-base/kdelibs-3.5.8-r3
> ~       merge time: 18 minutes and 12 seconds.
> 
> * app-office/openoffice
> ~     Fri Mar 14 21:23:57 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1-r1
> ~       merge time: 48 minutes and 45 seconds.
> 
> These times are from the same machine: 
> abit ip35 pro, c2quad q6600 (2.4ghz), 4gb ram, (320+320) sataII raid0 (155-MB/s)
> 
> - --
> Filipe Sousa
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFH2wABbQdNYqwwwCwRAvWsAKCSjwXXHIT2agHd7Hh+7ZwaTOzQeQCdG1Ctol
> M29wU4QkWfsgkRO1jgipuKw=
> =5cd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


My advice is not to use it yet. I thought 64-bit computers could bring
in a whole new dimension into the computing world. going from 16 to 32
bits was a significant improvement in terms of applications and what you
can do at a given time. You can see the big difference in Operating
systems and programs of various application going from 16 to 32. This
64-bit and even dual-core thing has still to bear fruit -- at least for
me. It's not faster by any noticeable difference and most applications
are not optimized for it. I won't switch until I know I can gain a major
advantage utilizing this technology.I have 2gigs of ram and still have
yet to use more than 200M at anytime. So, why do I need 8 gigs of memory
or more.

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Dienstag, 11. März 2008, Jamie Dobbs wrote:

> However, I do have a few worries - why has there been no 2007.1 release
> (there was a 2006.1 from what I recall)?

security problems popping up always at the wrong time made it almost 
impossible. So they scrapped it and concentrated on doing the usual stuff. 
Writing ebuilds, fixing  bugs. Since install cds aren't very important, 
nothing was lost besides some news on distrowatch.


> There also appears to have been 
> a bit of turmoil in the Gentoo 'management;' - has this affected the
> long term viability of running Gentoo?

no.

> Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_ advantage
> to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
> Just a few questions before I plunge in to it again :-)

yes. More registers. More memory.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Jamie Dobbs <jamie.dobbs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

Hi,

> I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using Ubuntu but 
> find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because of the level of 
> customization that I can do with it.

wb :)

> However, I do have a few worries - why has there been no 2007.1 release 
> (there was a 2006.1 from what I recall)? 

Actually, I never cared about these "releases". IMHO they're just
profiles. portage keeps your system up-to-date by fresh ebuilds.
For a fresh installation I always take the newest profile and 
older systems are migrated from time to time. Never felt the need
for an immediate profile update.

> There also appears to have been a bit of turmoil in the Gentoo 
> 'management;' - has this affected the long term viability of 
> running Gentoo?

AFAIK, this only affected the foundation, which is just an 
organization which does some "business work" (eg. marketing),
collects funds for server infrastructure, etc. The Gentoo project
itself doesn't *need* it, it just makes some things easier.
I've never felt any impact on the distro by these troubles.
(but that's just my personal oppition)

> Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_ 
> advantage to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
> Just a few questions before I plunge in to it again :-)

My personal taste: only useful if you need more than 3GB per 
process (1GB virtual address space is reseverd for the kernel,
but this could be changed within the kernel sources) or for
bumber crunching, maybe also in some database workloads.

The key point: on an 64bit system, CPU traffic is 64bit width,
so CPU's IO is faster, but this (normally) implies also 64bit
code alignment, which can waste a lot of memory.

BTW: some applications can use 64bit ops for specific things
even on an 32bit base system (but this has to be done with 
caution, just like any other CPU specific optimizations).


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list