[gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

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.

In my experience the huge benefit of source-based distros such
as Gentoo is elimination of the library dependency-hell that
mires other binary-based distros.

For many years I ran RedHat and then Mandrake.  After a year or
so, they became impossible to maintain because of library
version conflicts.  Every time I tried up upgrade an RPM package
to fix a bug or security hole, it required a handful of
libraries to be upgraded, but doing that would break a bunch of
other RPMs for which upgrades weren't available. The solution
was always to start building stuff from sources.  Once you
started doing that, the package manager would get upset because
it doesn't know about some stuff that's installed (unless you
built from source RPMs, which had another set of problems).

The second benefit is that with Gentoo, upgrading a system
actually works over the long-run.  With RedHat/Mandrake, things
would gradually deteriorate to the point where the system was
unmaintainable, but attempting to upgrade between major
releases was always futile.  I've had Gentoo machines that have
been upgraded for 4-5 years without any significant problems
(failed hard-drives don't count).

The third main benefit I've seen is that there are vastly more
packages available for Gentoo.  Putting together and
maintaining an ebuild appears to take a lot less work than
putting together and maintaining a binary RPM package.  I've
had far fewer problems with third party ebuilds than I did with
third-party RPMs (on the rare occasions when I found one for
some obscure application I wanted to run).  Again, the solution
was always "build from sources".

Are the real benefits of Gentoo too hard to explain to the
unwashed masses, so instead they're told the fairy tale about
imporoved performance?

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! !  Up ahead!  It's a
                                  at               DONUT HUT!!
                               visi.com            

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Grant]

> 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.

More often than not, when I read that description of "Gentoo's
advantage" it is meant to turn people off.  Ricer, etc.

- Grant

> 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.
>
> In my experience the huge benefit of source-based distros such
> as Gentoo is elimination of the library dependency-hell that
> mires other binary-based distros.
>
> For many years I ran RedHat and then Mandrake.  After a year or
> so, they became impossible to maintain because of library
> version conflicts.  Every time I tried up upgrade an RPM package
> to fix a bug or security hole, it required a handful of
> libraries to be upgraded, but doing that would break a bunch of
> other RPMs for which upgrades weren't available. The solution
> was always to start building stuff from sources.  Once you
> started doing that, the package manager would get upset because
> it doesn't know about some stuff that's installed (unless you
> built from source RPMs, which had another set of problems).
>
> The second benefit is that with Gentoo, upgrading a system
> actually works over the long-run.  With RedHat/Mandrake, things
> would gradually deteriorate to the point where the system was
> unmaintainable, but attempting to upgrade between major
> releases was always futile.  I've had Gentoo machines that have
> been upgraded for 4-5 years without any significant problems
> (failed hard-drives don't count).
>
> The third main benefit I've seen is that there are vastly more
> packages available for Gentoo.  Putting together and
> maintaining an ebuild appears to take a lot less work than
> putting together and maintaining a binary RPM package.  I've
> had far fewer problems with third party ebuilds than I did with
> third-party RPMs (on the rare occasions when I found one for
> some obscure application I wanted to run).  Again, the solution
> was always "build from sources".
>
> Are the real benefits of Gentoo too hard to explain to the
> unwashed masses, so instead they're told the fairy tale about
> imporoved performance?
>
> --
> Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! !  Up ahead!  It's a

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Norberto Bensa]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> AFAICT, the "performance" benefit due to compiler optimization
> is practically nil in real-world usage.

It used to make a difference, but not anymore with today microprocessors.


> In my experience the huge benefit of source-based distros such
> as Gentoo is elimination of the library dependency-hell that
> mires other binary-based distros.

maybe redhat had that problem, but others (debian based distros for
example) doesn't have dep hell AFAICS (I run Debian and Ubuntu based
servers and desktops)


> The second benefit is that with Gentoo, upgrading a system
> actually works over the long-run.  With RedHat/Mandrake, things
> would gradually deteriorate to the point where the system was
> unmaintainable,

Same point. Maybe only a problem with RH.


> The third main benefit I've seen is that there are vastly more
> packages available for Gentoo.

Hm.. Depends on what packages you're interested. You have no
commercial support if you run Gentoo from -for example- VMware.


> Putting together and
> maintaining an ebuild appears to take a lot less work than
> putting together and maintaining a binary RPM package.

Maybe. I haven't tried to make a RPM package, but I tried DEB. It's
almost as easy as with Gentoo.


> Are the real benefits of Gentoo too hard to explain to the
> unwashed masses, so instead they're told the fairy tale about
> imporoved performance?

Gentoo has -from my point of view- only one benefit: if you're a
developer, you'll love Gentoo as every dev-dependency is already
installed. Other than that, I see none.

Now, if Gentoo devs could be as kind as -for example- Ubuntu devs,
that would rock. But they aren,t and so -after 7 years- I'm looking
for another distro to migrate to. Kubuntu is one of my favorites. I'm
testing Fedora and openSuSE. Who will win?

Gentoo just doesn't make sense anymore for me - unless you're a masochist :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 09:02:42PM -0200, Norberto Bensa wrote:

> Gentoo has -from my point of view- only one benefit: if you're a
> developer, you'll love Gentoo as every dev-dependency is already
> installed. Other than that, I see none.

Learning.

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Saphirus Sage]

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.
>
> In my experience the huge benefit of source-based distros such
> as Gentoo is elimination of the library dependency-hell that
> mires other binary-based distros.
>
> For many years I ran RedHat and then Mandrake.  After a year or
> so, they became impossible to maintain because of library
> version conflicts.  Every time I tried up upgrade an RPM package
> to fix a bug or security hole, it required a handful of
> libraries to be upgraded, but doing that would break a bunch of
> other RPMs for which upgrades weren't available. The solution
> was always to start building stuff from sources.  Once you
> started doing that, the package manager would get upset because
> it doesn't know about some stuff that's installed (unless you
> built from source RPMs, which had another set of problems).
>
> The second benefit is that with Gentoo, upgrading a system
> actually works over the long-run.  With RedHat/Mandrake, things
> would gradually deteriorate to the point where the system was
> unmaintainable, but attempting to upgrade between major
> releases was always futile.  I've had Gentoo machines that have
> been upgraded for 4-5 years without any significant problems
> (failed hard-drives don't count).
>
> The third main benefit I've seen is that there are vastly more
> packages available for Gentoo.  Putting together and
> maintaining an ebuild appears to take a lot less work than
> putting together and maintaining a binary RPM package.  I've
> had far fewer problems with third party ebuilds than I did with
> third-party RPMs (on the rare occasions when I found one for
> some obscure application I wanted to run).  Again, the solution
> was always "build from sources".
>
> Are the real benefits of Gentoo too hard to explain to the
> unwashed masses, so instead they're told the fairy tale about
> imporoved performance?
>
>   

Being a metadistribution, the concept of higher performance isn't quite
that much of a fairy tale. If you can easily configure your system to a
specific purpose, that would ideally lead to better performance, whether
it be due to the specialization of the system or at least a placebo
effect on the user. Gentoo is honestly my first linux system, so I don't
really have the experience of library conflicts of binary distros.
People in general will usually just want confirmation that something has
benefits over what they currently have, irregardless of evidence of
exactly why it is better, so that may be part of why so many supporters
"parrot" the same view regarding Gentoo.  On the other hand, I just take
a lot of it as peace of mind in that all the responsibility for how my
system is running is directly mine, as opposed to being able to blame
someone who made a bad RPM. I like knowing any little factor of my
system and what it's doing.

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Dale]

Saphirus Sage wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> In my experience the huge benefit of source-based distros such
>> as Gentoo is elimination of the library dependency-hell that
>> mires other binary-based distros.
>>
>> For many years I ran RedHat and then Mandrake.  After a year or
>> so, they became impossible to maintain because of library
>> version conflicts.  Every time I tried up upgrade an RPM package
>> to fix a bug or security hole, it required a handful of
>> libraries to be upgraded, but doing that would break a bunch of
>> other RPMs for which upgrades weren't available. The solution
>> was always to start building stuff from sources.  Once you
>> started doing that, the package manager would get upset because
>> it doesn't know about some stuff that's installed (unless you
>> built from source RPMs, which had another set of problems).
>>
>> The second benefit is that with Gentoo, upgrading a system
>> actually works over the long-run.  With RedHat/Mandrake, things
>> would gradually deteriorate to the point where the system was
>> unmaintainable, but attempting to upgrade between major
>> releases was always futile.  I've had Gentoo machines that have
>> been upgraded for 4-5 years without any significant problems
>> (failed hard-drives don't count).
>>
>> The third main benefit I've seen is that there are vastly more
>> packages available for Gentoo.  Putting together and
>> maintaining an ebuild appears to take a lot less work than
>> putting together and maintaining a binary RPM package.  I've
>> had far fewer problems with third party ebuilds than I did with
>> third-party RPMs (on the rare occasions when I found one for
>> some obscure application I wanted to run).  Again, the solution
>> was always "build from sources".
>>
>> Are the real benefits of Gentoo too hard to explain to the
>> unwashed masses, so instead they're told the fairy tale about
>> imporoved performance?
>>
>>   
>>     
>
> Being a metadistribution, the concept of higher performance isn't quite
> that much of a fairy tale. If you can easily configure your system to a
> specific purpose, that would ideally lead to better performance, whether
> it be due to the specialization of the system or at least a placebo
> effect on the user. Gentoo is honestly my first linux system, so I don't
> really have the experience of library conflicts of binary distros.
> People in general will usually just want confirmation that something has
> benefits over what they currently have, irregardless of evidence of
> exactly why it is better, so that may be part of why so many supporters
> "parrot" the same view regarding Gentoo.  On the other hand, I just take
> a lot of it as peace of mind in that all the responsibility for how my
> system is running is directly mine, as opposed to being able to blame
> someone who made a bad RPM. I like knowing any little factor of my
> system and what it's doing.
>
>
>   

I'll also add this info.  I switched from Mandrake to Gentoo a long time
ago.  Mandrake was slow and took a good while to login and open larger
apps.  Gentoo on the exact same machine runs way faster.  Login is a LOT
faster, especially the second time around since it is cached, and apps
start a lot faster too. 

You do have to have a set of sane FLAGS for this to work but it can be
faster depending on how much time you spend looking up the correct settings.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Paul Hartman]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> 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?

I've never done any benchmarks on my system of i386 vs core2 or
anything like that... I think the fact that gentoo allows you to
control compiler flags which can potentially give you speedups is more
of it. But, like you, building from source is kind of a side-effect of
Gentoo and not the reason why. Compiling for the sake of compiling is
just a waste of time, and that's why a lot of people say "Just use
Ubuntu" or whatever.

> AFAICT, the "performance" benefit due to compiler optimization
> is practically nil in real-world usage.

I can't say, but it "feels right" to use things tuned for your
specific hardware, even if it's meaningless. And some things like
running 64-bit vs 32-bit definitely makes a difference. But,
absolutely, the time spent compiling for core2 versus installing a
binary package for i586 is never going to be worth it.

> In my experience the huge benefit of source-based distros such
> as Gentoo is elimination of the library dependency-hell that
> mires other binary-based distros.

I agree completely. Portage and the lack of dependency nightmares
(usually :) ) is so nice. Things like live SVN ebuilds are so simple
to maintain, rather than building binary snapshots etc.

I'm a 4-year or so Gentoo user, and have donated money, and using
redhat at work is always a nightmare when I'm used to the flexibility
of Gentoo :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Constantine D. Kardaris]

It is not just about higher performance.
The same way you can have higher performance, the same way you can use
less flags and less optimizations for a solid/stable system.
You are just not bounded (most of the times) to fixed choices others
doing for you.

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 0:06, Paul Hartman escribió:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> 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?
>
> I've never done any benchmarks on my system of i386 vs core2 or
> anything like that... I think the fact that gentoo allows you to control
> compiler flags which can potentially give you speedups is more of it. But,
> like you, building from source is kind of a side-effect of Gentoo and not
> the reason why. Compiling for the sake of compiling is just a waste of
> time, and that's why a lot of people say "Just use Ubuntu" or whatever.

Not really. Compiling the things gives you control over what
dependencies will that package have. In a binary distro mplayer
will usually push like 80 or 800 (I never counted them) packages
due to the number of features that it potentially has.

If you don't install those, then the ldd info of the binary is
broken because it can't find the needed object files outside of
mplayer.

Compiling the packages allow you to tune CFLAGS, ok. But even if
you think that -most times- this doesn't make a difference, it's
still worth the trouble compiling it, if only for the sake of
mplayer not having to depend on 200MB of additional software for it
to install correctly.

In gentoo, this is as easy as to set your use flags up, and then
emerge. Easy as hell, and you don't have to go ./configure'ing
with a dozen parameters every single package in your system,
because portage takes cares of that.

I absolutely don't care much about the CFLAGS stuff, I just set
up my -march and forget about it for years. And I think that
there's a lot of point in using GEntoo, even if you have zero
interest in compiling sofware there're still a lot of reasons
why I would use Gentoo over any other Linux.


-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Sebastián Magrí]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3002 bytes --]

El mié, 04-02-2009 a las 11:09 +0100, Jesús Guerrero escribió:
> 
> 
> 
> El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 0:06, Paul Hartman escribió:
> > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> 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?
> >
> > I've never done any benchmarks on my system of i386 vs core2 or
> > anything like that... I think the fact that gentoo allows you to control
> > compiler flags which can potentially give you speedups is more of it. But,
> > like you, building from source is kind of a side-effect of Gentoo and not
> > the reason why. Compiling for the sake of compiling is just a waste of
> > time, and that's why a lot of people say "Just use Ubuntu" or whatever.
> 
> Not really. Compiling the things gives you control over what
> dependencies will that package have. In a binary distro mplayer
> will usually push like 80 or 800 (I never counted them) packages
> due to the number of features that it potentially has.
> 
> If you don't install those, then the ldd info of the binary is
> broken because it can't find the needed object files outside of
> mplayer.
> 
> Compiling the packages allow you to tune CFLAGS, ok. But even if
> you think that -most times- this doesn't make a difference, it's
> still worth the trouble compiling it, if only for the sake of
> mplayer not having to depend on 200MB of additional software for it
> to install correctly.
> 
> In gentoo, this is as easy as to set your use flags up, and then
> emerge. Easy as hell, and you don't have to go ./configure'ing
> with a dozen parameters every single package in your system,
> because portage takes cares of that.
> 
> I absolutely don't care much about the CFLAGS stuff, I just set
> up my -march and forget about it for years. And I think that
> there's a lot of point in using GEntoo, even if you have zero
> interest in compiling sofware there're still a lot of reasons
> why I would use Gentoo over any other Linux.
> 
> 

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. The huge knowledge base is one of the things that make
Gentoo as good as it is, and left the users without excuses when they
break the system.

With the power of the CPUs growing every day, the -long time compiling-
idea is becoming irrelevant, this way, I see more benefits on continue
using mi beloved Gentoo and feel users have less excuses to continue
using other distros, but, they are free of choosing, I choose Gentoo
because Gentoo lets me choose... 

[-- Attachment #2: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

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?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 393 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 14:19, Nikos Chantziaras escribió:
> 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 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

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 14:19, Nikos Chantziaras escribió:
>> 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 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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

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 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 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?

[Alan McKinnon]

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?

[Sebastián Magrí]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 944 bytes --]

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...

[-- Attachment #2: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Sebastián Magrí <sebasmagri@gmail.com> 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)

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 7:07, Nikos Chantziaras escribió:
> 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.

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?

[Alan McKinnon]

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?

[Dale]

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?

[Alan McKinnon]

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?

[Dale]

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
<package-name>.  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?

[Momesso Andrea]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1855 bytes --]

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
> <package-name>.  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
=======

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-05, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> 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.com            HOLE in space?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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?

[Cocoy Dayao]

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?

[Saphirus Sage]

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?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 14:53, Saphirus Sage escribió:
> Cocoy Dayao wrote:
>
> 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.

And that's why we speack about a community effort, and bugtrackers
exist. So you can let the relevant people know and the next one
to read the handbook will find a solution if s/he has the same
problem. The handbooks didn't magically appear out of thin air in
1 second as they are now, nor did Gentoo.

It's not "The community vs. you", you are part of the community
since the very moment you start using linux.

No manual is perfect, the difference is that here at least you have
the chance to change it to make it better.

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 21:25, Nikos Chantziaras escribió:
> 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.

Right. But people who don't want to do some work to change
the things have no right to complain either. Unless they are
paying a monthly bill how you do on your sports club. Do you
pay here?



-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 22:01, Jesús Guerrero escribió:
>

>
>
>
> El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 21:25, Nikos Chantziaras escribió:
>
>> 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.
>
> Right. But people who don't want to do some work to change
> the things have no right to complain either. Unless they are paying a
> monthly bill how you do on your sports club. Do you pay here?

To reword it, if you like it use it, if you don't then don't
use it. It's not about joining a weird community as you defined it
or about making friends here. I am not here to make friends since
I -as most people here I guess- do have a social life that's not
inside my monitor.

This is about people that's giving you
for free a tool to do your work. And you can't even bother to
fill in a bug? Well, whatever... I supposed that complaining on
mailing lists instead will fix the issue faster...

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1861 bytes --]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:25:11 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

> 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.

Who are these people on whose behalf you speak? Why should Gentoo try to
cater for them when there are already a zillion distros doing that?
Gentoo is not a distro for "most people".

> 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.

On what do you base these claims? Stating that Linux has no new users
does not make it true, but reading emails from people stating "I am new to
Linux", as I do most days, would indicate that the opposite is true.

QA is important to the Gentoo devs. As for user support, I thing we get
tremendous value for money from the devs, worth every penny we pay them.

Gentoo arose out of a dissatisfaction wit the way other distros did
things, so using them as a yardstick now renders the whole project
pointless. If you don't like the way Gentoo does things, you can either
work to improve it or use something else more suited to your needs. If
all you want is a GUI for the installer, take a look at Quickstart and
see if there is a way to add a configuration GUI to it.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

... "Yummy," said Pooh, as he hilted his paw into the "honeypot".

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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?

[Saphirus Sage]

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?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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?

[Mike Edenfield]

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?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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 :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> 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 :)

and gentoo was never meant for the clueless.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

>
> and gentoo was never meant for the clueless.

Ah, come on Volker, say what's true. My 81 year old dad uses Gentoo
and he cannot use vi.

Maybe you really meant, but didn't say, 'Gentoo was never meant for
the clueless administrator'.

Once it's up and running it's Linux. Nothing more. Nothing less.

What's the big deal?

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > and gentoo was never meant for the clueless.
>
> Ah, come on Volker, say what's true. My 81 year old dad uses Gentoo
> and he cannot use vi.
>
> Maybe you really meant, but didn't say, 'Gentoo was never meant for
> the clueless administrator'.

in that case it is YOU who had to read the documentation.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Saphirus Sage]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> 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 :)
>
>
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.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Joshua D Doll]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> 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 :)
>
>
>
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.


--Joshua Doll

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com> 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.
>
>
> --Joshua Doll

I agree. Everything except the grub part. It's well written but it
requires more knowledge about the actual hardware than the rest of it,
especially if you do it wrong and have to recover.

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>>
>> --Joshua Doll
>
> I agree. Everything except the grub part. It's well written but it
> requires more knowledge about the actual hardware than the rest of it,
> especially if you do it wrong and have to recover.

I helped my brother install Ubuntu and the lack of control over grub
was frustrating. It just did what it wanted to do without asking
(which was install grub onto the wrong drive with the wrong drive
numbers, because the BIOS boot order did not match Ubuntu's detected
drive order). If that drive had been part of a RAID or had some
important metadata in the boot sector, it could have been a disaster.

No distro is perfect. Gentoo is perfect for me, though :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Joshua D Doll]

Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>       
>> I agree. Everything except the grub part. It's well written but it
>> requires more knowledge about the actual hardware than the rest of it,
>> especially if you do it wrong and have to recover.
>>     
>
> I helped my brother install Ubuntu and the lack of control over grub
> was frustrating. It just did what it wanted to do without asking
> (which was install grub onto the wrong drive with the wrong drive
> numbers, because the BIOS boot order did not match Ubuntu's detected
> drive order). If that drive had been part of a RAID or had some
> important metadata in the boot sector, it could have been a disaster.
>
> No distro is perfect. Gentoo is perfect for me, though :)
>
>
>   
I think you mean to say no boot loader is perfect. ;-)

--Joshua Doll

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. Everything except the grub part. It's well written but it
>>> requires more knowledge about the actual hardware than the rest of it,
>>> especially if you do it wrong and have to recover.
>>>
>>
>> I helped my brother install Ubuntu and the lack of control over grub
>> was frustrating. It just did what it wanted to do without asking
>> (which was install grub onto the wrong drive with the wrong drive
>> numbers, because the BIOS boot order did not match Ubuntu's detected
>> drive order). If that drive had been part of a RAID or had some
>> important metadata in the boot sector, it could have been a disaster.
>>
>> No distro is perfect. Gentoo is perfect for me, though :)
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think you mean to say no boot loader is perfect. ;-)
>
> --Joshua Doll
>
>

The ubuntu installer did not tell me which drive it was installing the
boot loader onto, nor did it give me a choice -- it chose the one it
thought was appropriate (and it was wrong).

If you google for ubuntu grub sata ide you can see it happens to
nearly everyone who has a mixture of IDE and SATA drives where they
boot from IDE but linux gives sda to sata and sdc to IDE or whatever.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Joshua D Doll]

Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Paul Hartman wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> I agree. Everything except the grub part. It's well written but it
>>>> requires more knowledge about the actual hardware than the rest of it,
>>>> especially if you do it wrong and have to recover.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I helped my brother install Ubuntu and the lack of control over grub
>>> was frustrating. It just did what it wanted to do without asking
>>> (which was install grub onto the wrong drive with the wrong drive
>>> numbers, because the BIOS boot order did not match Ubuntu's detected
>>> drive order). If that drive had been part of a RAID or had some
>>> important metadata in the boot sector, it could have been a disaster.
>>>
>>> No distro is perfect. Gentoo is perfect for me, though :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> I think you mean to say no boot loader is perfect. ;-)
>>
>> --Joshua Doll
>>
>>
>>     
>
> The ubuntu installer did not tell me which drive it was installing the
> boot loader onto, nor did it give me a choice -- it chose the one it
> thought was appropriate (and it was wrong).
>
> If you google for ubuntu grub sata ide you can see it happens to
> nearly everyone who has a mixture of IDE and SATA drives where they
> boot from IDE but linux gives sda to sata and sdc to IDE or whatever.
>
>
>   
Actually the kernel has assigned most hdd, etc. some form of sd* for 
awhile now. The only thing that is labeled different, that I've seen in 
awhile is my dvd burner. Anyways  getting to my statement I was being 
facetious. I can't think of a single piece of software that is perfect, 
except for maybe "hello, world!", but that's not very useful.


--Joshua Doll

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hartman
<paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Joshua Doll
>>
>> I agree. Everything except the grub part. It's well written but it
>> requires more knowledge about the actual hardware than the rest of it,
>> especially if you do it wrong and have to recover.
>
> I helped my brother install Ubuntu and the lack of control over grub
> was frustrating. It just did what it wanted to do without asking
> (which was install grub onto the wrong drive with the wrong drive
> numbers, because the BIOS boot order did not match Ubuntu's detected
> drive order). If that drive had been part of a RAID or had some
> important metadata in the boot sector, it could have been a disaster.
>
> No distro is perfect. Gentoo is perfect for me, though :)

I completely agree. I like the control also.

I only took a *very* small exception to Joshua's statement that a 'new
user' could read, follow it and understand what it's telling him/her
to do and then do it and come out with a working machine. I think it's
true if the new user builds exactly the 3 partition example shown in
the docs and does *only* the very basic install on a machine that
doesn't have Windows, etc. However I think that the docs (not the
software!) could be improved to handle things like dual-boot, either
another distro or windows, etc. which personally I think 'new users'
come up against. Issues about stuff like where to put the MBR, why and
why not to do that sort of thing, requires (or is vastly enhanced) if
that new user has some knowledge about hard drives, booting, etc.

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Joshua D Doll]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hartman
> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>>         
>>> I agree. Everything except the grub part. It's well written but it
>>> requires more knowledge about the actual hardware than the rest of it,
>>> especially if you do it wrong and have to recover.
>>>       
>> I helped my brother install Ubuntu and the lack of control over grub
>> was frustrating. It just did what it wanted to do without asking
>> (which was install grub onto the wrong drive with the wrong drive
>> numbers, because the BIOS boot order did not match Ubuntu's detected
>> drive order). If that drive had been part of a RAID or had some
>> important metadata in the boot sector, it could have been a disaster.
>>
>> No distro is perfect. Gentoo is perfect for me, though :)
>>     
>
> I completely agree. I like the control also.
>
> I only took a *very* small exception to Joshua's statement that a 'new
> user' could read, follow it and understand what it's telling him/her
> to do and then do it and come out with a working machine. I think it's
> true if the new user builds exactly the 3 partition example shown in
> the docs and does *only* the very basic install on a machine that
> doesn't have Windows, etc. However I think that the docs (not the
> software!) could be improved to handle things like dual-boot, either
> another distro or windows, etc. which personally I think 'new users'
> come up against. Issues about stuff like where to put the MBR, why and
> why not to do that sort of thing, requires (or is vastly enhanced) if
> that new user has some knowledge about hard drives, booting, etc.
>
> - Mark
>
>
>   
I 100% agree that the docs can and should cover more. Maybe a flowchart 
would be useful?

--Joshua Doll

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dale]

Joshua D Doll wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hartman
>> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:     
>> I completely agree. I like the control also.
>>
>> I only took a *very* small exception to Joshua's statement that a 'new
>> user' could read, follow it and understand what it's telling him/her
>> to do and then do it and come out with a working machine. I think it's
>> true if the new user builds exactly the 3 partition example shown in
>> the docs and does *only* the very basic install on a machine that
>> doesn't have Windows, etc. However I think that the docs (not the
>> software!) could be improved to handle things like dual-boot, either
>> another distro or windows, etc. which personally I think 'new users'
>> come up against. Issues about stuff like where to put the MBR, why and
>> why not to do that sort of thing, requires (or is vastly enhanced) if
>> that new user has some knowledge about hard drives, booting, etc.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>>
>>   
> I 100% agree that the docs can and should cover more. Maybe a
> flowchart would be useful?
>
> --Joshua Doll
>
>

I wish the man pages had more examples.  Give me a real world example
and I can wrap my poor brain around what it should look like when I do
something.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Joshua D Doll]

Dale wrote:
> Joshua D Doll wrote:
>   
>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hartman
>>> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:     
>>> I completely agree. I like the control also.
>>>
>>> I only took a *very* small exception to Joshua's statement that a 'new
>>> user' could read, follow it and understand what it's telling him/her
>>> to do and then do it and come out with a working machine. I think it's
>>> true if the new user builds exactly the 3 partition example shown in
>>> the docs and does *only* the very basic install on a machine that
>>> doesn't have Windows, etc. However I think that the docs (not the
>>> software!) could be improved to handle things like dual-boot, either
>>> another distro or windows, etc. which personally I think 'new users'
>>> come up against. Issues about stuff like where to put the MBR, why and
>>> why not to do that sort of thing, requires (or is vastly enhanced) if
>>> that new user has some knowledge about hard drives, booting, etc.
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> I 100% agree that the docs can and should cover more. Maybe a
>> flowchart would be useful?
>>
>> --Joshua Doll
>>
>>
>>     
>
> I wish the man pages had more examples.  Give me a real world example
> and I can wrap my poor brain around what it should look like when I do
> something.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>
>   
Man pages are notoriously bad. The gentoo handbook and other official 
docs are great OTOH.

--Joshua Doll

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Saphirus Sage]

Joshua D Doll wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>> Joshua D Doll wrote:
>>  
>>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hartman
>>>> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:     I completely agree. I
>>>> like the control also.
>>>>
>>>> I only took a *very* small exception to Joshua's statement that a 'new
>>>> user' could read, follow it and understand what it's telling him/her
>>>> to do and then do it and come out with a working machine. I think it's
>>>> true if the new user builds exactly the 3 partition example shown in
>>>> the docs and does *only* the very basic install on a machine that
>>>> doesn't have Windows, etc. However I think that the docs (not the
>>>> software!) could be improved to handle things like dual-boot, either
>>>> another distro or windows, etc. which personally I think 'new users'
>>>> come up against. Issues about stuff like where to put the MBR, why and
>>>> why not to do that sort of thing, requires (or is vastly enhanced) if
>>>> that new user has some knowledge about hard drives, booting, etc.
>>>>
>>>> - Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I 100% agree that the docs can and should cover more. Maybe a
>>> flowchart would be useful?
>>>
>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> I wish the man pages had more examples.  Give me a real world example
>> and I can wrap my poor brain around what it should look like when I do
>> something.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
>>
>>   
> Man pages are notoriously bad. The gentoo handbook and other official
> docs are great OTOH.
>
> --Joshua Doll
>
Man pages notoriously bad?! Now that's a stance I can hardly understand,
they've always been a godsend in my experience! Just practice using a
command a few times, look through the options and learn it in the period
of ten minutes, and a man page has done its purpose. If this stance is
due to your own inadequate ability to read technical documents, then do
not apply the lacking to anything but your own capacity for comprehension.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Joshua D Doll]

Saphirus Sage wrote:
> Joshua D Doll wrote:
>   
>> Dale wrote:
>>     
>>> Joshua D Doll wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hartman
>>>>> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:     I completely agree. I
>>>>> like the control also.
>>>>>
>>>>> I only took a *very* small exception to Joshua's statement that a 'new
>>>>> user' could read, follow it and understand what it's telling him/her
>>>>> to do and then do it and come out with a working machine. I think it's
>>>>> true if the new user builds exactly the 3 partition example shown in
>>>>> the docs and does *only* the very basic install on a machine that
>>>>> doesn't have Windows, etc. However I think that the docs (not the
>>>>> software!) could be improved to handle things like dual-boot, either
>>>>> another distro or windows, etc. which personally I think 'new users'
>>>>> come up against. Issues about stuff like where to put the MBR, why and
>>>>> why not to do that sort of thing, requires (or is vastly enhanced) if
>>>>> that new user has some knowledge about hard drives, booting, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> I 100% agree that the docs can and should cover more. Maybe a
>>>> flowchart would be useful?
>>>>
>>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> I wish the man pages had more examples.  Give me a real world example
>>> and I can wrap my poor brain around what it should look like when I do
>>> something.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Man pages are notoriously bad. The gentoo handbook and other official
>> docs are great OTOH.
>>
>> --Joshua Doll
>>
>>     
> Man pages notoriously bad?! Now that's a stance I can hardly understand,
> they've always been a godsend in my experience! Just practice using a
> command a few times, look through the options and learn it in the period
> of ten minutes, and a man page has done its purpose. If this stance is
> due to your own inadequate ability to read technical documents, then do
> not apply the lacking to anything but your own capacity for comprehension.
>
>
>   
Just cause you haven't run across an uninformative/incomplete man page 
doesn't mean others haven't. Also man pages lacking valuable information 
is the reason why GNU has switched to the majority of their packages to 
using info! You shouldn't flame someone because your experiences are 
different from their's.

--Joshua Doll

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dale]

Joshua D Doll wrote:
> Saphirus Sage wrote:
>> Joshua D Doll wrote:
>>  
>>> Dale wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Joshua D Doll wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>      
>>>>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hartman
>>>>>> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:     I completely agree. I
>>>>>> like the control also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only took a *very* small exception to Joshua's statement that a
>>>>>> 'new
>>>>>> user' could read, follow it and understand what it's telling him/her
>>>>>> to do and then do it and come out with a working machine. I think
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> true if the new user builds exactly the 3 partition example shown in
>>>>>> the docs and does *only* the very basic install on a machine that
>>>>>> doesn't have Windows, etc. However I think that the docs (not the
>>>>>> software!) could be improved to handle things like dual-boot, either
>>>>>> another distro or windows, etc. which personally I think 'new users'
>>>>>> come up against. Issues about stuff like where to put the MBR,
>>>>>> why and
>>>>>> why not to do that sort of thing, requires (or is vastly
>>>>>> enhanced) if
>>>>>> that new user has some knowledge about hard drives, booting, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                   
>>>>> I 100% agree that the docs can and should cover more. Maybe a
>>>>> flowchart would be useful?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>             
>>>> I wish the man pages had more examples.  Give me a real world example
>>>> and I can wrap my poor brain around what it should look like when I do
>>>> something.
>>>>
>>>> Dale
>>>>
>>>> :-)  :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Man pages are notoriously bad. The gentoo handbook and other official
>>> docs are great OTOH.
>>>
>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>
>>>     
>> Man pages notoriously bad?! Now that's a stance I can hardly understand,
>> they've always been a godsend in my experience! Just practice using a
>> command a few times, look through the options and learn it in the period
>> of ten minutes, and a man page has done its purpose. If this stance is
>> due to your own inadequate ability to read technical documents, then do
>> not apply the lacking to anything but your own capacity for
>> comprehension.
>>
>>
>>   
> Just cause you haven't run across an uninformative/incomplete man page
> doesn't mean others haven't. Also man pages lacking valuable
> information is the reason why GNU has switched to the majority of
> their packages to using info! You shouldn't flame someone because your
> experiences are different from their's.
>
> --Joshua Doll
>
>
>

I have to say that I have had times that even after someone showed me
how to use a command, the man page made no sense still.  If it doesn't
make sense when you know a little about using it, how can it make sense
when you don't?

I think examples is a good way to do that and the more the better.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Saphirus Sage]

Dale wrote:
> Joshua D Doll wrote:
>   
>> Saphirus Sage wrote:
>>     
>>> Joshua D Doll wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Dale wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> Joshua D Doll wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hartman
>>>>>>> <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:     I completely agree. I
>>>>>>> like the control also.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I only took a *very* small exception to Joshua's statement that a
>>>>>>> 'new
>>>>>>> user' could read, follow it and understand what it's telling him/her
>>>>>>> to do and then do it and come out with a working machine. I think
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> true if the new user builds exactly the 3 partition example shown in
>>>>>>> the docs and does *only* the very basic install on a machine that
>>>>>>> doesn't have Windows, etc. However I think that the docs (not the
>>>>>>> software!) could be improved to handle things like dual-boot, either
>>>>>>> another distro or windows, etc. which personally I think 'new users'
>>>>>>> come up against. Issues about stuff like where to put the MBR,
>>>>>>> why and
>>>>>>> why not to do that sort of thing, requires (or is vastly
>>>>>>> enhanced) if
>>>>>>> that new user has some knowledge about hard drives, booting, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                   
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> I 100% agree that the docs can and should cover more. Maybe a
>>>>>> flowchart would be useful?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I wish the man pages had more examples.  Give me a real world example
>>>>> and I can wrap my poor brain around what it should look like when I do
>>>>> something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dale
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)  :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> Man pages are notoriously bad. The gentoo handbook and other official
>>>> docs are great OTOH.
>>>>
>>>> --Joshua Doll
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Man pages notoriously bad?! Now that's a stance I can hardly understand,
>>> they've always been a godsend in my experience! Just practice using a
>>> command a few times, look through the options and learn it in the period
>>> of ten minutes, and a man page has done its purpose. If this stance is
>>> due to your own inadequate ability to read technical documents, then do
>>> not apply the lacking to anything but your own capacity for
>>> comprehension.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Just cause you haven't run across an uninformative/incomplete man page
>> doesn't mean others haven't. Also man pages lacking valuable
>> information is the reason why GNU has switched to the majority of
>> their packages to using info! You shouldn't flame someone because your
>> experiences are different from their's.
>>
>> --Joshua Doll
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
> I have to say that I have had times that even after someone showed me
> how to use a command, the man page made no sense still.  If it doesn't
> make sense when you know a little about using it, how can it make sense
> when you don't?
>
> I think examples is a good way to do that and the more the better.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>
>   
I'd wager that examples are the responsibility of third parties.
Frankly, if I've read a man page and found it inadequate, a quick google
search usually will come back with enough examples to resolve any
problem. I'm not saying a manpage should be without any examples at all,
but if the provided documentation isn't thorough enough, that's what
these mailing lists and forums are for.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Stroller]

On 5 Feb 2009, at 23:12, Joshua D Doll wrote:
> ... Also man pages lacking valuable information is the reason why  
> GNU has switched to the majority of their packages to using info!

I suspect the reason for this is far more about navigation then  
contents. GNU can rewrite all their man pages if they don't like the  
content, but `man` does not offer the facilities to hyperlink sections  
that `info` does.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 06 February 2009 04:45:04 Stroller wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2009, at 23:12, Joshua D Doll wrote:
> > ... Also man pages lacking valuable information is the reason why
> > GNU has switched to the majority of their packages to using info!
>
> I suspect the reason for this is far more about navigation then
> contents. GNU can rewrite all their man pages if they don't like the
> content, but `man` does not offer the facilities to hyperlink sections
> that `info` does.

I suspect it has more to do with RMS's liking for micro-managing things, for 
changing everything he can get his hands on, and also a great big dose 
of "Not Invented Here" syndrome.



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Stroller]

On 5 Feb 2009, at 23:03, Saphirus Sage wrote:
>> ...
>> Man pages are notoriously bad. The gentoo handbook and other official
>> docs are great OTOH.
>>
>
> Man pages notoriously bad?! Now that's a stance I can hardly  
> understand,
> they've always been a godsend in my experience! Just practice using a
> command a few times, look through the options and learn it in the  
> period
> of ten minutes, and a man page has done its purpose. If this stance is
> due to your own inadequate ability to read technical documents, then  
> do
> not apply the lacking to anything but your own capacity for  
> comprehension.

To be fair there is an "art" to reading manpages.

Manpages tend to be terse yet authoritative, but it was only after  
(perhaps) a couple of years of using Unix (and perhaps longer) that I  
learned to appreciate them.

I think manpages tend to assume that the reader is already proficient  
with Unix and often that the reader is familiar with regular  
expressions. They tend to use the academic language of computer  
science which may be completely baffling to someone who is technically  
& logically very competent but self-taught.

My experience is that only after learning the syntax of manpages (is  
that itself documented?) do I find most of them tremendously easy to  
navigate to find the one specific option I'm looking for.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 4:03, Stroller escribió:
>
> My experience is that only after learning the syntax of manpages (is
> that itself documented?) do I find most of them tremendously easy to
> navigate to find the one specific option I'm looking for.
>

If all the problem about man pages is navigation another pager
can be used.

If all the problem is that they are not graphical, install
konqueror and use man:/.

If the problem is "contents" then that's nothing to do with
man, but with whomever made (or didn't made) the page.

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Stroller]

On 6 Feb 2009, at 03:08, Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 4:03, Stroller escribió:
>>
>> My experience is that only after learning the syntax of manpages (is
>> that itself documented?) do I find most of them tremendously easy to
>> navigate to find the one specific option I'm looking for.
>
> If all the problem about man pages is navigation another pager
> can be used.

I didn't really mean "navigate" like that.

And in the quote above I wasn't criticising navigation of manpages.

I just mean that if there's one option I want to find (I don't know -  
list by date order in `ls` for instance) then I just find it  
tremendously EASY to find that in a man page. You can search for a  
word using the normal old "/" of `less` and 9 times out of 10 you find  
the command flag very quickly (if not immediately).

If you're new to a command that's been recommended to you, or an app  
you've just installed, then I find the "Synopsis" section is  
tremendously useful, but it has to be said that:

        less [-[+]aBcCdeEfFgGiIJKLmMnNqQrRsSuUVwWX~]
             [-b space] [-h lines] [-j line] [-k keyfile]
             [-{oO} logfile] [-p pattern] [-P prompt] [-t tag]
             [-T tagsfile] [-x tab,...] [-y lines] [-[z] lines]
             [-# shift] [+[+]cmd] [--] [filename]...

doesn't make any sense to the untrained eye. It just looks like  
gobbledegook. There's maybe a Linux n00b manual that explains the  
syntax of man's "Synopsis", but I'm sure I only learned to translate  
the likes of the above after reading man pages for commands that I  
already knew - learned through inference, osmosis and newsgroups.

> If the problem is "contents" then that's nothing to do with
> man, but with whomever made (or didn't made) the page.

Yes, but there's a problem with the MAJORITY of contents, perhaps of  
the majority of people writing manpages? It just seems to be a culture  
of the way man pages are written. They make perfect sense only with  
experience - don't get me wrong, I love 'em and at least to a degree I  
think that's how it should be.

But I think the criticism of someone who finds man pages difficult to  
read "your own inadequate ability to read technical documents, ...your  
own capacity for comprehension" is a tad unfair.

Take a look at this:

DESCRIPTION
        Less is a program similar to more (1), but which allows  
backward  move-
        ment in the file as well as forward movement.  Also, less does  
not have
        to read the entire input file before  starting,  so  with   
large  input
        files  it  starts  up  faster than text editors like vi (1).   
Less uses
        termcap (or terminfo on some systems), so it can run on  a   
variety  of
        terminals.   There is even limited support for hardcopy  
terminals.  (On
        a hardcopy terminal, lines which should be printed at the   
top  of  the
        screen are prefixed with a caret.)

        Commands  are based on both more and vi.  Commands may be  
preceded by a
        decimal number, called N in the descriptions below.  The  
number is used
        by some commands, as indicated.

The first sentence could far better be written "Less is a program for  
scrolling up & down through textfiles" - actually this highlights the  
typical manpage charm of greater obscurity through complete  
correctness. The second sentence doesn't seem valuable enough (these  
days) for the main summary - it would be more useful to mention the  
ability to search - and the 3rd sentence is more relevant to the 1970s  
than today (the bracketed section which follows is more relevant to  
the 16th century). Most newcomers to `less` will never have used  
`more` or `vi`, and the last two sentences - well, there's just  
something wrong with them. They're not very readable. I had to read  
them twice myself - who the heck would think to use a NON-decimal  
number, anyway?

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 5:40, Stroller escribió:
>
> less [-[+]aBcCdeEfFgGiIJKLmMnNqQrRsSuUVwWX~] [-b space] [-h lines] [-j
> line] [-k keyfile] [-{oO} logfile] [-p pattern] [-P prompt] [-t tag]
> [-T tagsfile] [-x tab,...] [-y lines] [-[z] lines]
> [-# shift] [+[+]cmd] [--] [filename]...
>
>
> doesn't make any sense to the untrained eye. It just looks like
> gobbledegook. There's maybe a Linux n00b manual that explains the syntax
> of man's "Synopsis", but I'm sure I only learned to translate the likes of
> the above after reading man pages for commands that I already knew -
> learned through inference, osmosis and newsgroups.

I have no idea if that's documented in any place.

>> If the problem is "contents" then that's nothing to do with
>> man, but with whomever made (or didn't made) the page.
>
> Yes, but there's a problem with the MAJORITY of contents, perhaps of
> the majority of people writing manpages? It just seems to be a culture of
> the way man pages are written. They make perfect sense only with
> experience - don't get me wrong, I love 'em and at least to a degree I
> think that's how it should be.
>
> But I think the criticism of someone who finds man pages difficult to
> read "your own inadequate ability to read technical documents, ...your own
> capacity for comprehension" is a tad unfair.

Yes. I wasn't implying that you were wrong, just giving
some general tips that could be useful if the problem was
one of those that I was enumerating.

But sometimes, the amount of info to present is simply overwhelming.
To name just a couple of man pages that are really excellent I'd say
that the fvwm and bash ones are really good. But being rather long
they are better suited as reference guides. They are not tutorials,
that's for sure.

That's where the network nature of unix like OSes break into scene,
learning without having access to internet is harder, I can tell
from experience in my beginnings.

About the age of the pages, well, some of the packages are so old
and rarely need updates that they go mostly unmaintained for ages.
It's just a guess anyway.

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Stroller]

On 6 Feb 2009, at 05:03, Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> ...
> But sometimes, the amount of info to present is simply overwhelming.
> To name just a couple of man pages that are really excellent I'd say
> that the fvwm and bash ones are really good. But being rather long
> they are better suited as reference guides.

LOL! I had thought to give the Bash manpage as an example of a man  
page which is terrible! For just that reason - its length!

My most common usage of the Bash manpage is because I can never  
remember the command to append the new history lines to the history  
file (in one terminal) and the one to read the new history lines (in  
another terminal). The Bash manpage is HUGE and this topic is towards  
the end; searching on "history" brings up so many hits on the way  
there that it slows you right down.

You're right that it's huge & comprehensive & you could print it out  
for very enlightening bedtime reading ("I didn't know you could do  
that!"), but the Bash manpage is the only one that has led me to try  
`info`!

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 7:57, Stroller escribió:
>

> On 6 Feb 2009, at 05:03, Jesús Guerrero wrote:
>
>> ...
>> But sometimes, the amount of info to present is simply overwhelming.
>> To name just a couple of man pages that are really excellent I'd say
>> that the fvwm and bash ones are really good. But being rather long they
>> are better suited as reference guides.
>
> LOL! I had thought to give the Bash manpage as an example of a man
> page which is terrible! For just that reason - its length!

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.


-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

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. You'd expect to find a list of contents, chapters and an
index in a printed reference book, electronic documentation should be
no different.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

The sooner you fall behind the more time you'll have to catch up.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, 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. You'd expect to find a list of contents, chapters and an
> index in a printed reference book, electronic documentation should be
> no different.

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.

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.

I hate info.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 06 February 2009 14:36:12 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.
>
> 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.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Friday 06 February 2009 14:36:12 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.
> >
> > 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.

usually when I need the 'help' of info pages stuff like X is not available....

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

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.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-06, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 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            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Saphirus Sage]

On Feb 6, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:

> On 2009-02-06, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 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
>

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. 

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-06, Saphirus Sage <saphirus497@gmail.com> 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 <blink>Flashing Text!</blink> (shudder).

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! ... I see TOILET
                                  at               SEATS ...
                               visi.com            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Saphirus Sage]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2009-02-06, Saphirus Sage <saphirus497@gmail.com> 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 <blink>Flashing Text!</blink> (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.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-06, Saphirus Sage <saphirus497@gmail.com> 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 <blink>Flashing Text!</blink> (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?

[Harry Putnam]

Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> 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 <enter>' (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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

and what do I, if I need to read info to be able to install emacs to read 
info?

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Harry Putnam]

Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> 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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> 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?

man is easy to read. Always. Info? Not.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

I used xemacs in the past - which is even better. But today kate and nano 
replaced it for me.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Harry Putnam]

Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> writes:

> On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote:
>> Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> 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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag 07 Februar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> writes:
> > On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >> Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> 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)
>

no they can't. The standard info reader is a horrible, horrible mess. 
Navigating is a nightmare, the information you are looking for might be hidden 
*somewhere* and if you are really lucky isn't even there at all. But you can't 
find out quickly. I had to help a lot of people in the past who were not able 
to find anything in info because of the chapters and hard ways to navigate it.

> > 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.
>

Thanks for the sweets but I am not the only one who thinks that info is the 
worst way to display information. Sure, some people love it. But a lot of 
people don't. And what you just told me is true for you too:
just because you like it doesn't make info a good tool.


> 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.

I have never been able to find information in info quickly. I do have found 
information in man pages VERY quickly.

> >> 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. 

you recall wrongly. less is part of stage1 and stage3.


> 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.

even busybox has an built in less. You can't go much 'barest bone' than just 
busybox.

>
> 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 for everything else from cat, dd, tar to unzip, watch, wget, zcat. man is 
superior. Even gcc manpage is much easier to read than info gcc.

> And if you have the
> opportunity to use emacs to read the info documents.. that's all the
> better.

or maybe the only way without getting lost?


> [...]
>
> > 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.

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?


> 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.

which does not change the fact, that for me (!):
a) xemacs was better
b) kate&nano are better than xemacs
and
c) when I have to use emacs, I am missing both nano and kate.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Harry Putnam]

Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> 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.
 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 245 bytes --]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:08:46 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> and what do I, if I need to read info to be able to install emacs to
> read info?

RTFM of course ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

He who laughs last probably made a back-up.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 22:00, Harry Putnam escribió:
> Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> 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

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.

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.

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Harry Putnam]

Jesús Guerrero <i92guboj@terra.es> writes:

> El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 22:00, Harry Putnam escribió:
>> Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> 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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Sab, 7 de Febrero de 2009, 19:40, Harry Putnam escribió:
> Jesús Guerrero <i92guboj@terra.es> writes:
>
>
>> El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 22:00, Harry Putnam escribió:
>>
>>> Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> 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. ; )

Well, you might still get the point of my post: if you are not
an emacs user and you don't want to use emacs just to read info
pages, you are stuck with plain info, which is just as bad and
sometimes even worse than man. Info is nice when you already
know what you are looking for. But it's a pain to handle when
you need to find something quick.

Emacs helps with that, but first a non-emacs user would need
help with emacs, which negates all the benefit.

That's what I meant.

I follow the thread since it started, by the way.

> Far as I know... no one but newbies think the manuals are written for
> newbies.  They are not.

But the truth is that newcomers need to use the man pages,
like it or not. Be realistic.

> 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 entirely depends on the concrete man and info pages we
are talking about, and how careful and smart its creator was.

>> 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.

Already commented on that.

>  Further, how is that
> being proficient in emacs renders man or info a non-issue?

Because if you know emacs you can probably find your way
around the docs, it doesn't matter if they are man, info,
readmes, html or whatever else you might imagine.

>
> Once more for those who are unwilling to read the thread before
> posting.

Errm... I'll better not answer to that.


> 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.


-- 
Jesús Guerrero

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Harry Putnam]

Jesús Guerrero <i92guboj@terra.es> 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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Dom, 8 de Febrero de 2009, 1:42, Harry Putnam escribió:
> Jesús Guerrero <i92guboj@terra.es> 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.

Yes. That's true and I agree. But since emacs was proposed
as a way to overcome the natural limitations of info, I guess
that's completely fair if others point out also the disadvantages
of doing so. All in all, we could also say how nice is man in
konqueror, but that wouldn't be fair, would it?

If you expose something the good part of something, everyone
has the right to know also the disadvantage. Stating that
from now on the rest of arguments should be ignored doesn't
make that true.


-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 776 bytes --]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 01:57:39 +0100 (CET), Jesús Guerrero wrote:

> Yes. That's true and I agree. But since emacs was proposed
> as a way to overcome the natural limitations of info, I guess
> that's completely fair if others point out also the disadvantages
> of doing so. All in all, we could also say how nice is man in
> konqueror, but that wouldn't be fair, would it?

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.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Graham Murray]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> 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.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-08, Graham Murray <graham@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> 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?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, 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.

because gnu is too l33t for html?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Stroller]

On 6 Feb 2009, at 13:29, Neil Bothwick 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.

AIUI info pages are compiled from Texinfo source and thus can be  
automagically produced in other formats, including HTML.

Stroller.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-06, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> 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.com            principles because of
                                                   EXISTENTIAL DESPAIR!

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968, Size: 1772 bytes --]

On 2009-02-06, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> 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            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1018 bytes --]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:25:07 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:

> > 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.

Info is far from a perfect solution (very far)and I generally use it in
Konqueror anyway, but the idea that any product, no matter how complex,
should be documented in a single, unindexed page is ridiculous.

Searching in a single page is fine, as long as the term you are looking
for is fairly unique, try searching for something like avi in the mplayer
man page and see how many times you need to press n before you find what
you want.

The Gentoo handbook is an excellent example of how documentation should
be arranged.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Of all the people I've met you're certainly one of them

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Saphirus Sage]

On Feb 7, 2009, at 4:52 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:25:07 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Info is far from a perfect solution (very far)and I generally use it  
> in
> Konqueror anyway, but the idea that any product, no matter how  
> complex,
> should be documented in a single, unindexed page is ridiculous.
>
> Searching in a single page is fine, as long as the term you are  
> looking
> for is fairly unique, try searching for something like avi in the  
> mplayer
> man page and see how many times you need to press n before you find  
> what
> you want.
>
> The Gentoo handbook is an excellent example of how documentation  
> should
> be arranged.
>
>
> -- 
> Neil Bothwick
>
> Of all the people I've met you're certainly one of them

While I do like how the handbook is aranged, I'd much rather go  
through condensed manpages if I were looking for how to do something.  
The handbook is easy to read and all, and tends to provide decent  
reasoning for each step it suggests, but it's far too bulky for my  
taste. 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 418 bytes --]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 06:48:07 -0500, Saphirus Sage wrote:

> While I do like how the handbook is aranged, I'd much rather go  
> through condensed manpages

That's the problem, not all man pages are, or can be, condensed. As I
said before, man is fine for short reference documents, but some programs
have way too many features to fit on a single page.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 06 February 2009 06:40:01 Stroller wrote:
> > If the problem is "contents" then that's nothing to do with
> > man, but with whomever made (or didn't made) the page.
>
> Yes, but there's a problem with the MAJORITY of contents, perhaps of  
> the majority of people writing manpages? It just seems to be a culture  
> of the way man pages are written. They make perfect sense only with  
> experience - don't get me wrong, I love 'em and at least to a degree I  
> think that's how it should be.

Man pages are mostly written as reference documents. Like technical specs, 
they tend to list the capabilities of the app without giving the "bigger 
picture overview" as that is assumed to be known.

They are not teaching aids or howtos. For that you need classes, dummy guides 
etc. When you've learned how man pages work, then you can use the man pages. 
But the man pages don't tell you how the man pages work.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 07:46:02 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Man pages are mostly written as reference documents. Like technical
> specs, they tend to list the capabilities of the app without giving the
> "bigger picture overview" as that is assumed to be known.

That's right,they tend to assume that you already know what you want
to do and are just a means of finding the syntax to do it. The problem is
that for most software, they are the only documentation provided.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

EMail - garbage at the speed of light.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 06 February 2009 10:57:51 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 07:46:02 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Man pages are mostly written as reference documents. Like technical
> > specs, they tend to list the capabilities of the app without giving the
> > "bigger picture overview" as that is assumed to be known.
>
> That's right,they tend to assume that you already know what you want
> to do and are just a means of finding the syntax to do it. The problem is
> that for most software, they are the only documentation provided.

And in the true open-source tradition, where the supplied documentation (aka 
man pages) is inadequate, someone else will write better documentation, or 
howtos, or publish "Dummies Guide to $ARB_APP" and let Google figure out 
where it is.

If Grandma can easily use Google to find new shortcake recipes (an entirely 
reasonable thing for Grandma to do in this day and age), then it is not 
unreasonable for savvy users to have a look at the man page and say

"Oh look, this is a technical doc. Let me ask Google where better docs are"

...

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 814 bytes --]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:11:07 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> If Grandma can easily use Google to find new shortcake recipes (an
> entirely reasonable thing for Grandma to do in this day and age), then
> it is not unreasonable for savvy users to have a look at the man page
> and say
> 
> "Oh look, this is a technical doc. Let me ask Google where better docs
> are"

There are two drawbacks to this. First you need Internet access, not so
good if you need help with ifconfig or route, or you are using your laptop
on a train.

Secondly, the Internet is full of useful advice, and some of it is even
accurate. Only documentation supplied with the package can be assumed to
be correct and up to date.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

When you said you wanted to live in sin, I didn't know you meant "sloth"

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Joshua D Doll <joshua.doll@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>>
>> --Joshua Doll
>>     
>
> I agree. Everything except the grub part. It's well written but it
> requires more knowledge about the actual hardware than the rest of it,
> especially if you do it wrong and have to recover.
>
> - Mark
>
>
>   

What I find ironic here, I have been know to use copy and paste to
install Gentoo.  I may have to change a mount point or a partition
location, hda2 to hda6 or something, but otherwise, copy and paste works
well.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[momesso.andrea]

Sorry for top posting, it's BlackBerry's behavior. 

I cannot agree when you say that gentoo docs are written for geeks. 

Gentoo's install guide is very well written and i18ed, at least in my native language. 

It takes the user step by step to prepare his enviroment, to install the distro, and to finalize it, always explaining every step and giving choices. 

First time I installed gentoo my only linux experience was 8 months of suse, I am not an IT person, but I haven't found the installation that painful.

======= 
TopperH
=======

================
Momesso Andrea
================

-----Original Message-----
From:  Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de>

Date:  Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:43:43 
To: <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
Subject: [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 :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 20:00, Mike Edenfield escribió:
> 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.

Gentoo is not a distro. You don't "use" it, It's a metadristro
that can be used to build a proper distro, after that you can
use the final product.

> 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.

No. Your point is valid but in the other sense. If you are choosing
the wrong tool for you, it's your problem. If you don't want to
build a system from scratch but you insist on using Gentoo and you
insist that it MUST be easy to use, then you are the one that screw
the thing up.

I want to remove some screws, but I want to do it with my hammer!!!

> 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.

As said in other posts, I think that the true reason is that there's
not any interest in doing it. Many attempts have been started and
abandoned in the past.

> If Gentoo's installer is difficult *on purpose* just to make Gentoo hard
> to use, that's ridiculous.

It's not dificult. You can read, you can do it.

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 360 bytes --]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:03:30 +0100 (CET), Jesús Guerrero wrote:

> Gentoo is not a distro. You don't "use" it, It's a metadristro
> that can be used to build a proper distro, after that you can
> use the final product.

It's a flatpack distro ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Hi, I'm not a signature virus. Why don't you just copy me into your
signature?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Thu, February 5, 2009 9:12 pm, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:03:30 +0100 (CET), Jes�s Guerrero wrote:
>
>> Gentoo is not a distro. You don't "use" it, It's a metadristro
>> that can be used to build a proper distro, after that you can
>> use the final product.
>
> It's a flatpack distro ;-)

Can anyone tell me in which section of IKEA i can find the install set? :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Christopher Walters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

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.  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.
<snip>

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on this issue.  If you
don't read your car's manual, you'll have no idea what kind of maintenance
schedule that is recommended by the maker of the car, nor will you know what
the appropriate tire pressure is, and the recommended tires for your car.

Of course, if you plan to do your own maintenance on your car, you'll need not
only the manual, but also a technical manual and some tools, as well as a garage.

Gentoo provides the tools and the equivalent of the manual and technical
manual, and you provide the "garage" (the hard drive) and "car" (the memory,
CPU, etc.)  It is up to you how you use those tools, and if you feel you
shouldn't have to read the docs to have a working distro, then maybe you should
consider Ubuntu or something similar, where no reading is really required, and
no familiarity with programming is needed.  Sorry, but it just had to be said.

I believe that Gentoo was made for programmers and others who wish to tinker
"under the hood" to make a better, faster and more efficient distro suited to
their needs.  I have absolutely NO problem reading the docs, looking at source
code, and the like, since these thing help me to learn more.

The thing that separates Gentoo from other metadistributions (kudos to the
person who first coined this term), is that Gentoo has a relatively large
number of maintainers who write patches to fix bugs, test new versions of
packages, and new packages for stability on a range of different systems, set
up USE flags for each new version or package, and so on.  So long as you know
the system, and know one or more programming languages, you can also submit
packages, patches and ebuilds for consideration, or just use them on your system.

Real speed improvements may be achieved, if and only if, you know how a package
is coded, gcc compiler options, and linker flags, and so long as you have
optimized the kernel for *your* system, as well as the system libc (glibc for
Gentoo).  The compiler and linker will only do what you have told them.  As has
already been stated in this debate, the main benefits of Gentoo over binary
distros are the virtually endless configurability, and being able to merge a
package without a ton of additional "required" packages that you neither need
nor want.

In contrast, the binary distributions are compiled with all package options on
(this can pull in hundreds of unnecessary packages, just for the want of one),
and for maximum usability on just about any system:  Case in point, for 64-bit
systems, Debian and its child Ubuntu, have packages compiled to use the
"generic x86_64" option, so they can be used on an AMD64 and an IA64 system.
In addition, all kernel options are either directly in the kernel, or modules
that will eventually be required by some package.

While it is possible to get the source and compile packages yourself, these
distributions don't exactly make it easy.  They are geared to people who don't
want to read the docs - who want something that will set up a desktop
environment "out of the box".  They are not geared to people who want to tinker
around "under the hood" (to keep the car analogy going).  JMHO.

Oh, and one final question, and observation.  Observation:  Anyone who tries to
fly an airplane (or repair one) without reading the docs, assuming no flight
experience, is truly an idiot, and a dangerous one, at that.  I think that it
is better to compare Gentoo to an airplane than to a car or a VCR.  Although
both of the latter are certainly complex, they in no way come close to the
complexity of aircraft.  Whether your Gentoo will be a single engine propeller
plane, or a fast jet is up to you...  Again, JMHO.

Regards,
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=TYwT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Christopher Walters wrote:

> for 64-bit systems, Debian and its child Ubuntu, have packages compiled to
> use the "generic x86_64" option, so they can be used on an AMD64 and an
> IA64 system. In addition, all kernel options are either directly in the
> kernel, or modules that will eventually be required by some package.

ugh, sooo wrong.
amd64/x86_64 is the same. Intels emt64 is the clone. IA64 (itanium) is a 
completly different beast. Itanium doesn't even run x86 software (well). They 
have nothing in common.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Christopher Walters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Christopher Walters wrote:
> 
>> for 64-bit systems, Debian and its child Ubuntu, have packages compiled to
>> use the "generic x86_64" option, so they can be used on an AMD64 and an
>> IA64 system. In addition, all kernel options are either directly in the
>> kernel, or modules that will eventually be required by some package.
> 
> ugh, sooo wrong.
> amd64/x86_64 is the same. Intels emt64 is the clone. IA64 (itanium) is a 
> completly different beast. Itanium doesn't even run x86 software (well). They 
> have nothing in common.

I am well aware that AMD64 and IA64 are different, use different instruction
sets, and different kernel configurations (AMD and Intel diverged many years
ago).  Perhaps I mistyped, or perhaps you misunderstood me, but my main points
remain the same.  It is not cool to pick one part of a person's message and
criticize it, while ignoring the remainder of said message.  Especially when
said message is supporting your points.

Regards,
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJJjJZZAAoJEIAhA8M9p9DAQGoP/1Lsc7EVsfwE7u4MRyExw4kr
3wQJkzYBUzLR8DfMH3Vf0eGgf8am59vmiJFDnOS/ko31R4weUU4Q1xOjeIwkqXjS
Mlw+HzrHcMmVYk0steAXj8DLExEs8vxAPhEFWr4jvXOmL6AWtOv05cps1zYmXTbk
D5UEdqsoz2RfYCj4EhcH3SPEv+Vtr7dZLc+cmjOrVlOGokywPQwsa+/oU59bLfPd
4nxqHRSNh+sc6AEYriKEHnd1svO6hCHweug/56G/DaquviEy7iy3j69pAE+IMXNM
JvQC5zIcLjzKKWXu7TLA1U/TGwUDnL+btfmRZ83LqaTqNB/QcRJynm+9aJiHmRUi
V7bFBUlPOWCJ8F2BQCs06EbcdEUbhzD6lTlKYAIx6SIaYjk+CJTlqal9cv9jk+is
1lPAFWmIOOgwZ9smtpuvOgtjbVllPuDI5M8rzYUixS3mDJt6wmq7NQdaPGDJe3J6
KdRxpjf7vwcBsvs+DbE9kVtUa+bHQjsA8GQ/vsGpnYCtN6RMOC+VlqjLiVXClXXs
GTO40LjBkPc/kgKD18XOxe0nGg8Ozws+o0jYt8S0y1F7d33mDQjwy2nNqya3q229
FFk0W5URZfbhhBQNrK9MZyybeygk25s8XtK58CKf6hCVwcIV9adDTA07wBLDwjfu
1/zUiDVRZrGPUFq1rSMh
=LkWr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Christopher Walters wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Freitag 06 Februar 2009, Christopher Walters wrote:
> >> for 64-bit systems, Debian and its child Ubuntu, have packages compiled
> >> to use the "generic x86_64" option, so they can be used on an AMD64 and
> >> an IA64 system. In addition, all kernel options are either directly in
> >> the kernel, or modules that will eventually be required by some package.
> >
> > ugh, sooo wrong.
> > amd64/x86_64 is the same. Intels emt64 is the clone. IA64 (itanium) is a
> > completly different beast. Itanium doesn't even run x86 software (well).
> > They have nothing in common.
>
> I am well aware that AMD64 and IA64 are different, use different
> instruction sets, and different kernel configurations (AMD and Intel
> diverged many years ago).  Perhaps I mistyped, or perhaps you misunderstood
> me, but my main points remain the same.  It is not cool to pick one part of
> a person's message and criticize it, while ignoring the remainder of said
> message.  Especially when said message is supporting your points.
>
> Regards,
> Chris

because the message was wrong. You can't compile for 'generic x86_64' and have 
the software run on itanium.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dirk Uys]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> 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

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-05, Dirk Uys <dirkcuys@gmail.com> 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.com            writing a best seller!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag 05 Februar 2009, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2009-02-05, Dirk Uys <dirkcuys@gmail.com> 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?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 16:23, Grant Edwards escribió:
> On 2009-02-05, Dirk Uys <dirkcuys@gmail.com> 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.

That's completely unfair.

If you don't want to know how a fridge work you buy a fridge,
not the tools to make a fridge, which is what Gentoo is.

If you don't want to make the fridge yourself, go Ubuntu and let
us build our fridges ourselves. Why do you want to spoil our fun?
Isn't there enough premade distros that are easy to handle around?

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

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...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 12:36, Nikos Chantziaras escribió:
> 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.

I don't agree with the way to see it of Nikos. However, even if
I agree with you in that having Ubuntu (which is another choice)
is a good thing, I don't agree that Gentoo should be
yet-another-ubuntu.

Gentoo is Gentoo, and Ubuntu is Ubuntu. If your mother uses Ubuntu,
that's fine. But we don't need to lower the acceptance level of
Gentoo so your mother can use it.

I think that it's fair to ask a minimal degree of will to read
and learn for a distro like Gentoo. The rest of Gentoo users do
it, no one died that I know of because of it.

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dale]

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

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> El Jue, 5 de Febrero de 2009, 7:07, Nikos Chantziaras escribió:
>> 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.
> 
> 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 
can simply throw the truth at the user's face in an elegant way.  "Well 
dude, those USE flags you see here actually control the way we are going 
to build the sources. Click here to get a description of what the gtk 
flag means for this package."

The user learns.


> 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.

Gentoo is easy as it is.  How easier could it get?  GUI tools don't 
really result in less features.  They're only there to deal with the 
most common of them.


> 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]

You would still be free to use the CLI.  Hell, even I would for many 
things.  But an nice tray icon that goes like "Gentoo Updates are 
available" wouldn't hurt me either.  I click it, the emerge GUI shows up ;)


> 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.

And that's because Gentoo is not really popular. :P


> 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.

GUIs have fonts.  You can read those too ;)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

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 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.
>>
>> 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?

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9070 bytes --]

* Nikos Chantziaras (realnc@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. And you can only make good choices, when 
you read about them. BTW: Most of the choices have no meaningful 
default.

What would make things easier is a fully automated installer, that just 
duplicates/repeat your well-thought-out choices on reinstalls or 
multiple installs. Something like: Her is an xml file, eat this and see 
you tomorrow at lunch time with a smiling SLiM.

>
>> 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.
>

Well, there isn't even a CLI installer. And on Gentoo I have to 
disagree on the fact that that installation is always the same, the very 
fact of kernel configuration makes it impossible to standardize 
anything.

And Genkernel is so Un-Gentoo: If you don't know how to configure your 
kernel, you have chosen the wrong way at the very beginning.

> 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.

You don't need a GUI: you need an automatic installer. 

> 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.
>

Well, you have to have CLI, because X is not mandatory. 
Besides: If you want GUI, write it. It is not that hard to write a 
wrapper around those tools, which uses gtk or qt or whatever gui 
toolkit.


> 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.
>
>
>
> GUIs for the simple things is good.  Maybe CLI for the hairy stuff.
>

I hate GUIs. Clicking is for Apple Users...

>
>> 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.
>

But Gentoo is for nerds. For those who know what they are doing. For the 
ones that what to learn what is really going on and the ones that only 
want those things they need, not what a maintainer thought would be 
useful to have.

Gentoo does not need the usual computer user nor can it serve them: 
There is too less knowledge to make appropiate choices.

This does not disclose people who have the faintest idea what a kernel config 
from using it, but from maintaining and installing it. 

Gentoo can be your first Linux, but usually it isn't; you come here 
because you don't get what you want from the other distros: insight and 
control.

We need to be the better Linux for nerds. We are cool, because we let 
you roll^^^^emerge your own.

BTW: I came because of performance: Could not watch an .avi in X on my 
pentium III (666 Mhz iirc) with debian. Took days for the stage 1 
install, but then: like a rocket...

>
>> 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 can 
> simply throw the truth at the user's face in an elegant way.  "Well dude, 
> those USE flags you see here actually control the way we are going to build 
> the sources. Click here to get a description of what the gtk flag means for 
> this package."
>
> The user learns.

The user will *never* click here. They click OK.

>
>
>> 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.
>
> Gentoo is easy as it is.  How easier could it get?  GUI tools don't really 
> result in less features.  They're only there to deal with the most common 
> of them.
>

That why no one cares: I want to have full control, and this 
obfustication does not help. And a Gui with all options and the man page 
as tooltips is as hellish as any Windows GUI can get.

>
>> 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]
>
> You would still be free to use the CLI.  Hell, even I would for many 
> things.  But an nice tray icon that goes like "Gentoo Updates are 
> available" wouldn't hurt me either.  I click it, the emerge GUI shows up ;)
>

First of all: There are enough Gentoo installs without X arround the 
world. Second: Writing GUIs btw is far more boring than installing...
Third: There are *always* updates for gentoo. so put eix-sync in a 
cronjob.
Last not least: Well, the panel plugin for arbitrary command execution 
exists (eg. diff-eix /var/cache/eix.previous) , and it shouldn't be hard 
to add a starter with xterm emerge -DuN @world...

>
>> 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.
>
> And that's because Gentoo is not really popular. :P
>

The really problem is, that it seems that Ubuntu is sometimes more up to 
date than Gentoo...

So the problem is what Steve Ballmer said: Developers, developers, 
developers!

Notice self: I should really think about getting more involved...

>
>> 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.
>
> GUIs have fonts.  You can read those too ;)
>
>

But noone will read it. Did you ever read anything the Windows Installer 
stated to you when there only was OK and Abort?

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --]

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*

Bye...

	Dirk

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

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Harry Putnam]

Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@online.de> 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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@online.de> 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

Isn't it amazing that this is still true? I just brought up XP under
vmware for the first time. To get through SP3 with virus protection
but no applications was around 15-20 reboots. At least they are fast
in vmware...

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Roy Wright]

Harry Putnam wrote:
> Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@online.de> 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


Sorry, can't resist as I am currently setting up another gentoo box.  A 
few reboots are kind of expected during a normal gentoo install.

1) after following directions need to reboot into your new system.
2) after updating gcc to the latest and recompiling the system.
3) after finding stupid oversight in fstab (replace ROOT,BOOT,SWAP with 
real devices - embarrassed that I missed that one)
4) while installing X and find that kernel has nvidia FB enabled.
5) while installing kde-meta and find that kernel doesn't have HWMON 
enabled.

Admittedly #3 was oversight and the last two are optional but serve as 
an example that you probably will not get your kernel config right the 
first time.

As for the hours to set up, if you include compile time for X and KDE, 
several hours starts to look really optimistic for a BE-2400, even when 
using distcc to a OC (3GHz) Q9300.  LEt's face it, it's a two day job to 
install gentoo desktop.

The time savings come later, like trying to get HD Audio over HDMI (at 
least that's my hope).  Using this real world example, I originally 
tried kubuntu 8.10 but that didn't have alsa 0.18 (it had 0.17 while 
gentoo ~x86 has 0.19), so had to use two different package management 
systems (dpkg and apt) to get their toolchain installed, then used a 
third package to try to build alsa, which naturally failed.  Instead of 
trying to hack around with their inconsistent system, I said time for 
gentoo...


Have fun,
Roy

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dale]

Roy Wright wrote:
> Harry Putnam wrote:
>> Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs@online.de> 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
>
>
> Sorry, can't resist as I am currently setting up another gentoo box. 
> A few reboots are kind of expected during a normal gentoo install.
>
> 1) after following directions need to reboot into your new system.
> 2) after updating gcc to the latest and recompiling the system.
> 3) after finding stupid oversight in fstab (replace ROOT,BOOT,SWAP
> with real devices - embarrassed that I missed that one)
> 4) while installing X and find that kernel has nvidia FB enabled.
> 5) while installing kde-meta and find that kernel doesn't have HWMON
> enabled.
>
> Admittedly #3 was oversight and the last two are optional but serve as
> an example that you probably will not get your kernel config right the
> first time.
>
> As for the hours to set up, if you include compile time for X and KDE,
> several hours starts to look really optimistic for a BE-2400, even
> when using distcc to a OC (3GHz) Q9300.  LEt's face it, it's a two day
> job to install gentoo desktop.
>
> The time savings come later, like trying to get HD Audio over HDMI (at
> least that's my hope).  Using this real world example, I originally
> tried kubuntu 8.10 but that didn't have alsa 0.18 (it had 0.17 while
> gentoo ~x86 has 0.19), so had to use two different package management
> systems (dpkg and apt) to get their toolchain installed, then used a
> third package to try to build alsa, which naturally failed.  Instead
> of trying to hack around with their inconsistent system, I said time
> for gentoo...
>
>
> Have fun,
> Roy
>
>

This was one thing I liked about Mandrake, now Mandriva.  Put in the CD,
boot up, set up drives, select ALL the software you can stand, let it
install and then reboot.  What really made it good, when you reboot, ALL
your software is already installed.  Dang that was cool.  It doesn't run
as fast as Gentoo but if you want a Linux install in a hurry, that is
one way to get it.  Then you can use Mandrake to do your Gentoo
install.  chroot works wonderfully.  Run into a problem, just go to a
browser and search the forums etc to get help.

All this beats winders hands down. 

Dale 

:-)  :-)

P. S.  Can anyone tell I hate winders?  Is it obvious?  LOL

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 929 bytes --]

* Dale (rdalek1967@gmail.com) [06.02.09 23:56]:
> 
> This was one thing I liked about Mandrake, now Mandriva.  Put in the CD,
> boot up, set up drives, select ALL the software you can stand, let it
> install and then reboot.  What really made it good, when you reboot, ALL
> your software is already installed.  Dang that was cool.  It doesn't run
> as fast as Gentoo but if you want a Linux install in a hurry, that is
> one way to get it.  Then you can use Mandrake to do your Gentoo
> install.  chroot works wonderfully.  Run into a problem, just go to a
> browser and search the forums etc to get help.
> 
*Install* Mandrake, to install Gentoo?

Where were you when Klaus invented Koppix...

> All this beats winders hands down. 
> 
This surely not...

> Dale 
> 

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dale]

Sebastian Günther wrote:
> * Dale (rdalek1967@gmail.com) [06.02.09 23:56]:
>   
>> This was one thing I liked about Mandrake, now Mandriva.  Put in the CD,
>> boot up, set up drives, select ALL the software you can stand, let it
>> install and then reboot.  What really made it good, when you reboot, ALL
>> your software is already installed.  Dang that was cool.  It doesn't run
>> as fast as Gentoo but if you want a Linux install in a hurry, that is
>> one way to get it.  Then you can use Mandrake to do your Gentoo
>> install.  chroot works wonderfully.  Run into a problem, just go to a
>> browser and search the forums etc to get help.
>>
>>     
> *Install* Mandrake, to install Gentoo?
>
> Where were you when Klaus invented Koppix...
>   

At the time I had never heard of Knoppix and I am not even sure if it
was around then.  Also, I already had Mandrake installed.  That was my
first Linux. 


>   
>> All this beats winders hands down. 
>>
>>     
> This surely not...
>   

Yep, when I saw winders 3.1 and what a mess it was, I quit my puter job
and went to work for a magazine company.  Got out of the puter mess.  I
have never bought anything M$ either.  I have never had anything winders
on my computer either.

>   
>> Dale 
>>
>>     
>
> Sebastian
>
>   

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 511 bytes --]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:17:04 +0100, Sebastian Günther wrote:

> *Install* Mandrake, to install Gentoo?
> 
> Where were you when Klaus invented Koppix...

An installed distro is better if you have work to do. When I ought this
Eee PC, I couldn't install from the default Xandros, so I installed
EeeXbuntu and got on with some productive stuff while gcc was stress
testing the CPU in the background.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

C&W music backward: get yer dog, wife, job, truck, kids, and sobriety
back.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 23:55, Dale escribió:

> This was one thing I liked about Mandrake, now Mandriva.  Put in the CD,
> boot up, set up drives, select ALL the software you can stand, let it
> install and then reboot.  What really made it good, when you reboot, ALL
> your software is already installed.  Dang that was cool.  It doesn't run
> as fast as Gentoo but if you want a Linux install in a hurry, that is one
> way to get it.  Then you can use Mandrake to do your Gentoo install.
> chroot works wonderfully.  Run into a problem, just go to a browser and
> search the forums etc to get help.

Weird like hell. Just boot a knoppix livecd and install gentoo
from there. Or any livecd of your liking.

If you like Mandriva and you install it to use it, then it's
ok, but to install it just to use it as a Gentoo installer it's
a weird thing to say the least.

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dale]

Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 23:55, Dale escribió:
>
>   
>> This was one thing I liked about Mandrake, now Mandriva.  Put in the CD,
>> boot up, set up drives, select ALL the software you can stand, let it
>> install and then reboot.  What really made it good, when you reboot, ALL
>> your software is already installed.  Dang that was cool.  It doesn't run
>> as fast as Gentoo but if you want a Linux install in a hurry, that is one
>> way to get it.  Then you can use Mandrake to do your Gentoo install.
>> chroot works wonderfully.  Run into a problem, just go to a browser and
>> search the forums etc to get help.
>>     
>
> Weird like hell. Just boot a knoppix livecd and install gentoo
> from there. Or any livecd of your liking.
>
> If you like Mandriva and you install it to use it, then it's
> ok, but to install it just to use it as a Gentoo installer it's
> a weird thing to say the least.
>
>   

Mandrake was what I switched from.  I used Mandrake for about six months
when I decided to switch, mostly because the upgrade process sucked.  I
didn't install Mandrake just to install Gentoo, it was what was already
installed.

That said, if I thought I would run into trouble and needed my dial-up
to work during the install, I would stick in a old drive and install
Mandrake and install from there.  I'm not saying someone else should but
setting up dial-up on most bootable CDs is not fun.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Sab, 7 de Febrero de 2009, 19:37, Dale escribió:
> Jesús Guerrero wrote:
>
>> El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 23:55, Dale escribió:
[...]
>> If you like Mandriva and you install it to use it, then it's
>> ok, but to install it just to use it as a Gentoo installer it's a weird
>> thing to say the least.
>>
>>
>
> Mandrake was what I switched from.  I used Mandrake for about six months
> when I decided to switch, mostly because the upgrade process sucked.  I
> didn't install Mandrake just to install Gentoo, it was what was already
> installed.

Well, that makes more sense of course.

> That said, if I thought I would run into trouble and needed my dial-up
> to work during the install, I would stick in a old drive and install
> Mandrake and install from there.  I'm not saying someone else should but
> setting up dial-up on most bootable CDs is not fun.

I know from experience how "funny" winmodems can be. That's why
when I used to use a modem I decided to buy a serial true modem
and crapped out my conexant hsf winmodem. True modems work out
of the box without any problem. All you need is to configure
your dialer.



-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dale]

Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> El Sab, 7 de Febrero de 2009, 19:37, Dale escribió:
>   
>> Jesús Guerrero wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> El Vie, 6 de Febrero de 2009, 23:55, Dale escribió:
>>>       
> [...]
>   
>>> If you like Mandriva and you install it to use it, then it's
>>> ok, but to install it just to use it as a Gentoo installer it's a weird
>>> thing to say the least.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Mandrake was what I switched from.  I used Mandrake for about six months
>> when I decided to switch, mostly because the upgrade process sucked.  I
>> didn't install Mandrake just to install Gentoo, it was what was already
>> installed.
>>     
>
> Well, that makes more sense of course.
>
>   
>> That said, if I thought I would run into trouble and needed my dial-up
>> to work during the install, I would stick in a old drive and install
>> Mandrake and install from there.  I'm not saying someone else should but
>> setting up dial-up on most bootable CDs is not fun.
>>     
>
> I know from experience how "funny" winmodems can be. That's why
> when I used to use a modem I decided to buy a serial true modem
> and crapped out my conexant hsf winmodem. True modems work out
> of the box without any problem. All you need is to configure
> your dialer.
>
>
>
>   

Mine is a true external serial modem.  I make sure it says it works with
Linux or someone else tells me it does without the extra drivers.  It's
just that some don't include wvdial and other dialers at times.  I don't
know which ones do or don't and since I am on dial-up it is a HUGE
deal.  It can take me days to download a CD, even a fairly small one. 
Let's not even discuss a DVD one.  :/  I can't download a huge CD just
to find out it doesn't have a dialer or one that I can figure out.  I am
familiar with wvdial and pon/poff but I sort of like Kppp.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

> Mine is a true external serial modem.  I make sure it says it works with
> Linux or someone else tells me it does without the extra drivers.  It's
> just that some don't include wvdial and other dialers at times.  I don't
> know which ones do or don't and since I am on dial-up it is a HUGE deal.
> It can take me days to download a CD, even a fairly small one.
> Let's not even discuss a DVD one.  :/  I can't download a huge CD just
> to find out it doesn't have a dialer or one that I can figure out.  I am
> familiar with wvdial and pon/poff but I sort of like Kppp.  lol
>
> Dale

True. I've been in that team for a long time. I also used kppp for
a long time, because the conexant seemed not to like anything else
that I tried. However, by that time, it was probably due to my
inexperience, but definitely the buggy hsf driver has a big part
on it as well.

The demo driver wouldn't even work. It only permitted up to 14kbps
(of those 56 that the modem and the line where capable of) which
provoked the connection to abort usually in less than 1 min. So
I had to buy it without really knowing if it would work. It was
a dumb buy, I should have invested in a true modem from the start,
even if the price was a bit higher.


-- 
Jesús Guerrero

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Sebastian Günther wrote:
> * Nikos Chantziaras (realnc@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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 463 bytes --]

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. You stated that
Gentoo needs a GUI installer. The number of people using it without one
shows that is simply not true.

You want one, that much is clear, but Gentoo does not *need* one.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Time is an illusion but never so much as when you're using a modem.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[James Homuth]

On Sat, February 7, 2009 12:23, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
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.

if Gentoo needs anything, it's a more accessible method of installing for
those users who can't actually see the screen. Don't get me wrong, I love
the distro for several reasons, but if I were to install linux locally on
any of my desktops, it would probably be debian or ubuntu simply for the
fact their methods of instalation are actually useable to me.bbb

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 777 bytes --]

* James Homuth (james@the-jdh.com) [07.02.09 18:29]:

> if Gentoo needs anything, it's a more accessible method of installing for
> those users who can't actually see the screen. Don't get me wrong, I love
> the distro for several reasons, but if I were to install linux locally on
> any of my desktops, it would probably be debian or ubuntu simply for the
> fact their methods of instalation are actually useable to me.bbb

If i have to do *multiple* installs for several copumters, which I do 
not use myself, I choose debian, because fai rocks. 

Shouldn't this fai be adopted for Gentoo? I should investigate if this 
is possible...

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 455 bytes --]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 20:43:04 +0100, Sebastian Günther wrote:

> If i have to do *multiple* installs for several copumters, which I do 
> not use myself, I choose debian, because fai rocks. 
> 
> Shouldn't this fai be adopted for Gentoo? I should investigate if this 
> is possible...

Did you look at quickstart, mentioned earlier in this discussion?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Things are more like they are today than they ever have been before.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

* Neil Bothwick (neil@digimed.co.uk) [07.02.09 22:42]:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 20:43:04 +0100, Sebastian Günther wrote:
> 
> > If i have to do *multiple* installs for several copumters, which I do 
> > not use myself, I choose debian, because fai rocks. 
> > 
> > Shouldn't this fai be adopted for Gentoo? I should investigate if this 
> > is possible...
> 
> Did you look at quickstart, mentioned earlier in this discussion?
> 
> 

Nope, unless fai-quickstart was meant...

Any links?

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 327 bytes --]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:54:48 +0100, Sebastian Günther wrote:

> > Did you look at quickstart, mentioned earlier in this discussion?

> Nope, unless fai-quickstart was meant...
> 
> Any links?

Yes, posted twice already but not to hand now.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Math and alcohol don't mix. Don't drink and derive.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Sebastian Günther]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 939 bytes --]

* Nikos Chantziaras (realnc@arcor.de) [07.02.09 18:25]:
> 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.
>
>

Faulty argument:

We did not state that GUI installers are not needed in general, but that 
Gentoo in specific does not need one. For several reasons.

Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Dale]

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. You stated that
> Gentoo needs a GUI installer. The number of people using it without one
> shows that is simply not true.
>
> You want one, that much is clear, but Gentoo does not *need* one.
>
>
>   

I agree.  I got a CD with the installer on it here somewhere.  I always
boot with the gentoo nox option to disable the thing.  By the time that
thing loads up I can mount my partitions and edit a file that needs
changing and be back out again.  I'm not sure that the GUI really makes
anything "easier" either.  You still have the learning curve to deal
with after the CD is gone.

Basically, if you use the CD installer, you are still pretty much
clueless when it comes to what is under the hood of Gentoo.  Without it,
you have learned several things that come in handy later on for sure.

I'm not totally against it but I don't really see any need for it either.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Joshua Murphy]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> 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?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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?

[kashani]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 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.

	The above statement is ridiculous and I've said my piece on it several 
times. Not worth the bother of debunking it yet again so I'll just link 
the infamous "Elitist Chowderhead" thread from four years ago.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/109660/focus=109984

	What people forget is that a well built installer has to run through a 
number of steps that get you a running system. Ideally a system that has 
exactly what you expect to be installed and how. Whether this is a GUI, 
ncurses based, whatever is besides the point. An installer project 
builds a set of tools that eventually can be used to install hundreds of 
machines in a uniform way and that is damn useful.

kashani

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Yannick Mortier]

2009/2/3 Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>:
> 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?

I guess that is because the average user doesn't know those other
problems. Maybe he is used to reinstall his system every few months
because he used Windows before (which was the case for me, I repeat
was). Or he just reinstalls it when something fails.
Also this sounds like a very strong argument. Just imagine! That shiny
new CPU of yours and it wasn't running at it's full potential! But
wait no more! Use Gentoo and it'll show the power of all its
instructions!

>
> AFAICT, the "performance" benefit due to compiler optimization
> is practically nil in real-world usage.

Not nil, but very very small. Maybe some 0.25 oder 0.5 frames per
second in a game or 2 or 3 requests more per second for a webserver. I
tried that.

>
> In my experience the huge benefit of source-based distros such
> as Gentoo is elimination of the library dependency-hell that
> mires other binary-based distros.

You are absolutely right!

>
> For many years I ran RedHat and then Mandrake.  After a year or
> so, they became impossible to maintain because of library
> version conflicts.  Every time I tried up upgrade an RPM package
> to fix a bug or security hole, it required a handful of
> libraries to be upgraded, but doing that would break a bunch of
> other RPMs for which upgrades weren't available. The solution
> was always to start building stuff from sources.  Once you
> started doing that, the package manager would get upset because
> it doesn't know about some stuff that's installed (unless you
> built from source RPMs, which had another set of problems).
>
> The second benefit is that with Gentoo, upgrading a system
> actually works over the long-run.  With RedHat/Mandrake, things
> would gradually deteriorate to the point where the system was
> unmaintainable, but attempting to upgrade between major
> releases was always futile.  I've had Gentoo machines that have
> been upgraded for 4-5 years without any significant problems
> (failed hard-drives don't count).

I hope mine will run as long as yours :) But I'm quite sure it will.
I just love that I can pick newer packages by unkeywording them and I
don't have all those library problems that I would happen with other
distributions. (Which can sometimes be avoided with backports, I know,
but those aren't always available...)

>
> The third main benefit I've seen is that there are vastly more
> packages available for Gentoo.  Putting together and
> maintaining an ebuild appears to take a lot less work than
> putting together and maintaining a binary RPM package.  I've
> had far fewer problems with third party ebuilds than I did with
> third-party RPMs (on the rare occasions when I found one for
> some obscure application I wanted to run).  Again, the solution
> was always "build from sources".

Hmm.. I think making an ebuild is even harder. Because you have got
different combinations of USE flags and if you are a good maintainer
you should check them all, if you build an rpm it is fine if it works.
With 4 USE flags there are already 31 possible combinations.... just
imagine some larger packets with ten and more USE Flags...

>
> Are the real benefits of Gentoo too hard to explain to the
> unwashed masses, so instead they're told the fairy tale about
> imporoved performance?
>

I guess yes, because they just install packages from their
distribution or wildly from the internet so they destroy their
installation and have to reinstall anyways.

And by the way, I love the slogan "Gentoo - It's all about choices"
maybe it should be used more often, maybe it could beat that improved
performance slogan.



-- 
Currently developing a browsergame...
http://www.p-game.de
Trade - Expand - Fight

Follow me at twitter!
http://twitter.com/moortier

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Dienstag 03 Februar 2009, 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?

because it was true in the beginning, when most distris were still built for 
386 and the difference of an optimized built was that you could watch dvd 
movies without hangs and frame loss.

It is still true to a certain degree today - code compiled for 386 runs much 
slower than code compiled for core2 - on a core2. But on todays overpowered 
cpus you don't see it as prominent as back on k6-2 400 or p3 650 ....


> AFAICT, the "performance" benefit due to compiler optimization
> is practically nil in real-world usage.

nope, they are there. But compiler optimiziations are a very delicate thing. 
You can't just throw funroll-all-loops into make.conf and think that was it. 
And for a general set, march is the most important one. It does do a lot of 
good - the rest is just minor at best.

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[kashani]

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?

IIRC as late as 2001 almost all distros were primarily built for i386 
there were definite improvements to be had by moving to i686. For things 
that do complicated math like Mysql, openssl, etc there were noticeable 
improvements. Apache likely doesn't benefit at all from anything beyond 
i686, but things like video encoding/decoding do have code that can take 
advantage of mmx, sse, etc.
	Additionally when NTPL hit glibc-2.3 Gentoo was one of the first 
distros that let you move to a NTPL glibc which practically doubled 
Mysql performance in our environment. Not instruction based, but most 
other distros required waiting an additional six months for a release to 
get this.

kashani

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

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?

[Christopher Walters]

-----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
<snip>
> 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-----
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=vtJv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

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?

[Jesús Guerrero]

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

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-04, Jes?s Guerrero <i92guboj@terra.es> 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            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 310 bytes --]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:25:49 +0000 (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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-04, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:25:49 +0000 (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            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 573 bytes --]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:19:17 +0000 (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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 17:19, Grant Edwards escribió:
> On 2009-02-04, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:25:49 +0000 (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?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 16:25, Grant Edwards escribió:
> On 2009-02-04, Jes?s Guerrero <i92guboj@terra.es> 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?

[Momesso Andrea]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1920 bytes --]

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
=======

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Sebastián Magrí]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2579 bytes --]

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...

[-- Attachment #2: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Momesso Andrea]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1623 bytes --]

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
=======

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Sebastián Magrí]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2447 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for yoursystem" -- huh?

[Prado, Renato (R.P.)]

> 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?
Thinking about that... I guess a could future for future portage
releases would be a USE flag the overrides the system's CFLAGS (besides
-march) to what the package maintainer recommends. This would be
interesting for processor-intensive stuff, like ffmpeg for example. This
would also allow users to try some more dangerous flags only for
packages were they are known to be safe.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for yoursystem" -- huh?

[Yannick Mortier]

2009/2/4 Prado, Renato (R.P.) <rprado@visteon.com>:
>> 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?
> Thinking about that... I guess a could future for future portage
> releases would be a USE flag the overrides the system's CFLAGS (besides
> -march) to what the package maintainer recommends. This would be
> interesting for processor-intensive stuff, like ffmpeg for example. This
> would also allow users to try some more dangerous flags only for
> packages were they are known to be safe.
>
>

I have -march=amdfam10 (Phenom) and I once watched the compilation of
ffmpeg and it said something like "CPU family amdfam10 unknown" and it
changed some of the CFLAGS (I can't remember which exactly) so I guess
something like this is already somewhere under the hood.

But I agree that a USE-Flag to decide over this behaviour would be great.



-- 
Currently developing a browsergame...
http://www.p-game.de
Trade - Expand - Fight

Follow me at twitter!
http://twitter.com/moortier

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for yoursystem' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 16:39, Prado, Renato (R.P.) escribió:
>> 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?
> Thinking about that... I guess a could future for future portage
> releases would be a USE flag the overrides the system's CFLAGS (besides
> -march) to what the package maintainer recommends. This would be
> interesting for processor-intensive stuff, like ffmpeg for example. This
> would also allow users to try some more dangerous flags only for packages
> were they are known to be safe.

Unless you mean a different thing, that can be achieved and
is already done in some packages. For example, mplayer has a
USE flag called custom-cflags which freely allow you to break
it as much as you want.

And if an ebuild bothers you filtering flags, you can always overlay
it and remove the filters. If you can't do that, you definitely
don't qualify to break your CFLAGS.


-- 
Jesús Guerrero

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for yoursystem' -- huh?

[Prado, Renato (R.P.)]

>Unless you mean a different thing, that can be achieved and
>is already done in some packages. For example, mplayer has a
>USE flag called custom-cflags which freely allow you to break
>it as much as you want.

What I meant was something like this: supposed that the maintainer of a
particular package knows the -O3 causes a massive performance increase
(just an example, I know that usually -03 only gives marginally better
performance and that it can even make stuff slower), if the user has the
"simmonsays" USE flag enabled, that package will be built with -03,
respecting the users' -march setting but overriding -On.

Developing the idea, there could be a "performance" and a "stability"
USE flags, that would use the recommended CFLAGS for each package, some
sort of "automated ricing" ;-)
 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

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?

[Momesso Andrea]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 529 bytes --]

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
=======

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Alan McKinnon]

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?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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?

[Steven Lembark]

> 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 Lembark                                            85-09 90th St.
Workhorse Computing                                 Woodhaven, NY, 11421
lembark@wrkhors.com                                      +1 888 359 3508

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 566 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Dirk Uys]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Steven Lembark <lembark@wrkhors.com> 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

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-05, Steven Lembark <lembark@wrkhors.com> 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.com            RONSTADT too!!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 803 bytes --]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:26:30 +0000 (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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[James]

Grant Edwards <grante <at> 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?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-04, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Grant Edwards <grante <at> 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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> On 2009-02-04, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Grant Edwards <grante <at> 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/

:)

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-04, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> 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?

[James]

Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo <at> 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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Hazen Valliant-Saunders]

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 <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo <at> 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

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[James]

Hazen Valliant-Saunders <hazenvs <at> 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?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-04, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo <at> 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.com            RECOVERY!!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:07 AM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo <at> 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 oooooooooooold. I'm a happy Gentoo user
for many years. :)

Paul

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Mie, 4 de Febrero de 2009, 7:17, Grant Edwards escribió:
> On 2009-02-04, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Grant Edwards <grante <at> 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] Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Mar, 3 de Febrero de 2009, 23:39, Grant Edwards escribió:
> 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?

There are parrots in all the social groups. That doesn't mean
that there aren't skilled users that see the real benefit. The
difference is that skilled users (or simply those that use the
system for real advantages and not due to some parrot axiom
like this one) don't go echoing how normal they are all around.

The result is that you only hear parrots, but that doesn't mean
they are the whole nor even the majority of a given community.

> AFAICT, the "performance" benefit due to compiler optimization
> is practically nil in real-world usage.
>
> In my experience the huge benefit of source-based distros such
> as Gentoo is elimination of the library dependency-hell that mires other
> binary-based distros.

Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with you here. USE flags they are.
And I love this part of Gentoo.

> The second benefit is that with Gentoo, upgrading a system
> actually works over the long-run.  With RedHat/Mandrake, things would
> gradually deteriorate to the point where the system was unmaintainable,
> but attempting to upgrade between major releases was always futile.  I've
> had Gentoo machines that have been upgraded for 4-5 years without any
> significant problems (failed hard-drives don't count).

Those who reinstall do it for various reasons. Some are legit (ie.
migration from x86 to amd64), some are just hobbyist stuff (most
of the times). And some people reinstall because they do all kind
of colorful things that break the system to an unusable state.
Gentoo is easy to break if you don't read the manuals and are
unable to put a minimal degree of common sense behind your actions.

That's the dark side of the force. However, I love it.

> The third main benefit I've seen is that there are vastly more
> packages available for Gentoo.  Putting together and maintaining an ebuild
> appears to take a lot less work than putting together and maintaining a
> binary RPM package.

Ditto. And upgrading is usually as easy as to use cp to created
a new version.

A big big advantage is that besides the huge number of packages
that we have, we also have dozens of overlays. Some of which are for
very specific tasks, and some of them are really bug.

Performance is just as good as with any other distro, as long as
both are configured in the same -read sane- way. No distro can make
your pc 200% faster, only a new $$mobo-cpu-ram$$ combo can do that.

-- 
Jesús Guerrero

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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 ;)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: 'optimized for your system' -- huh?

[Jesús Guerrero]

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] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[pk]

Grant Edwards wrote:
<snip>
> Are the real benefits of Gentoo too hard to explain to the
> unwashed masses, so instead they're told the fairy tale about
> imporoved performance?

Hi Grant,

Well, the main thing for me using Gentoo is control - control of what is
installed on my machines...

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Steven Lembark]

> Where did that bit of apocrypha come from, and why is it
> parroted by so many people?

<snip>

Depending on what you do with the system it still can
be quite true. For example, there is a known bug in
the RH distro of Perl that leaves it running 10x slower
than a locally compiled version. There are also quite
a few packages that still come compiled with '-g', or
depend on 15 shared object lib's that you don't use
but now cannot turn off.

If you are trying to squeeze performance out of a box
then any kind of cruft will slow you down.

You can also look at library-dependency hell as a form
of performance hit: if you spend X hours trying to work
around the library glitches it's that much dead time
on the box you aren't using.


-- 
Steven Lembark                                            85-09 90th St.
Workhorse Computing                                 Woodhaven, NY, 11421
lembark@wrkhors.com                                      +1 888 359 3508

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Stroller]

On 3 Feb 2009, at 22:39, 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?

Back in Ye Olde Days, Gentoo was as cool & popular as Ubuntu is now.  
This is before Ubuntu existed, but when the perception of Debian as  
"boring" (because package versions in stable were so old) was already  
fairly established.

If I look at, say, Slashdot now, I see articles like "Setting Up  
Ubuntu On a PS3 For Emulation", "Jumping To Ubuntu At Work For Non- 
Linux Geeks" and "The Secret Lives of Ubuntu Users" but back before  
2004.0, when the Gentoo installer disks and profiles were called 1.2 &  
1.4, all the generic "using Linux" stories which happened to mention a  
distro by name, mentioned Gentoo. Honestly, Gentoo was in the news  
_all the time_ - that's how I learned about it when I was looking for  
a new distro (when Mandrake went bust for the second or third time).

The most popular distro will naturally have the largest number of over- 
enthusiastic recent Linux converts, and also the largest number of  
idiots. Also your mom. :P

So as you now regularly see blog posts or forum comments or social  
news stories about how "I love Ubuntu because I did this with it" or  
"Ubuntu's loads better than Windows because" - posts which completely  
ignore that the same thing could done just the same with ANY Linux  
distro - we used to see those comments made about Gentoo.

Just as now (a minority of) people will make idiotic claims about  
Ubuntu, back in the day the most common over-enthusiastic claim about  
Gentoo was "it's so |33t - it makes your whole computer faster". A  
couple of posts in this thread have given genuine anecdotes which  
support this, but when the claimant was blatantly an idiot (which  
inevitably was sometimes the case) then one can see how the claim  
might not seem credible to an outside & independent observer.

This is the background which the funroll-loops website satirised -  
"optimised executables" sounds just like it came from that site, and  
EXACTLY the sort of phrase that would've been used by a Gentoo fanboy  
at the time. "Performance" was another favourite word, always used  
blindly or with claims that the GUI felt snappier on Gentoo, rather  
than any actual benchmarks. I'm sure there was at least one amateur  
performance benchmarking article that came out at that time - showing  
Gentoo to be the fastest, of course - and which was immediately  
discredited because the competing distros used safer, more  
conservative defaults (for filesystem settings or something).

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.

Stroller.

[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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?

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> 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