Alex Howells wrote:
> I wasn't attempting to state "This does not work!"; merely expressing
> that ~arch isn't really a supported platform. Dropping back to stable
> isn't really a viable route, once your system is ~arch there's quite a
> lot to go <BOOM!> if you tried to globally undo that. Wanna try it?
I've never had to, but yes, it's nearly impossible.
> At the moment Gentoo Linux has a reputation as a "ricer" distribution,
> and a large proportion of users on ~arch does nothing to solve that...
> Speaking entirely frankly I'd love to see increased adoption in
> enterprise, there's a whole lot this distribution has to offer to
> server farms, for example.
Well, there's nothing wrong with being a ricer. :) At the very least,
even if you stay with "stable", you can still compile "-O2 -march=" on
Gentoo. Most of the other distros saddle you with i386, and I have no
clue what optimization, if any, they do.
Gentoo in the enterprise? Nobody ever got fired for buying RHEL or
Novell SuSE. It's possible Ubuntu will get to that point someday, but
you aren't going to see a "pure community" distro like Gentoo, Debian,
or even Fedora any place where there's even a whiff of risk aversion.
Enterprise IT departments want to be able to call up a sales rep and
threaten to quit buying if the vendor doesn't come in and fix stuff *now*!
> Look at it this way: by running ~arch whilst *not* a Developer or
> Arch Tester you're having a very limited impact, or possibly a
> negative one. Getting onto the 'track' of contributing to the project
> through the various 'Arch Tester' teams is a great way for a "Power
> User" to help out; should you feel you're more technically inclined,
> can write a useful language or three / hack ebuilds as naturally as
> breathing, I know we need Developers! Especially in understaffed
> areas like Release Engineering. :)
Well, I put in a fair amount of free time with various open source
projects. I basically test stuff that I use, like R, Axiom, Common
Music, LyX and the Ruby language and its gems. And I'm also a student of
the innards of the Linux kernel. If I had any time left over from that
and my day job, I'd probably do something like make ebuilds for a few
packages I like that aren't in Portage, for example, the PRISM model
checker, CSound (which is a real challenge, by the way) or SMCSolver.
> I'd have liked to see two main things happen with Gentoo 2008.0:
> * Get rid of stage3 - all our install documentation works with
> just the stage3 right now, we don't "support" stage1/2
> installs yet users are /always/ asking on IRC and MLs
> for help with a stage1 install because they think it's l33t.
> Remove it from mirrors, put it in /experimental, whatever;
> we need the stage1/2 somewhere for lotsa reasons, but lets
> make it less obvious to weed out those clueless ricers.
Did you mean to say "get rid of stage3" or "get rid of stage1 and
stage2?" Is there a way to do an install without stage3?
> (the next one is more of a Portage change)
> * Have some warning banners on ~arch and a toggle option for
> make.conf to disable them. There are *far* too many people
> on IRC suggesting newbies adopt ~arch, and they do so.. :(
> They've got no clue what it means, then they bitch/whine
> when they hit ABI issues or other problems and blame Gentoo.
> Don't document the toggle option in the Install Manual ;)
Well, I'm certainly in favor of disabling it on the LiveCD/DVD
installer! While you're at it, force everyone to take i686 and -O2 along
with not getting ~arch on the installer. In other words, force them to
what they'd get if they installed networkless. Hell, you might as well
force them to take ext3 filesystems, since they're the only ones that
really work. ;)
Those few times I've installed a new box from the LiveCD/DVD, I've
always done it networkless anyhow. That way, I get the box on the air in
a short time and *then* I can indulge my inner ricer. :)
> Suggested value for disabling the big flashy warning banners :P
Yep ... fine with me.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list