| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Sorry, but that's never a good reason for using Gentoo. If a binary |
| 5 |
> distro compiles every option under the sun then the software will still |
| 6 |
> work, but the binaries might be a bit big. Compiling on your machine |
| 7 |
> gives no discernable performance benefit for the average user. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Gentoo's strength is in being able to enable or disable individual |
| 10 |
> features in each package. So, if you (say) can't stand Red Hat becuase |
| 11 |
> it defaults to a Gnome DE, use Gentoo by all mans. If you can't stand |
| 12 |
> Red Hat becuase you think it's slow, then you have faulty hardware and |
| 13 |
> Gentoo is going to perform about the same... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I have to disagree with this. I used to use Mandrake and Gentoo is a |
| 18 |
*LOT* faster than Mandrake. I turned off a lot of unused services and |
| 19 |
Mandrake was still pretty slow. This is especially true if you |
| 20 |
customize all the flags you can. I suspect he will see a speed |
| 21 |
difference. Plus he will know what is being installed and why. Gentoo |
| 22 |
IMHO beats Mandrake and others by a long shot. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>> What would be the 'best' medium for me, minimal or live CD? I have a |
| 25 |
>> high speed connection. |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Doesn't matter, it comes out to the same anyway. The minimal CD has only |
| 29 |
> the absolute minimum sources on it, so you have to download the rest. |
| 30 |
> The LiveCD gets you up and running in an hour or two, but the packages |
| 31 |
> on it are bound to have updates (because OSS projects release early and |
| 32 |
> often), so with your first world update you will download new versions. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Use the Live CD if you want to get a working machine quickly. If |
| 35 |
> watching gcc output scroll off the screen turns you on (it does for |
| 36 |
> most of us around here....) then use the minimal by all means. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
This is true. Gentoo updates pretty fast. A lot quicker than most. |
| 40 |
That can be good but it can be bad too. Just try to sync up as soon as |
| 41 |
you can. No need installing something just to update it again in a |
| 42 |
little bit. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
>> Two avoid a typical dual boot install. I would like gentoo to boot |
| 45 |
>> from my second hard drive. During boot up, I can now select which HD |
| 46 |
>> I want to boot from. Will the install process let me assign a boot |
| 47 |
>> disk? |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> It's been a while since I did a virgin install, so things might have |
| 51 |
> changed recently. Back when I did my last install, the process was |
| 52 |
> completely different to a binary distro, and one of the steps was to |
| 53 |
> partition the disk manually, install grub and edit grub.conf exactly |
| 54 |
> the way you want it. So your answer is yes, you can assign boot disks, |
| 55 |
> but it isn't a check box you click. But, the latest installers may well |
| 56 |
> have changed the entire process |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> alan |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
If he uses the GUI thing, which has never worked for me, it is a lot |
| 63 |
different. It seems to be easier to configure, if I could just get it |
| 64 |
to finish for once. It starts, then hangs up and just sits there doing |
| 65 |
nothing. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Dale |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
:-) :-) :-) :-) |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
www.myspace.com/dalek1967 |
Archives