On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 13:54, Chad Perrin wrote:
> . . . I just install a minimal system using Debian and manage the
> packages I want with apt. I certainly don't use GNOME (or KDE). I
> don't know how RPM-based distros fare in regards to automatic dependency
> handling, but I've never really had a problem with Debian in that regard.
Debian is the most mature implementation of a "packages" distro by its
first use of a well designed, distributed front-end in APT to its DPKG
system, a _solid_ set of guidelines (especially on the dependency of
install-time scripts), as well as the sheer size of its community
repository.
All RPM distros over the last few years have adopted their own
distributed front-ends. YUM was introduced by Yellow Dog Linux (hence
the name -- Yellow-dog Updater, Modified), Red Hat has its UP2DATE and
related tools for Red Hat Network, etc... And many independent
repositories were built by enthusiasts of various distros -- some around
the vendor tool, many around APT and, increasingly, YUM.
APT and YUM can leverage the same repository tree, and have only their
own index files that differ. Red Hat added APT and YUM support to
UP2DATE in 2003 (even in its RHEL product), and added a separate YUM
binary. UP2DATE is deprecated in favor of YUM for Fedora, and I'm sure
UP2DATE will basically become a YUM binary with authentication into the
RHN. The official Fedora Extras repository provides APT as an
alternative. The APT-RPM implementation provided seemingly has no
difficulty keeping up with YUM changes either.
BTW, any number of "front-ends" can actually be used, because it's the
back-end (DPKG, RPM, etc...) that they ultimately refer to for installed
packages, etc... E.g., I could update one time with YUM, APT the next,
etc...
> From what I know of Gentoo, its strength seems to be in building a
> gaming machine.
Sigh, here we go again (i.e., please hear me out ;-).
That is an assumed strength of Gentoo. In actuality, the
"optimizations" argument I see from the "Gentoo punks" (i.e., _not_ all,
if not many, Gentoo users) is really one with_out_ any depth. I would
_love_ to debate someone on "ports" v. "packages" distros. Ultimately,
the "optimization" question comes down to the individual software _and_
the Makefile.
E.g., in a "ports" distro, the Makefile must accommodate optimization,
and that's the duty of the maintainer. In a "packages" distro, it's the
_same_ deal, the maintainer of the source package. I can through a
"--target=athlon" and rebuild a source package if I wish. I _still_
rely on the person who built the Makefile, and regardless of "ports" or
"packages," many distros don't modify it much.
Furthermore, the "extensions" is more of a question of the software.
Extensions aren't something you just "throw a switch on" and get --
although something like newer "gcc -O3 -march=p4" _attempts_ to do that
-- _quite__detrimental_ effects! I could talk about it deeper, but it
has to do with the fact that Intel hasn't designed a new 32-bit core in
12-years and is compensating with SIMD pipes that lack both the
precision and accuracy of a traditional ALU or FPU.
Which brings me to my final point, _never_ build all your packages with
"-O3" -- you're asking for trouble. Not even on Athlon, because it is
not always "safe" with its out-of-order/register-renaming features.
Starting with Red Hat Linux 9 (possibly 8?), Red Hat started building
for i486 ISA, i686 optimized. Starting with Fedora Core 3, Red Hat
still built for i486 ISA, but it is now P4 optimized. There are some
i686 ISA compatibility requirements due to NPTL usage by select apps
(e.g., Sleepycat DB 4 -- of which, the next rev of RPM _might_ adopt).
> I'm not a (computer) gamer. I'm sure Gentoo is great
> for other uses as well, but Debian suits my uses and my needs admirably,
> and I'm definitely one of those who doesn't like having extra crap
> installed that isn't necessary.
I don't think anyone does. But that's not really a "ports" v.
"packages" issue, or even a "distro" issue these days. It's more of a
question of what someone can do with their distro, and how much effort
does it take.
<broken record=on><_not_ directed towards Chad=on>
And any opinions should be left to those who have used a _recent_
release of the distro in question.
</off>
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that while Gentoo might be good for a
> command line junkie who hates GNOME, I certainly don't think it's the
> only distribution that has that characteristic.
Gentoo is _great_ for building about 98% of embedded systems where LFS
would have been used prior. This _does_ include when GUIs are needed.
In fact, it's _very_ideal_ for it! E.g., Kiosks.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ Beware of advocates who justify their preference not in terms of what they like about their "choice," but what they did not like about another option. Such advocacy is more hurtful than helpful.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:41:34 EDT