Talk:Gentoo Linux
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gentoo Linux article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Linux B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Computing A‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item. |
|
Pro / Con section
This is amateurish. It's unsourced, and it's presented in a very defensive tit-for-tat manner. Chris Cunningham 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I consider myself, however, unable to rewrite this in a satisfactory manner. --oKtosiTe talk 08:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Security Vulnerabilities?
What's the point of this section? I'm going to move it into external links. Kelvie 11:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"forked" versions of gcc?
"Daniel Robbins and the other contributors experimented with "forked" versions of gcc, finding a version that gave a 10% to 200% speed increase over the "official" gcc" <- I have been unable to verify this anywhere. I found some mention of a third-party (non-gcc based) compiler that was used until it was merged with gcc 2.95, which provided a "10% real-world performance increase", but no mention of any super-fast forks. I believe this can be removed, and as others have said, this article is seriously in need of cleanup. -amp_man 26 June 2007
- The source for these statements is http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/making-the-distro-p2.xml , which is sourced from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-dist2.html . These two sentences are a summary of that article, and don't go into the whole history of the "forked" gcc project, known as [:EGCS:], or Cygnus, etc. The article supports an upper limit of 90% increases for some packages, so the 200% seems unsourced. JohnWhitlock (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
less secure & less stable than other linux versions?
"A disadvantage to this is that system administrators are forced to keep their system up-to-date to keep their system secure, which makes Gentoo less stable or less secure in comparison with most other Linux distributions."
sorry, but this statement is simply not true - the other distros also needs to be updated to be update-to-date & secure
even when using unstable (~x86, ~amd64) it is pretty stable (which of course depends on the knowledge of the user: e.g. which packages would rather be omitted / masked) . why should it be less secure ? -> take gentoo hardened (switch to hardened profile / use hardened tarball), in my opinion it is one of the most secure and stable systems available :) (pretty subjective - I know ;) ) Medwikier (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Reference to sparc port.
Hi,
I'm under the impression from the Gentoo community that the distro only officially supports sparc64, now. Using the word sparc in the article suggests that it is also maintained for 32 bit sparc. I think this should be checked and possibly altered.
Many thanks,
Chris.
Chris debian 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
it is no longer officially supported for 32 bit sparc. it can still be installed on 32bit sparc however (both architectures are roled into one release...) although i have no idea if any updates are being made to the 32bit part of it anymore.
Gaurdro 04:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
History deletion
Was there a reason the part in the history section detailing the recent join/leave of drobbins, and the subsequent part about him still being the legal president of the foundation was removed? The person who removed it only has that single edit to their IP, and though i could see how the second section might need some fixing up to make it less biased, the first part about the CoC wasn't biased in any way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gentoo_Linux&diff=150326571&oldid=149587219 is the edit in question.
58.28.136.130 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
References about Daniels employers are not relevant to the Gentoo project or foundation. Once he left, he has left, period. Who he went to work for is not part of Gentoo's history.
The CoC was not enacted as a result of a single developer joining or leaving the project. It was a result of unruly behavior on a list that was hindering productivity. The problem existed before a certain person came and left. That it was enacted some time after was just a result. Note that there are no references to any Gentoo council meetings or summaries on the subject.
There was no controversy last year when the community found out about the foundational status not being updated with the State of New Mexico. If there was, there is no reference of the thread or threads. GWN news item regarding controversy or any facts to support the statement. The trustees did set in motion to correct that and did discuss plans to transfer things to the SFC. Unfortunately that process stalled and the goal was not accomplished. Speculative comments about user support again with no references.
Daniel Robbins always owned the trademark and copyrights of the foundation. Since he was never financially reimbursed for them. Nor has he been whiling to hand them over to the foundation for nothing more than his costs or for free/donation.
Links to blogs are not official Gentoo history. They are the point of view of an individual outside the Gentoo community. At best a Gentoo user, but not an active contributor, developer, or project member.
Criticism Part
Errors
The criticism part isn't correct as you can easily check if anything depends on the package you are about to remove with the equery tool. It might be possible that this has been something someone was criticizing but then they were not knowledgeable in what they were criticizing. I think this whole article really is in the need of a serious clean up. The less secure part as someone mentions is also rubbish. By default Gentoo will run no services or daemons meaning the administrator will have better control about what excatly the computer is running. And keeping it updated, well, it's just like keeping other distros updated. I don't know where the person who wrote this had this idea from. Not true anyway. Gentoo hardened project actually gives you the possibility to make some of the tightest secured Linux servers you can have today. Selinux, pax, PIE/SSP, grsecurity, RSBAC and so on. All the tools are there. You here have the possibility with ease to make something secure out of this world. The only thing as good is OpenBSD. I don't have any problems with critics, but it is a good thing to stick to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.71.213 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Advantages?
In addition to the "Drawbacks" section, which is very important in the case of a distro such as Gentoo and Slackware, I think that an "Advantages" section may be in order. Dotancohen (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Name: Criticism vs. Drawbacks
Is there any justification for calling this section "criticism" vs. "drawbacks"? I believe "drawbacks" is more accurate: "criticism" suggests that the use of gentoo is more a matter of personal taste, or that one could argue that gentoo is universally "good" or "bad". I think "drawbacks" is more accurate--that gentoo is appropriate in some situations and for some users, but not for others. I'm going to change it back; please discuss here if you want to change it back. Cazort (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)