Arch or Gentoo?

Arch or Gentoo?
>inb4 Gentoo compile times.
I'm installing on an SSD with 16GB of RAM and an eight-core 4.0 GHz

Other urls found in this thread:

voidlinux.eu/news/2017/12/ponysay.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

If you know how to maintain a gentoo system, it's the most comfy shit every. Having your os tailored to your hardware and personal wishes is an amazing experience

The simplest difference between gentoo and binary distros is NOT that you compile your own. That is just a side effect. What is far more important is that you have the CODE, or rather more importantly, the HEADERS! If you EVER tried to compile a package yourselve on a binary distro you will have found that you first have to download a ton of headers, wich are often out of date, or you are using some weird binary. Simply put, if I want to compile a package on gentoo on my own I can do so by JUST compiling the package, I do not first have to download the package with the linux headers for my kernel, because the headers, and everything is already there.

Are there specific things I should know about maintenance apart from conventional wisdom?

Check out what USE flags you want. Check how to automatically delete application sources once you built them. Also look up how to keep your kernel configuration and delete the old kernels automatically (eclean or something). It's been some time since I used gentoo and I really messed it up, don't do the same mistakes I did.

Void

what is the point of using this shit then

How big is the difference between using genkernel and custom kernel in term of performance?

You get a system that's exactly tailored to your needs and likings

Not much. It's useful for when you're creating an Internet of shit device where you have very little space or just to satisfy your autism.

my need is for the system to work because I have more important things to do than maintaining some neckbeards code

It makes sense on esoteric architectures. Like, for example, when IBM's Power9 finally drops, you're gonna want to install Gentoo on it because Ubuntu likely won't be supporting it.

So is there any performance gain at all?

gentoo is comfy af if you run the stable branch, you have higher chances to run into compilation issues if you run unstable (~amd64). Arch is great to be up and running in no time and everything is baby tier easy, also googling "arch + problem" usually always comes up with a quick fix. if you want the true linux from source experience install LFS with a package manager

Well, then gentoo is not the right system for you. Or maybe it is, since you don't need to maintain anybody's code

then get neither, get ubuntu or debian if u wanna be lazy

In my experience not. I really liked stripping it down to only function on my laptop and only my laptop though. If that's not you thing, you're fine with genkernel

No, I mean using gentoo over arch in general. Is there any performance gain?

if you are refering to gaiming perfomance then no, it's nearly the same
I haven't done any benchmark any later, but I don't see any "upgrade"

The point is, as others had said, is having the headers and customize all. USE flags are the best.
If you feel courious, install it, read documentation and use it for at least 1 week. It's the best

I can't really answer that. I guess if you do really resource-intemsive computing, you'd see an effect. If used it for normal desktop computing and it's been the same as any other distro performance-wisd

void [2]

I haven't tried Gentoo, but I've been running Arch happily for a couple of years. It's fucking amazing, so much better than shit like Ubuntu or Fedora. I honestly don't know how anyone can prefer distros like that.

I am interested in Gentoo and NixOS though.

Why void?
How often does your install break? Is it as often as the memes would suggest?

>we’ll make a rolling release distribution, but with binary packages
>”ABI incompatibilities? What are those?”

Gentoo will be significantly more stable, at the cost of being slightly more tedious to set up. Compile times suck sometimes, but usually I just do heavy updates like WebKit overnight or when I’m away.

What specs are you running on? Is there a significant hardware component that reduces compile times?

this

I tried using void for a few months. I liked everything about it except for the fact that there are barely any packages for it. The forums are okay but I mostly relied on the arch wiki to use this distro. The void wiki barely has any content on it but the forum is very helpful for troubleshooting. I switched back to Arch, but I can definitely see myself using this distro in a couple years when it gets enough packages.

i'm interested in what packages you found lacking in their repository?

Never. It's rock solid stable.

CPU is obviously the most important component with regard to build times, but with 16GB RAM, you can build on a ramdisk, which will help most package build times and reduce wear on your SSD.

I just built a Ryzen desktop with an 1800x, and the difference the added four cores make is definitely noticeable. WebKit took like 30 minutes instead of the usual hour and a half on my old computer.

I have eight cores as well. Running an FX-8350 with 16GB RAM and an SSD.

Maybe I'll give Gentoo shot. I've never compiled it on a new system before - just old laptops with HDDs.

>void
voidlinux.eu/news/2017/12/ponysay.html

>HDDs
With enough RAM and the right filesystem/build options things won't even have to hit the disk.

If yuo choose gentoo you need 2 hours everytime you update a package

underrated post

Well, I'll put it to you this way; after the 5 hour installation, pretty much all the gains you could get from "customizing" your kernel, have flown out the window.

Not him, but I've been using Antergos for a couple months and the only time it has broken is because of me being a retard, though because of the memes I'm always cautious when updating things the X, linux, systemd, etc.
Captcha:
calle calle