As the one who started this thread, it probably makes sense for me to comment on this a bit, because I agree. Gentoo is a distribution that has a utopian (IMHO) mixture of flexibility and compatibility. It is designed to accommodate such a wide variety of applications, that mailing lists like this one are necessary for certain niches. I would choose Gentoo for a server OS because it is so deeply compatible with hardware, and because of the package management system. Many on this thread have complained about Portage in a server environment, but the default installation only requires the initial emerge --sync- there's no emerge system or emerge world that is mandated or automated. Packages can be masked or blocked at the package level, or the machine level, and it is relatively easy to set up a local rsync mirror to update emerge, which can then be a point of control for all servers on the network, if they are properly configured. I started this thread, not because Gentoo is not ready for the server room, but because I need to learn more before I set it up for server applications. I have experimented with Redhat, CentOS, FC, Arch, DSL, Mandrake/Mandriva, Debian, FreeBSD, and some other distros, but Gentoo has always been the best when applied to my methods and standards. That's why I ask such questions- I need to identify my weak areas to leverage Gentoo's strong ones.
Dan Computer Systems Manager -----Original Message----- From: Robert Bridge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:34 AM To: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] Server Packages for Gentoo On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:55:21 +0100 "Kerin Millar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, this post turned out to be a lot longer than I had anticipated. > But I've seen so many comments that allude to Gentoo somehow being > unfit for purpose because it doesn't freeze off a so-called "stable" > tree so many times that, frankly, I get fed up with it and figured > that something had to be said. Gentoo, whilst certainly having its > fair share of foibles, doesn't get enough credit for the things that > it does well and the things that it does right. If one doesn't like > the way that Gentoo does things then there are surely other distros > out there that will meet one's expectations, such as they are. Right, imagine a live server getting hit by the expat problem, or a major gcc/glibc change? They hurt, they seriously hurt. That's what the "static package" people are referring to. A server that can be set up, and once running should need minimal updating, for security reasons. You can't do that safely in Gentoo. Some people are happy with regularly changing packages, restarting services every month because a new version of the server is in tree, dealing with the breakage induced by things like python upgrades, bash upgrades, portage upgrades, gcc upgrades, ... But for a 24/7 uptime on a high load server, most people consider those to be unacceptable. Now Gentoo can be got to not do those, but as anyone will tell you, updating a Gentoo box after a year is painful, and when you have to update to cover a critical security hole? Now try updating a Debian box after a year? Don't mistake one awkward piece of software which is not supported in the other distros for the general properties of those distros. Gentoo is good for tweaking, it's good for doing "Your own thing", that does not make it automagically better than Debian or RHEL, or SLES in the high-stability stakes. And, sorry to say this, one nice anecdote doesn't either. YMMV Rob.
