Talk:Gentoo Linux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pro / Con section[edit]

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)[reply]

Agreed. I consider myself, however, unable to rewrite this in a satisfactory manner. --oKtosiTe talk 08:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Security Vulnerabilities?[edit]

What's the point of this section? I'm going to move it into external links. Kelvie 11:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"forked" versions of gcc?[edit]

"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)[reply]

less secure & less stable than other linux versions?[edit]

"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)[reply]

Reference to sparc port.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

History deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

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 of problems over all. Not because of a single person. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.248.121 (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Part[edit]

Errors[edit]

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)[reply]

Advantages?[edit]

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)[reply]


I feel that one of the advantages of Gentoo build system is the shared library version problem. With binary distributions, if you install an application which has been built against library y but you have version x installed, you not only need to install the application, but the library as well, regardless of whether the existing library would have worked (eg. only a bugfix release).

When building in Gentoo, this is mitigated, to some extent, as the applications are built against the versions of libraries you already have installed and you only need to install new versions if there has been an API change and the application ebuild indicates that the newer api is required. Lyallp (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name: Criticism vs. Drawbacks[edit]

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)[reply]

Versionless documentation[edit]

Compared to "versioned" linux distributions, Gentoo has a disadvantage: documentation is harder to maintain because the system evolves continuously (and so the documentation should). With "versioned" disto (such as Ubuntu or Fedora) it's easy to write procedures as far as softwares are "froze" and packaged into a version clearly identifiable. The procedure with stay valid for the distro versions it has been tested on, which is not the case for Gentoo. I think this should be added on the "Drawbacks/Disavantages" because gentoo documentation can quickly become depreciated.-- Nicolas.cuissard (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally incorrect. The "versioned" documentation you refer to covers things like installing. Gentoo certainly has versioned install documentation that is maintained forever. SpanKY (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Connection[edit]

Shouldn't this be edited a bit. Some packages, The kernel, and GlibC and such are big but alot of packages seem to be alot smaller download as source rather than binary distributions. The initial install would take a long time on a dialup connection being you would have to build packages that would normaly come with a precompiled system.

When you install it in a desktop PC you need to download, the kernel, glibc, KDE or Gnome or the Desktop enviroment of your choice, xorg, etc, in that machine and the connection it has. With a binary distribution the difference is that you can download the OS, with the packages precompiled, somewhere else, not taking into account the OS, you just need a CDRW or maybe a USB drive, with gentoo, since it installs diferent packages with different patches, you need to use portage to download them the way portage is gonna use them to patch the sources and install them. --QuicksilverPhoenix (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, gentoo installers are on the order of less then 32mbs Binary installers that include all of these "packages" are on the order of 720mbs Most distros can be crammed on a single disk, but I have yet to see a binary linux distro that is not at least 7 cds for the full binary tree. The compress text will generally be smaller then the binary. If in 2009 we have to talk about 56k connections I would bet that a modern system downloading source over 56k would install faster then a debian system. both assuming minimal net based installers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.38.88 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Dependencies triggerd by Use-flags[edit]

Portage ist unable to solve circular dependencies triggered by use-flags I think this is a major Drawback! Example:

gamin and glib and the fam Useflag:

You have to build glib without fam. Then build gamin. Then rebuild glib with the fam flag. It's very annoying that portage is unable to do this itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.161.229.45 (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not think of that many build systems that can resolve circular deps since its a circular dep. But with the exception of blocked packages in many years of using Gentoo I rarely run in to portage hangups like I do on all these redhat systems I have to maintain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.38.88 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Version history[edit]

Can we compile the version/release history into a similar table?

the table is listed under the releases section at Ubuntu Altonbr (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ~~ Gaurdro (talk)[reply]

Well, I think the Gentoo releases system is different from Ubuntu's one, so the table has to be adapted... But why not. I suggest you make a draft in a [[User:Altonbr/subpage]] and give its link in here, so we can have a better opinion of it. btw, maybe you should not copy/paste the above table but rather give a link to it, it blows this Talk: page :p -- skiidoo (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is that? Gentoo has no true "Release Cycle" like that. Things update as needed. There are no "Default Packages" such as COmpiz Fusion. How dose this even apply to this page? The closest you can get. Date 2006.0 released. Date 2006.1 Released. Date 2007.0 Released. This doesn't accomplish anything with how Gentoo is built and updated. All it determines is how many packages you have to emerge once up. Nice only because the pre-builts such as GCC are up to date. A convenience so you don't have to update 113 packages immediately.
They're releases are similar in 2 per year (typically) but it would be fairly difficult to create a similar table to the one for Ubuntu. The updates are only to the stage tarbells and livecd, the packages are continuously updated to the current version instead of being held back with a more traditional release cycle.Gaurdro (talk)

--84.56.220.172 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is an example in this section:
For example, if a system was installed from a 2005.0 CD, then when version 2005.1 is released an emerge update of the system
effectively upgrades the installed Gentoo system to what would result from a fresh installation based on version 2005.1.

Why does this section mention such old versions like 2005.0? This is no good advertisement for gentoo, i think.

Default User Interface[edit]

Nor Console or Framebuffer are types of User Interfaces, they are Command Line Interfaces, besides I dont see a point in having it because every linux distribution has CLI and GUI. --QuicksilverPhoenix (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong a Command line interface is User interface (it allows the user to interact/control, it interfaces), it's just not a Graphical User interface. But I think you meant "Console or Framebuffer Are nor GRAPHICAL user interfaces" right?. But mandrake Linux before 10.0 or so was CLI only .. i think. Oxinabox (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant that Framebuffer and Console are not CLI, CLI can have Framebuffer and It is a console(Console is just a physical way of controling a computer, wich means I can have only buttons that do a specific task and it is still a computer console, or you can connect it to a mainframe or a server computer and use the console to have a user interface). Any modern linux distribution or UNIX based OS, like FreeBSD and MacOSX, even Windows, has a CLI. I dont know about Mandrake, I've never used it before, but that you have a CLI and a compiler, means you can install Xorg, or Xfree86, wich in the end means you get a GUI. Gentoo offers two ways to install, which is a LiveCD with minimum packages to install any linux distro, not just Gentoo, you can even BSD, and a LiveCD with a GUI interface, with an installer, that is still not very functional IMO, Gentoo doesnt have a default user interface since you can even use a LiveCD that is not the gentoo's one, for example... Ubuntu's LiveCD can be used to make a fresh gentoo system. And by the way, when I readed the first post I made... It is full of contradictions and I apologize for that. --QuicksilverPhoenix (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The promise of optimization[edit]

Optimization doesnt mean speed. Just means a cleaner, and stable system in your way. I dont see anywhere in gentoo.org that they promise you more speed. --QuicksilverPhoenix (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optimization means the binary it produces uses all the features available on the system, so it produces more efficient code, which does run faster. To a user, the speedup is normally not noticeable. Gaurdro (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging some sections[edit]

I'd like to move the information under the two sections in "Drawbacks" in "Installation". My reason for wanting to do this is that they are both quite closely related to installation.

Also, I think the information contained in that section can be condensed and updated. For example, there are no longer binary packages of KDE available (at least from official sources), and the time required to compile most packages has been reduced considerably with faster computers (basically most machines less than 2 years old).

Basically, if no one objects, I'll make the changes in the coming days. Baeksu (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The drawbacks are there even after the installation, when you need to update, for example openoffice, if you use the source package, you need to recompile it all over again, same goes for new versions of Gnome, and new versions KDE (that now compiles really fast for KDE4). I agree that they are really close, but when you have a working installation I think it still has those drawbacks if you want to keep Gentoo up to date. --QuicksilverPhoenix (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portability, the first to support PowerPC 970 (G5)?[edit]

While trying to clear up citation needed concerning the PowerPC 970 under Gentoo_Linux#Portability Portability, I didn't find a conclusive answer as to whether or not Gentoo was the first. Believe me, I'd be the first to leave it there if there was sufficient documentation to back the claim up, but I find it inconclusive. I found the following:

  • On Slashdot and Gentoo.org, a working LiveCD was announced on November 11, 2003.
  • The claim that Gentoo was running on PowerPC 970 came a couple of months earlier on forums.gentoo.org.
  • Yet, further down the aforementioned thread, devs are doubting whether the claims are legit.
  • In the end, the thread turns into more of a distro war and no claims have been backed up.
  • Based on claims that it was just a rumor/hoax on the net and in the aforementioned thread, I'm inclined to believe that Gentoo was not really the first.
  • Also, several reviews of the PowerPC 970 architecture mention Gentoo, but do not at all mention it being first. Just one of the first.

Would it be wise to remove the line from the Portability section until anyone can back the claim up with conclusive evidence? Feel free to investigate further based on my findings. Ewald (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove it for now, if someone comes up with some evidence please put it back in. Gaurdro (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future and Long term goals[edit]

Anything about this side? Sdudah (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for logo and mascots?[edit]

QuicksilverPhoenix added tags for Larry the Cow and Knurt. I don't know if these are strictly necessary tags, as:

  • Knurt the flying saucer is used as part of the sidebar graphics throughout the www.gentoo.org site.

I don't know how to add those as citations, and anyway, I believe the tags are unnecessary. Baeksu (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I added the tags because, I don't see why they are unofficial mascots, not if they are mascots or not. QuicksilverPhoenix (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to MacPorts[edit]

"There is also a "Gentoo for Mac OS X" project which allows Mac OS X users to use Gentoo's Portage to install packages, similar to the way provided by Fink. Although still a work in progress, this project can coexist with Fink because it uses the same environment as Mac OS X instead of creating a new one."

Is this referring to MacPorts? Should it? Tmcw (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

S/390 support[edit]

I am asking for a reference about Gentoo Linux supporting S/390. I added a request in May and someone added a weak reference. In December, I asked for a convincing reference. User:Reisio removed the previous reference and my request, then added another weak reference. This must have been in good faith, but since the reference was weak, I re-added my request for a convincing reference. Then, Reisio removed both the reference he added and my citation request, pointing to a Gentoo Linux S/390 bug reports list in its edit summary. This is not appropriate. I am asking for a reference in the article, not in the history comments. Requests for references should not be removed unless there is a convincing reference, and a reference should not be removed unless it is broken, does not support at all what it is supposed to source, or rendered useless by a better reference.

So, I reverted this change twice, and since this is necessary, I am doing it a third time. The edit summary of Reisio's reversion on 2008-01-05 is wrong. http://reisio.com/chealer/ (a list of S/390 bug reports) is not a proof that Gentoo Linux supports S/390. I did not ignore this link, it is just not an appropriate reference. I am not asking to be "pleased", I am simply asking that the article supports its claims. Do not remove the current reference and the request for a convincing one unless a more convincing reference is added in the article. --Chealer (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the only one who thinks there needs to be a ref for s390 (none of the other archs have refs), yet three different refs in, you are still unsatisfied. Since you're the only one who wants a ref, and no ref is good enough for you, I didn't see the point in having any at all.
In short, s390 has all the same representation any other arch has for Gentoo.
If you want to add in any or all of these links as a reference, be my guest, but any other course of action by you regarding this issue I will almost certainly revert until the end of time. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting the reference, but I am readding my request for a real reference. I don't see why you state that I seem to be the only one who thinks there need to be a ref for S/390. Do you have any more backing for that than I have for stating that you seem to be the only one who thinks there doesn't need to be a reference for S/390? The fact that none of the other arches have a reference is unfortunate, but not a reason to spare S/390. I am not the only one who wants a reference. I do not see why you state that no reference is good enough for me. So far, only indirect and primary or otherwise unreliable sources have been presented. Show me a reference from a reliable source which directly states that Gentoo supports S/390 and doesn't rely on your opinion of what is "active" and "recent", rather than showing that Gentoo for S/390 is under development, and I'll be happy. --Chealer (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how you've made sense once in the entire history of this situation; perhaps if you found some neutral party that thinks you make sense… they'd most likely have to make a new argument to have a chance of changing my mind, but you could try it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't answer my questions, I won't bother to change your mind. Feel free to ask for a third opinion; I'll consider the result if you get one. Meanwhile, I am not willing to put much more effort in this war and am simply removing the material lacking a valid reference. Anyone considering to re-add S/390 should provide a reference which complies with WP:V. --Chealer (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the ones mentioned by Reisio, there's the Catalyst project page (Gentoo's tool to build release media) which clearly states that s390 is supported. You can also see s390's profiles CVS history which are the main files needed to run Gentoo on any platform, the last change to that was two weeks ago so it's current. There's also Gentoo press releases that states "New experimental stages have been released for both S/390 (32-bit) and S/390x (64-bit)." Pick the reference you want. --ColdWind (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And s390 stages (release media) on any official Gentoo mirror. --ColdWind (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Catalyst project page clearly states that S/390 is supported...by Catalyst. The claim that Gentoo Linux supports S/390 needs a reference stating that... Gentoo Linux (as a whole) supports S/390. As for the experimental stuff, it does seem to me like Gentoo is trying to support S/390, but I'm asking for a source that it really supports S/390. --Chealer (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording so it's clear what architectures are supported as stable, and what are as in development. I haven't found a concise and non too technical reference yet, but for the record, it can be checked in profiles.desc. Any arch present in that file with a leading 'stable' word is officially supported as stable in Gentoo. The ones with a leading 'dev' (and without any entry with a leading 'stable') are considered in development. --ColdWind (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I verified the officially supported platforms list against your reference and couldn't find a line showing ppc64 as stable. Are you sure it is? For now, I assumed you are right and copied the current supported platforms list to the Infobox. --Chealer (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few, just search for the string "ppc64 default/linux/powerpc/ppc64/2008.0/64bit-userland stable". That means (aproximately) that ppc64 is supported for the 2008.0 release. --81.202.35.113 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Thank you again ColdWind for your reference. The supported platforms list looks good now. --Chealer (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fedora's a hat, Arch is a geometric shape, Gentoo's an operating system?[edit]

When I type in 'Gentoo', I should get the penguin.67.49.103.120 (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - It looks like atm "Gentoo" doesn't even take you to a disambiguation but to a search which then goes to a disambiguation. Since everything on the disambiguation page that refers to "gentoo" is named after the penguin, one would think it would be the default article associated with the keyword. I'm not sure how to adjust default keyword -> article mappings though. Ormaaj (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to do that... will take care of it. Yworo (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, looking at the history, it appears that in the past it was decided that there is no primary meaning, because the "Gentoo Penguin" is not known only as "Gentoo" but as "Gentoo Penguin". So the way it is working is correct. Yworo (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

According to the Gentoo FAQ it is pronounced with a soft "g". See the Gentoo FAQ.--Bob5972 (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, soft 'g' before 'e' is standard English phonology. Now, if it were hard, that would be unusual. Yworo (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sources for compilation issues[edit]

it is my intermediate opinion that a distro is just a bunch of packages, therefor, compiling should take the same time on an ubuntu machine as on a gentoo machine, give or take a minute. Ms.henrick (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Jim no.6 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the criticism is that compiling from source itself is very time consuming process. Other distributions ship binary, i.e. compiled packages, installation of which takes seconds, not tens of minutes or hours as in Gentoo. 1exec1 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4chan culture?[edit]

4chan's technology board, /g/, are big fans of Gentoo and I'd wager that a lot of Gentoo's popularity is due to their usual response of "Install Gentoo" when asked tech related questions, and just overall praise and popularity of Gentoo Linux. Would it be appropriate to create a part of the article that briefly goes into /g/ and its relationship with Gentoo?

No RocketLauncher2 (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the Cause of the Loss of Popularity[edit]

It should probably be cited, one of the main reasons for the apparent loss of popularity is likely explicitly due to Ubuntu and it's many custom spin-off distributions within the past few years. Just looking at the distribution names and guessing, I see at least five Ubuntu spin-off distros above Gentoo and wouldn't be surprised to see at least ten Ubuntu spin-offs in between Gentoo and the top distribution. Red Hat split into CentOS and Fedora. Mandriva into OpenMandriva and Magie. A few Arch spin-offs are also seen. WOW some guess work of mine! I counted 17 Debian/Ubuntu spin-off distros residing between the top Distro and Gentoo! With Arch and Gentoo the top runners for the top source based distribution. I guess when something is failing, splitting sure paid-off here. There were some earlier Developer relations issues early on during the rise of Gentoo, but I don't think it's worth mentioning as those issues seem to have been resolved with the formation of the Public Relations committee. ---roger (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified August 2015[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gentoo Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It works. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree feature[edit]

Explaining Why We Don't Endorse Other Systems

External links modified January 2017[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gentoo Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Gentoo Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, we're using DistroWatch as a source for popularity?[edit]

I must admit I'm confused as to why we have a popularity section. It'd be interesting if we had decent sources but DistroWatch is hardly a reliable source. They only measure how often people visit the site, they don't measure who uses which distribution. Essentially what they measure is more people's curiosity more than usage. Many Linux users don't even view DistroWatch, after all there's millions of desktop Linux users worldwide, and the site only receives a total of maybe 20,000 views per day. I realize there's not many, if not any, better sources for this information but I don't see how a section based entirely on DistroWatch is worthwhile in this article. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 20:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make this exact point -- what an absurd concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.96.223 (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018 Gentoo GitHub hack[edit]

If anyone wishes to suggest sourced alternative wording I'm very happy to participate in a discussion or mediation to reach consensus. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern with the current wording is that it implies that the Gentoo codebase was somehow compromised by the incident. GitHub only hosts a mirror of the codebase, provided for convenience purposes. The section should be updated to reflect this information. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 01:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed, it is not for *convinience*, it is for pull request rebasing via GitHub. It is not being used as a source mirror by users, tabloids were wrong. Morover they lied. The malicious actions that had been taken by the "hackers" were silly. Because external commands they added would not work in anyway due to global scope invocation. Please see Gentoo's ebuild.sh for details about how it works. Also do not blindly trust the newsfeeds that point the loud entitlement, make sure you understand the matter before you referenced it somehow. Morover the accident does not bring any useful wiki references, will just go down in history with time. - Buz567 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buz567 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Techcrunch article would seem to be a good place to consider rewording from but I'm open to suggestions. [1] is another option. Ideally I'd like one good reference that ideally could be archived in wayback plus plus one to the primary incident report. Happy to change the section header also, but not happy to remove from article and would likely seek dispute resolution process if necessary. If media have provably lied they should be contacted for retraction. I may suggest alternate wording in a few days if noone else does. thankyou,Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Another ref[2], possibly useful ad could be referenced to say developers(mostly?) affected.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've had an attempt at a re-word that may address some concerns, but it likely could do with some refinement, the wording is still really a little awkward. I changed the header to 'Incidents' which perhaps is less sensationalist. Comments welcome.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.computerworld.com.au/article/643160/gentoo-warning-after-github-hack/
  2. ^ https://www.networkworld.com/article/3287973/linux/the-aftermath-of-the-gentoo-github-hack.html

Relevance of the Magatama Resemblance[edit]

Is there an official source for the Magatama resemblance? Was the Magatama supposed to be an inspiration for the logo design?

Discussion re OS family[edit]

A discussion related to this article is in progress at Template talk:infobox OS#OS family. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genkernel[edit]

Should the genkernel section be removed or kept, since an IP just wants it gone. The section needs more citations, yes, but removing it because it "has no historical value" is incorrect. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 19:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Please remove the jokes section[edit]

Wikipedia is not a joke book and it should not be misused to spread April 1st jokes which had just very few readers. Please undo the revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gentoo_Linux&oldid=prev&diff=1021293730 Jstein (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the edit summary? CanadianOtaku Talk Page 21:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a personal jokes collection. It is an encyclopedia. It is not notable knowledge for the world, if someone makes an April joke. It may be different, if google does and 10^8 people read it and know this. --Jstein (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But these jokes are not personal. They are a part of Gentoo's culture, minor or not. Also, it is unlikely that a Wikipedia article will receive one-hundred-million pageviews in X amount of time. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 20:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gentoo Wiki data loss?[edit]

The Gentoo wiki (or a widely used unofficial Gentoo wiki) suffered a catastrophic data loss in 2008. As the wiki seemed to have had a large influence as a wiki and as a failure-of-backups incident/lore, perhaps it could be documented here? Unfortunately I don't know more about it, and have been unable to find other sources (though I am sure they exist) other than the following Reddit thread:

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4ys03i/why_did_gentoo_peak_in_popularity_in_2005_then/ 206.12.166.40 (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gentoo_Linux&oldid=1207384204"