Re: [dev] which minimal os

From: Kurt H Maier <>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:28:15 -0500

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Antoni Grzymala <> wrote:
> Gentoo has a good balance in not being overengineered like Debian
> (dpkg-reconfigure and all that hell)

bullshit, just look at emerge

look at it

> and having a decent quality
> package tree (unlike arch).

what package tree? where do I download binary gentoo packages? oh,
that's right, I can't, because it's yet another thing the gentoo kids
couldn't figure out, despite decades of examples.

> It's also easy to compile software
> out-of-the-tree, as there are header files for everything in the
> system.

that's not a benefit of gentoo, it's something that should be
standard. also, it's not a conscious design decision. it's an effect
of the braindead software distribution mechanism.

> It's okay. Not great, neither a disaster (unless you trust the
> lack of argumentation of main Gentoo haters here).

no, it is in fact a retarded disaster. source-only software
distribution is completely stupid and wrong. the stupid package .tbz2
crap gentoo does have is too fragile and worthless to be even worth
mentioning. if you want to see how this can be done correctly, look
at freebsd or openbsd, where software can be built -or- installed from

> And yeah, daemons are *not* started automatically after package
> installation.

holy crap this totally changed my mind hold on while I recompile my
entire everything so I can get this killer feature
Received on Thu Feb 17 2011 - 01:28:15 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Feb 17 2011 - 01:36:02 CET