3 ms·

Every time I read comments about Gentoo it's either about systems unexpectedly getting broken after an update, which supposedly requires considerable amount of

by justaj 6y ago

Every time I read comments about Gentoo it's either about systems unexpectedly getting broken after an update, which supposedly requires considerable amount of effort to fix, or I read about how extremely stable Gentoo systems are and require almost no maintenance. It seems like there's some dissonance here and I'm not sure where this comes from.

bananaface 6y ago
I think 90% of the difference is explained by package load. The more moving parts, the less stable the machine. If you run 10 packages from stable repos, Gentoo will be stable. If you run 900 packages from wherever they were available (more realistic IMO) then it's much more likely to break.
pizza234 6y ago
> It seems like there's some dissonance here and I'm not sure where this comes from. It's because of ego at play. Users of such operating systems (which are essentially sysadmins), and, more in general, a certain type of tinkerers (for example: experimental/edge technologies), don't see their tools as a mean, but as an end. This is totally fine of course (it's an interest like any other), but it has some perverse side-effects, in particular, there are a couple of phenomenons. 1. "IT TOTALLY WORKS". Making such systems work is complex, so there's often pride in showing off the success (exacerbated by the communities, who laud such accomplishments). It doesn't matter if such success is solid, or it's held on with duct tape (like it often is), because what matters is that it works, or, more specifically, it worked at least once on one system (:rolling_eyes:). Additionally, the moral burden of breakages moves to the user. If something in Ubuntu breaks, it's Canonical's fault. If something in Gentoo break, it's the user's fault. And it's not fun for users to openly admit that they caused a breakage. 2. "IT REQUIRES NO MAINTENANCE!". Routine operations get so embedded in the workflow of such systems, that users forget that they actually do them. Pride also takes part. So... "the system doesn't require ANY maintenance", because update burdens (eg. conflict solving) are, hmmm, "not maintenance", because they're... forgotten (:rolling_eyes: again). I've been in a few such communities, and I left, or, to be more specific, and found long-lasting solution and stuck with them, rather than chasing the latest and greatest for the sake of it. I used to get _really_ annoyed when something that was supposed to "totally work" was either just a bunch of commands run by somebody who clearly didn't know what they were doing, or was hiding other things that correspondingly would not work.
hiena03 6y ago
I was a Gentoo user about 5 years ago. With Gentoo you can have both, if you only use stable packages you shouldn't broke your system. But if you are using bleeding edge packages thinks can break.
- accelbred 6y ago
  Current Gentoo user. I find the opposite. Using unstable, things just work. Sometimes package updates fail to compile but your system is still fine, and the package will get fixed eventually. Never had an update break my system on unstable. Stable often had issues, which I presume is due to devs mostly working on unstable.

by justaj 6y ago

bananaface 6y ago

I think 90% of the difference is explained by package load. The more moving parts, the less stable the machine. If you run 10 packages from stable repos, Gentoo will be stable. If you run 900 packages from wherever they were available (more realistic IMO) then it's much more likely to break.

pizza234 6y ago

> It seems like there's some dissonance here and I'm not sure where this comes from. It's because of ego at play. Users of such operating systems (which are essentially sysadmins), and, more in general, a certain type of tinkerers (for example: experimental/edge technologies), don't see their tools as a mean, but as an end. This is totally fine of course (it's an interest like any other), but it has some perverse side-effects, in particular, there are a couple of phenomenons. 1. "IT TOTALLY WORKS". Making such systems work is complex, so there's often pride in showing off the success (exacerbated by the communities, who laud such accomplishments). It doesn't matter if such success is solid, or it's held on with duct tape (like it often is), because what matters is that it works, or, more specifically, it worked at least once on one system (:rolling_eyes:). Additionally, the moral burden of breakages moves to the user. If something in Ubuntu breaks, it's Canonical's fault. If something in Gentoo break, it's the user's fault. And it's not fun for users to openly admit that they caused a breakage. 2. "IT REQUIRES NO MAINTENANCE!". Routine operations get so embedded in the workflow of such systems, that users forget that they actually do them. Pride also takes part. So... "the system doesn't require ANY maintenance", because update burdens (eg. conflict solving) are, hmmm, "not maintenance", because they're... forgotten (:rolling_eyes: again). I've been in a few such communities, and I left, or, to be more specific, and found long-lasting solution and stuck with them, rather than chasing the latest and greatest for the sake of it. I used to get _really_ annoyed when something that was supposed to "totally work" was either just a bunch of commands run by somebody who clearly didn't know what they were doing, or was hiding other things that correspondingly would not work.

hiena03 6y ago

I was a Gentoo user about 5 years ago. With Gentoo you can have both, if you only use stable packages you shouldn't broke your system. But if you are using bleeding edge packages thinks can break.

accelbred 6y ago
Current Gentoo user. I find the opposite. Using unstable, things just work. Sometimes package updates fail to compile but your system is still fine, and the package will get fixed eventually. Never had an update break my system on unstable. Stable often had issues, which I presume is due to devs mostly working on unstable.