I switched from Gentoo (4 years user) to Arch (now 4 years) and although the "close to the internals" philosophy are similar, which may make the two distros loo

I switched from Gentoo (4 years user) to Arch (now 4 years) and although the "close to the internals" philosophy are similar, which may make the two distros look the similar, the two are not comparable. Gentoo compiles from scratch by default, and is a real time sink in terms of maintainance. Gentoo is much more complex, I mean that for you as sysadmin of your own computer, the number of "free variables" to tune in gentoo is much greater than in Arch. Often, you end up over-optimizing your Gentoo box. In the end, more packages end up not working or not able to accept some input or plug-ins because of some compilation detail, for instance in my experience. However, Gentoo is closer to LFS. I learnt the details of manual configuration and compilation of the linux kernel thanks to Gentoo. I learnt initrc, set up the logging system I wanted, etc... What I learnt using Gentoo lets me sail through Arch administration with zero hassle. After fixing my Gentoo box numerous times, I understand the compromise that is made in Arch between power, simplicity of administration and time consumed doing real work. Arch maintains a "pro" feeling, does not try to hide the internals, while keeping a minimal number of "free variables" for you to tweak. Does that make Arch primitive? Maybe, and in that case, I like primitiveness inmy distros.