7 ms·

Disclaimer: I am a die-hard Gentoo fan. The appeal of Gentoo is not compiling everything from source, it's having the freedom to install anything you want on n

Disclaimer: I am a die-hard Gentoo fan. The appeal of Gentoo is not compiling everything from source, it's having the freedom to install anything you want on nearly any hardware all with stellar documentation and minimal roadblocks. Want to run Enlightenment with OpenRC and NetworkManager on a laptop from 2008? Install Gentoo! Want ZFS as root on a smart refrigerator? Install Gentoo! Want a vanilla Gnome + SystemD install on a brand new laptop? Install Gentoo! The decision to ship binary packages only gives users *more* choices while other distributions have been actively removing one's freedom to choose. Debian, the so-called "universal operating system" just dropped 32-bit x86 support. You can install an alternative init system on Debian if you'd like, but it's a bit of a PITA. Meanwhile Gentoo allows you to pick between 17+ different stage 3 tarballs and 35 eselect profiles. Personally, I enjoy compiling everything from source and the flexibility that comes with it. On modern hardware it's painless. If you disagree, great! Go install a shiny new binary. The selling point of Gentoo has never been portage. It's always been the flexibility and the community.

gtirloni 3y ago
I feel like the Gentoo userbase has been stolen in part by Arch these days.
- phamilton 3y ago
  It never recovered from the loss of gentoo-wiki
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  I used to use Gentoo 20+ years ago; installing it was eye-opening. It helped me enormously to understand how Linux works. I then moved to debian/ubuntu and recently switched my main server to Arch. And you are right - I got back this feeling of having all my 10 fingers in the system and living on the bleeding edge. Now: this was probably not the brightest choice, as this server rund my docker containers and basically nothing more so it should have been Debian(a fire-and-forget OS)
  - moepstar 3y ago
    > I used to use Gentoo 20+ years ago; installing it was eye-opening. It helped me enormously to understand how Linux works. Same! Starting with a Stage 1 install was what got me (with some guidance of a friend and the perfect Gentoo Wiki) into Linux circa 2004 (IIRC). Now, some 20 years later, i much prefer to have not to deal with something as... dare i say.. fragile... anymore. Yes, much of the breakage i dealt with was probably self-inflicted but always a good learning experience - but most of the time not at the most convenient time :(
    - voidfunc 3y ago
      The Gentoo to Arch pipeline is pretty real. I did Stage 1's as well around the same time but eventually got tired of doing that every so often or fighting Portage and switched to Arch. Then I got tired of dealing with Arch... and ended up on Fedora. I always liked Gentoo and Arch, but I don't have the energy to put up maintaining them anymore.
      - oniony 3y ago
        Arch is literally the easiest thing to maintain. I've been running it for over fifteen years, update maybe once a year at most and 99% of the time it's a case of running pacdiff and updating a handful of config files.
        nixgeek 3y ago
        In 1998, Debian was a great option for SPARC and Alpha, and that’s really where I cut my teeth with Linux. Around 2004, I was building Gentoo up from stage1 just like many other commenters. For 2024 and personal stuff I’m back on Debian and it’s safe enough I pull security updates daily - entirely automated and no review on my part. It essentially never causes a problem. Updating once a year sounds terrifying to me given the rate of vulnerability discoveries of late. As ever your mileage may vary and your systems aren’t my systems, but Debian truly is a wonderful OSS project and as of August 2023 it celebrated its 30th anniversary! Gentoo going binary feels weird :) I’ve still got a soft spot for Gentoo and what it enabled me to do 15 years ago when I had more time for personal hacks.
- connorgutman 3y ago
  Definitely a lot of crossover. However, there are several things that make Arch unusable for me. The #1 thing is that Arch only officially supports AMD64. Additionally, while I find Arch’s documentation better than most, it’s hard to understate how amazing the Gentoo wiki is. Lastly, I prefer portage overlays (like Guru) over the AUR. Bigger !== better. Again, the beauty of Linux is choice. Nothing but love for my Arch neighbors!
- saghm 3y ago
  The one place Arch still is fairly opinionated compared to Gentoo is being all-in on systemd. That's not to say you _can't_ remove/replace it, and obviously there are Arch-like distros that give other options, but my sense is that GP's comment about Gentoo's draw being completely agnostic to whatever configuration you want makes Arch having even a single strong opinion feel pretty different to users who care about that. I think you're probably right that most people probably don't need that, but then again, even as an Arch user, I think most people probably don't really need the amount of customization that Arch lets you have; I just happen to like it.
  - paldepind2 3y ago
    I wouldn't say systemd is the "one place" where Arch has an opinion. Quite the opposite, Arch is just as opinionated as the average distro. On Void Linux you can choose between musl and glibc, on Arch you're forced to use glibc. On Gentoo you can choose your init system, on Arch you're forced to use systems. On Debian you can have `/bin/sh` be any POSIX shell, on Arch you're forced to have it be Bash. On nixOS you can choose between rolling and normal release, on Arch there's only a rolling release. I can't really think of anything you can customize on Arch that you can't configure on most distros, but perhaps I'm missing something.
    - starttoaster 3y ago
      My experience using Arch has very much been "it's just like all the other distros, except now you have at least 4 package managers to go through if you want to install any particular thing and you will almost certainly need to install utilities that convert packages from other package managers over to PKGBUILD." Other than that, it's felt very similar to just using something like Debian. Which is fine, and Debian is fine, but the praise other people give it as "the modder's distro," or something like it, seems a little over zealous.
      - gryn 3y ago
        Your experience sounds weird. Reading it remind me of people who come from programming paradigm X try paradigm Y and only use methods from X only to conclude that Y sucks. Why would you use 4 package managers to do 1 thing ? Most people who use arch use 1 and it does the job. All of them are built around pacman + smth for AUR packages. Personally I use pacui. Why would you convert package from other distro, if another distro has it then it most certainly exists in the AUR, never once had to touch another distro's packaging. I don't know about the "the modder's distro" part but I personally had much less headaches with it than I had with Ubuntu,fedora,debian, and CentOS. The only thing that sucks for me (regardless of distro) is Nvidia updates.
- colordrops 3y ago
  And NixOS. The fact that Nix has had a binary cache was one of the reasons I chose it over Gentoo.
- sramsay 3y ago
  Also a die-hard Gentoo fan (daily driver for 20+ years). I tried Arch and what astounded me the most is that the docs didn't seem as good as Gentoo's. That surprised me because I end up looking at Arch's docs all the time and it's all of a very high quality. But the Gentoo Handbook is really a masterpiece. I've never read a clearer explanation of how to go from unformatted disks to a working system.
- ok123456 3y ago
  I use arch btw
- Tommstein 3y ago
  Exactly my case. Used to use Gentoo, got tired of every other update breaking the system, was told on IRC that if I didn't like "free" updates (because apparently my time and serenity have no value) perpetually breaking the system I could go use something else, and that's exactly what I did. Arch is solid.
  - globular-toast 3y ago
    I've broken Arch before but I've never broken Gentoo. Probably because I broke Arch first and learnt from it. You broke Gentoo first.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  Yes, but it's a shame. Especially now Gentoo has these binary packages there's really no reason to choose arch. Arch is like "choose any system you want, as long as it's x86-64, systemd etc"
Barrin92 3y ago
>while other distributions have been actively removing one's freedom to choose I think that's a bit unfair. Everyone wants to support everything, but at the end of the day if you want to guarantee security and maintenance and do the job of a distribution you have limited resources on what you can look after. Something always has to give. On any Linux distribution anyone can install what they want, but what you can genuinely claim to support is always limited by the amount of maintainers you have.
- connorgutman 3y ago
  Perhaps I was being overly harsh. That being said, there is a certain philosophy of non-intervention which gives Gentoo a sense of freedom that other distributions lack. It’s not only about diverse support, it’s about allowing the user to choose upfront. Arch does this as well (mostly). It’s easy to choose your own bootloader, WM/DE, audio server, and etc. I just think that Gentoo takes this philosophy one step further. If you want to install an alternative init system on most distributions you can… but you have to uninstall SystemD and all its weeds first. Gentoo’s solution is simple. Give the user a choice on EVERYTHING upfront.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > there is a certain philosophy of non-intervention which gives Gentoo a sense of freedom that other distributions lack. While I was untangling update dependencies one day I had it uninstall libc. There was a big warning advising me not to do that, but it was allowed. Everything broke immediately, of course, but I recovered the system and the dependency problem really had been fixed, too! This gave me a permanent positive impression of Gentoo. It's better to be allowed to do things than not.
    - connorgutman 3y ago
      Love this example! In general the way Gentoo handles masked packages also highlights this point. The system will kindly warn you if something is wrong, but it will never stop you from doing what you want. --autounmask also makes it dead simple.
pantantrant 3y ago
I can't install Gentoo, specifically, the part where I have to install a BIOS or UEFI grub2 bootloader. No I did not use a musl and / or clang profile. With this being my first impression, unless Gentoo or a downstream fork comes with a installer, I won't consider it. I'm going to install Solus OS / Solus Linux soon, had a good first impression with it's package manager, which claims to be reproducible but not like nix or guix are.
- cogman10 3y ago
  What part is failing? Do you see the grub bootloader or is it failing before that? If you do systemd (which is what I'm using), then you might look at systemd.boot for UEFI. That's currently what I'm using. I ask, because one issue I ran into was messing up the kernel config. Pulling the livecd config in and using that as the base config worked for me.
  - vitarnixofntrnt 3y ago
    [dead]
- MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
  I have a work laptop that's pretty cursed when it comes to booting anything that isn't Windows or Fedora. I only recently got Arch to boot, and then only by using UKI and skipping the bootloader by directly registering it in UEFI. Maybe Gentoo has instructions for doing the same thing? I think it's actually simpler this way, it's just far less obvious and very new.
  - pantantrant 3y ago
    Gentoo did have a GUI installer in the past, what year was it?
    - MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
      I only ever recall Sabayon Linux having a graphical installer and being Gentoo under the hood. Was there an installer for vanilla Gentoo?
Sesse__ 3y ago
> Debian, the so-called "universal operating system" just dropped 32-bit x86 support. This is imprecise at best. There was a meeting where the release team concluded that most likely, there will be no _installer_ and _kernel_ support for 32-bit x86 at some unspecified point in the future. (At the current point in time, both are still delivered and fully supported.) In particular, you can still run multi-arch 32-bit/64-bit, allowing you to run 32-bit x86 software.
- gary_0 3y ago
  Does Intel or anyone still sell 32-bit x86 chips for non-embedded use? A quick Google was inconclusive, although it seems that while Intel sells low-power x86 chips under the "Pentium Silver" brand, they all seem to be 64-bit now. So eventually more and more old x86 boxes will be decommissioned, and 32-bit x86 will be dead as a desktop platform, no? Which might mean people who want to run old proprietary 32-bit games/software are going to be annoyed, but that's not necessarily the distro/OS's problem; it could be argued that the user should install a 32-bit translation/emulation layer to run that stuff, ala DOSBox.
  - Sesse__ 3y ago
    I believe the last x86-compatible chips without 64-bit support were launched around 2006 or so (Intel Core; Core 2 had 64-bit support), a couple of years after Opteron initially came out. It's not really clear how long the Linux kernel itself will continue supporting such CPUs. The architecture certainly isn't something anyone really cares about (e.g. Meltdown wasn't patched for several months after it went public and 64-bit x86 got fixed).
    - tedunangst 3y ago
      There were Atom CPUs that weren't supposed to be 64-bit for a while after that.
      - pzmarzly 3y ago
        Yup, I bought a brand new 32-bit Intel Atom tablet from Toshiba in 2014, gave it away but the person I gave it to is still using it. It has 32-bit UEFI, which is also loads of fun. I once installed Debian on it, but I couldn't get touchscreen to work, so went back to Windows 8.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"Personally, I enjoy compiling everything from source and the flexibility that comes with it." Is this referring only to ports (Portage) or does this mean enjoy compiling kernel and userland.
- connorgutman 3y ago
  Depends upon the device. I typically opt for compiling the Linux kernel myself but certain devices (like my Lenovo x60s) would absolutely melt if I compiled it from scratch. Thankfully, Gentoo offers gentoo-kernel-bin. Meanwhile my brand new GPD Win 4 Pro has a stupid nvme that requires 6.6.5+ to boot making compiling the only option (until a couple weeks ago at least).
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
    Compiling a Linux kernel is too much for an x60. Certainly would not be the case with compiling a NetBSD kernel. Is this even after disabling drivers and other code that is not needed for the x60.
cbmuser 3y ago
> Debian, the so-called "universal operating system" just dropped 32-bit x86 support. I would argue that Debian has support for at least as many architectures as Gentoo: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=base-files&suite=sid https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=base-files&su... I know that because I am maintaining most of the obscure architectures in Debian with regular installation snapshots: > https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/snapshots/ https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/snapshots/ Debian even has a Hurd port for both i386 and amd64.

gtirloni 3y ago

I feel like the Gentoo userbase has been stolen in part by Arch these days.

phamilton 3y ago
It never recovered from the loss of gentoo-wiki
BrandoElFollito 3y ago
I used to use Gentoo 20+ years ago; installing it was eye-opening. It helped me enormously to understand how Linux works. I then moved to debian/ubuntu and recently switched my main server to Arch. And you are right - I got back this feeling of having all my 10 fingers in the system and living on the bleeding edge. Now: this was probably not the brightest choice, as this server rund my docker containers and basically nothing more so it should have been Debian(a fire-and-forget OS)
- moepstar 3y ago
  > I used to use Gentoo 20+ years ago; installing it was eye-opening. It helped me enormously to understand how Linux works. Same! Starting with a Stage 1 install was what got me (with some guidance of a friend and the perfect Gentoo Wiki) into Linux circa 2004 (IIRC). Now, some 20 years later, i much prefer to have not to deal with something as... dare i say.. fragile... anymore. Yes, much of the breakage i dealt with was probably self-inflicted but always a good learning experience - but most of the time not at the most convenient time :(
  - voidfunc 3y ago
    The Gentoo to Arch pipeline is pretty real. I did Stage 1's as well around the same time but eventually got tired of doing that every so often or fighting Portage and switched to Arch. Then I got tired of dealing with Arch... and ended up on Fedora. I always liked Gentoo and Arch, but I don't have the energy to put up maintaining them anymore.
    - oniony 3y ago
      Arch is literally the easiest thing to maintain. I've been running it for over fifteen years, update maybe once a year at most and 99% of the time it's a case of running pacdiff and updating a handful of config files.
      - nixgeek 3y ago
        In 1998, Debian was a great option for SPARC and Alpha, and that’s really where I cut my teeth with Linux. Around 2004, I was building Gentoo up from stage1 just like many other commenters. For 2024 and personal stuff I’m back on Debian and it’s safe enough I pull security updates daily - entirely automated and no review on my part. It essentially never causes a problem. Updating once a year sounds terrifying to me given the rate of vulnerability discoveries of late. As ever your mileage may vary and your systems aren’t my systems, but Debian truly is a wonderful OSS project and as of August 2023 it celebrated its 30th anniversary! Gentoo going binary feels weird :) I’ve still got a soft spot for Gentoo and what it enabled me to do 15 years ago when I had more time for personal hacks.
connorgutman 3y ago
Definitely a lot of crossover. However, there are several things that make Arch unusable for me. The #1 thing is that Arch only officially supports AMD64. Additionally, while I find Arch’s documentation better than most, it’s hard to understate how amazing the Gentoo wiki is. Lastly, I prefer portage overlays (like Guru) over the AUR. Bigger !== better. Again, the beauty of Linux is choice. Nothing but love for my Arch neighbors!
saghm 3y ago
The one place Arch still is fairly opinionated compared to Gentoo is being all-in on systemd. That's not to say you _can't_ remove/replace it, and obviously there are Arch-like distros that give other options, but my sense is that GP's comment about Gentoo's draw being completely agnostic to whatever configuration you want makes Arch having even a single strong opinion feel pretty different to users who care about that. I think you're probably right that most people probably don't need that, but then again, even as an Arch user, I think most people probably don't really need the amount of customization that Arch lets you have; I just happen to like it.
- paldepind2 3y ago
  I wouldn't say systemd is the "one place" where Arch has an opinion. Quite the opposite, Arch is just as opinionated as the average distro. On Void Linux you can choose between musl and glibc, on Arch you're forced to use glibc. On Gentoo you can choose your init system, on Arch you're forced to use systems. On Debian you can have `/bin/sh` be any POSIX shell, on Arch you're forced to have it be Bash. On nixOS you can choose between rolling and normal release, on Arch there's only a rolling release. I can't really think of anything you can customize on Arch that you can't configure on most distros, but perhaps I'm missing something.
  - starttoaster 3y ago
    My experience using Arch has very much been "it's just like all the other distros, except now you have at least 4 package managers to go through if you want to install any particular thing and you will almost certainly need to install utilities that convert packages from other package managers over to PKGBUILD." Other than that, it's felt very similar to just using something like Debian. Which is fine, and Debian is fine, but the praise other people give it as "the modder's distro," or something like it, seems a little over zealous.
    - gryn 3y ago
      Your experience sounds weird. Reading it remind me of people who come from programming paradigm X try paradigm Y and only use methods from X only to conclude that Y sucks. Why would you use 4 package managers to do 1 thing ? Most people who use arch use 1 and it does the job. All of them are built around pacman + smth for AUR packages. Personally I use pacui. Why would you convert package from other distro, if another distro has it then it most certainly exists in the AUR, never once had to touch another distro's packaging. I don't know about the "the modder's distro" part but I personally had much less headaches with it than I had with Ubuntu,fedora,debian, and CentOS. The only thing that sucks for me (regardless of distro) is Nvidia updates.
colordrops 3y ago
And NixOS. The fact that Nix has had a binary cache was one of the reasons I chose it over Gentoo.
sramsay 3y ago
Also a die-hard Gentoo fan (daily driver for 20+ years). I tried Arch and what astounded me the most is that the docs didn't seem as good as Gentoo's. That surprised me because I end up looking at Arch's docs all the time and it's all of a very high quality. But the Gentoo Handbook is really a masterpiece. I've never read a clearer explanation of how to go from unformatted disks to a working system.
ok123456 3y ago
I use arch btw
Tommstein 3y ago
Exactly my case. Used to use Gentoo, got tired of every other update breaking the system, was told on IRC that if I didn't like "free" updates (because apparently my time and serenity have no value) perpetually breaking the system I could go use something else, and that's exactly what I did. Arch is solid.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  I've broken Arch before but I've never broken Gentoo. Probably because I broke Arch first and learnt from it. You broke Gentoo first.
globular-toast 3y ago
Yes, but it's a shame. Especially now Gentoo has these binary packages there's really no reason to choose arch. Arch is like "choose any system you want, as long as it's x86-64, systemd etc"

Barrin92 3y ago

>while other distributions have been actively removing one's freedom to choose I think that's a bit unfair. Everyone wants to support everything, but at the end of the day if you want to guarantee security and maintenance and do the job of a distribution you have limited resources on what you can look after. Something always has to give. On any Linux distribution anyone can install what they want, but what you can genuinely claim to support is always limited by the amount of maintainers you have.

connorgutman 3y ago
Perhaps I was being overly harsh. That being said, there is a certain philosophy of non-intervention which gives Gentoo a sense of freedom that other distributions lack. It’s not only about diverse support, it’s about allowing the user to choose upfront. Arch does this as well (mostly). It’s easy to choose your own bootloader, WM/DE, audio server, and etc. I just think that Gentoo takes this philosophy one step further. If you want to install an alternative init system on most distributions you can… but you have to uninstall SystemD and all its weeds first. Gentoo’s solution is simple. Give the user a choice on EVERYTHING upfront.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > there is a certain philosophy of non-intervention which gives Gentoo a sense of freedom that other distributions lack. While I was untangling update dependencies one day I had it uninstall libc. There was a big warning advising me not to do that, but it was allowed. Everything broke immediately, of course, but I recovered the system and the dependency problem really had been fixed, too! This gave me a permanent positive impression of Gentoo. It's better to be allowed to do things than not.
  - connorgutman 3y ago
    Love this example! In general the way Gentoo handles masked packages also highlights this point. The system will kindly warn you if something is wrong, but it will never stop you from doing what you want. --autounmask also makes it dead simple.

pantantrant 3y ago

I can't install Gentoo, specifically, the part where I have to install a BIOS or UEFI grub2 bootloader. No I did not use a musl and / or clang profile. With this being my first impression, unless Gentoo or a downstream fork comes with a installer, I won't consider it. I'm going to install Solus OS / Solus Linux soon, had a good first impression with it's package manager, which claims to be reproducible but not like nix or guix are.

cogman10 3y ago
What part is failing? Do you see the grub bootloader or is it failing before that? If you do systemd (which is what I'm using), then you might look at systemd.boot for UEFI. That's currently what I'm using. I ask, because one issue I ran into was messing up the kernel config. Pulling the livecd config in and using that as the base config worked for me.
- vitarnixofntrnt 3y ago
  [dead]
MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
I have a work laptop that's pretty cursed when it comes to booting anything that isn't Windows or Fedora. I only recently got Arch to boot, and then only by using UKI and skipping the bootloader by directly registering it in UEFI. Maybe Gentoo has instructions for doing the same thing? I think it's actually simpler this way, it's just far less obvious and very new.
- pantantrant 3y ago
  Gentoo did have a GUI installer in the past, what year was it?
  - MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
    I only ever recall Sabayon Linux having a graphical installer and being Gentoo under the hood. Was there an installer for vanilla Gentoo?

Sesse__ 3y ago

> Debian, the so-called "universal operating system" just dropped 32-bit x86 support. This is imprecise at best. There was a meeting where the release team concluded that most likely, there will be no _installer_ and _kernel_ support for 32-bit x86 at some unspecified point in the future. (At the current point in time, both are still delivered and fully supported.) In particular, you can still run multi-arch 32-bit/64-bit, allowing you to run 32-bit x86 software.

gary_0 3y ago
Does Intel or anyone still sell 32-bit x86 chips for non-embedded use? A quick Google was inconclusive, although it seems that while Intel sells low-power x86 chips under the "Pentium Silver" brand, they all seem to be 64-bit now. So eventually more and more old x86 boxes will be decommissioned, and 32-bit x86 will be dead as a desktop platform, no? Which might mean people who want to run old proprietary 32-bit games/software are going to be annoyed, but that's not necessarily the distro/OS's problem; it could be argued that the user should install a 32-bit translation/emulation layer to run that stuff, ala DOSBox.
- Sesse__ 3y ago
  I believe the last x86-compatible chips without 64-bit support were launched around 2006 or so (Intel Core; Core 2 had 64-bit support), a couple of years after Opteron initially came out. It's not really clear how long the Linux kernel itself will continue supporting such CPUs. The architecture certainly isn't something anyone really cares about (e.g. Meltdown wasn't patched for several months after it went public and 64-bit x86 got fixed).
  - tedunangst 3y ago
    There were Atom CPUs that weren't supposed to be 64-bit for a while after that.
    - pzmarzly 3y ago
      Yup, I bought a brand new 32-bit Intel Atom tablet from Toshiba in 2014, gave it away but the person I gave it to is still using it. It has 32-bit UEFI, which is also loads of fun. I once installed Debian on it, but I couldn't get touchscreen to work, so went back to Windows 8.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"Personally, I enjoy compiling everything from source and the flexibility that comes with it." Is this referring only to ports (Portage) or does this mean enjoy compiling kernel and userland.

connorgutman 3y ago
Depends upon the device. I typically opt for compiling the Linux kernel myself but certain devices (like my Lenovo x60s) would absolutely melt if I compiled it from scratch. Thankfully, Gentoo offers gentoo-kernel-bin. Meanwhile my brand new GPD Win 4 Pro has a stupid nvme that requires 6.6.5+ to boot making compiling the only option (until a couple weeks ago at least).
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Compiling a Linux kernel is too much for an x60. Certainly would not be the case with compiling a NetBSD kernel. Is this even after disabling drivers and other code that is not needed for the x60.

cbmuser 3y ago

> Debian, the so-called "universal operating system" just dropped 32-bit x86 support. I would argue that Debian has support for at least as many architectures as Gentoo: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=base-files&suite=sid https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=base-files&su... I know that because I am maintaining most of the obscure architectures in Debian with regular installation snapshots: > https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/snapshots/ https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/snapshots/ Debian even has a Hurd port for both i386 and amd64.