To Gentoo or Ubuntu? (Laptop)

Bes · 4 May 2007 at 12:02

Being a bit fed up of Windows on my work laptop, I want to install either Gentoo or Ubuntu and dual boot with XP.

My laptop is an IBM T60 (2GHz dual Centrinos, 1 GB RAM)

I have used Ubuntu for quite a few months at home and like it quite a lot, and have heard that it is the most suitable for laptops due to its hardware compatability. I like the sound of Gentoo, as it compiles on- the- fly, making it very very fast.

Which would you go with and why?

saffyre · 4 May 2007 at 12:34

Gentoo does compile binaries for that specific system which can improve performance, not by a phenomenal ammount on modern systems tho and it takes a LONG time to compile some programs. I run gentoo my self and its a lot of effort to setup and get running. Dont forget you start with a very basic system. The reason i did it was to get a better understanding of linux and from that respect is is excellent. If i was to choose a distro now however it wouldnt be gentoo, or ubuntu for that matter. Check out distro watch for a good place to see all the different distros.

Dj_Jestar · 4 May 2007 at 13:41

Gentoo gets my vote, but it is definitely more "hardcore" than Ubuntu; but it is like riding a bike. You'll not forget once you have it sussed.

Just be aware that Gentoo is "bleeding edge"; by that it means you'll be using the latest versions of everything (a lot of the Gentoo emerge ebuilds are CVS snapshots, for example) which may sound good but also be aware this can be problematic compared to tried and tested binary based distro's. Unfound bugs, etc.

However.. I'm yet to suffer any problems with it, other than the generic x64 stuff because vendors CBA to release x64 versions. *Shakes fist at Adobe and other vendors*

growse · 4 May 2007 at 14:19

For work, I run Ubuntu and win XP inside VMware workstation.

I also run Gentoo at home, but that's on a server - I wouldn't personally put it on a desktop machine. If you want to do a software update, you can just tell it to run overnight on a server, but on a desktop, you have to sit there and it can pretty much become useless whilst it's compiling.

That said, I learned far more about Linux using Gentoo than I did on any other distro.

GarethDW · 4 May 2007 at 16:14

Gentoo and Ubuntu are kinda at extreme ends to each other... one is a hand-holding, walk-in-the-park distro, and the other one is the equivalent of Mr Bronson from Grange Hill.

Does it have to be one of these 2 - have you considered something else, that sits in-between the 2.... maybe Debian if you liked Ubuntu so much, or LFS if you like the DIY aspect of Gentoo?

saffyre · 4 May 2007 at 17:54

LFS = ./configure && make && make install x 100.

Bes · 4 May 2007 at 18:59

how about sabayon? The good bits of Gentoo without the hard-as-nails-to-do-anything element?

Or if not what would you reccommend?

Thanks

Dj_Jestar · 4 May 2007 at 20:53

growse said:
For work, I run Ubuntu and win XP inside VMware workstation.

I also run Gentoo at home, but that's on a server - I wouldn't personally put it on a desktop machine. If you want to do a software update, you can just tell it to run overnight on a server, but on a desktop, you have to sit there and it can pretty much become useless whilst it's compiling.

That said, I learned far more about Linux using Gentoo than I did on any other distro.

I run Gentoo at work, and the last time I had to sit twiddling thumbs whilst watching it compile was on my first day at work

every couple of weeks the last thing I'll do on a Friday is "emerge -uDN world" and it's all gravy.

GarethDW · 4 May 2007 at 23:48

Sabayon is quite nice, but it's relatively small-fry and it shows in the level of support... it's pretty much the main developer, lxnay. Their support forums can be very hit-and-miss. If you know what you're doing then it's fine, but I struggled quite a bit with Sabayon and some of my hardware... I liked using it but I found it too much of a struggle for everyday use.

growse · 4 May 2007 at 23:50

Dj_Jestar said:
I run Gentoo at work, and the last time I had to sit twiddling thumbs whilst watching it compile was on my first day at work

every couple of weeks the last thing I'll do on a Friday is "emerge -uDN world" and it's all gravy.

Ah yes, but the last thing I do on friday is switch my laptop off and bring it home with me. It can't really compile stuff when I'm on the train without possibly setting light to my bag :eek:

D_S_81 · 5 May 2007 at 00:02

Bes said:
Being a bit fed up of Windows on my work laptop, I want to install either Gentoo or Ubuntu and dual boot with XP.

My laptop is an IBM T60 (2GHz dual Centrinos, 1 GB RAM)

I have used Ubuntu for quite a few months at home and like it quite a lot, and have heard that it is the most suitable for laptops due to its hardware compatability. I like the sound of Gentoo, as it compiles on- the- fly, making it very very fast.

Which would you go with and why?

i wouldn't touch gentoo with a ten foot s***y stick, i bet it goes like the clappers when it's all set up and hunky dorey, but for me, it was like wiping my bum with wet and dry trying to get it to install... and the only real benefit apart from speed is the 133T factor you may be seen to have, by saying you run gentoo....

ubuntu is nice and simple...

fumbles · 5 May 2007 at 02:49

Ubuntu over Gentoo, but Arch Linux over anything else!

If you want to really know how linux works Gentoo/Arch Linux is the way to go. Ubuntu is like the MacOSX of Linux distros. Arch uses binaries like Slack, but gives you the option to do everything with source.

"emerge -uDN world"

pacman -Syu

Meanname · 5 May 2007 at 03:14

Gentoo! Only took me a few days to get used to (but I'd been using Ubuntu for a couple of weeks before that).

It's much easier to use once you get used to it. Everything's done via a few simple Portage commands. It's so simple

Una · 5 May 2007 at 04:35

Meanname said:
Gentoo! Only took me a few days to get used to (but I'd been using Ubuntu for a couple of weeks before that).

It's much easier to use once you get used to it. Everything's done via a few simple Portage commands. It's so simple

I fail to see how building from often a broken portage tree is any easier than installing pre-compiled binary packages using apt-get.

Gentoo was great when I was learning but to use day in day out the time I spent building things could have been better spent for the speed optimisation you actually get. As mentioned above gentoo is "bleeding edge" so if your not bothered about things breaking it is good.

This is what is great about Linux though, having the choice.

Bes · 5 May 2007 at 10:22

Ok so would Arch Linux be a good one to try then? It seems to be quicker than Ubuntu, relatively light, works with beryl

D), less fussy than Gentoo and all precompiled, and by all accounts is superbly stable.

fumbles · 5 May 2007 at 13:26

Bes said:
Ok so would Arch Linux be a good one to try then? It seems to be quicker than Ubuntu, relatively light, works with beryl D), less fussy than Gentoo and all precompiled, and by all accounts is superbly stable.

YES!
It is optimised for i686 unlike most distros which are i386 (IIRC)...

pacman rocks my socks, easy to use, fast etc. Most things are done via the command line.

I run it on both my computers:
AMD A'64 X2 3800+, 7800GT, 1GB DDR OCZ, Realtek on board sound, Asus A8N-SLi Premium... x86_64 version, I've got compiz and Beryl installed (compiz with Gnome, and Beryl with KDE, I like variety) ....

For my Laptop:
Dell Latitude LS, PIII 500Mhz (Coppermine), 2.5MB NeoMagic256AV, 10GB IBM TravelStar, 128MB SDRAM, runs rather fast considering its
Waiting for things to compile is anoying, and a waste of time considering the performance gain isn't really that much.

Also like Gentoo, Arch Linux doesn't have versions in the natural sense, ie all you have to do is run #pacman -Syu and you will be at the latest version.
Also Arch Linux isn't really that complex, one of the philosophies of Arch is to keep things simple. Anyway half the people using Arch were former Gentoo users.

[EDIT]
Like Gentoo, Arch is also bleeding edge, but I've never run into any problems.

[EDIT2] Arch Linux is indeed light, the base install is only 150mbs, and you can choose what you add after that.

Bes · 5 May 2007 at 13:29

fumbles said:
YES!
It is optimised for i686 unlike most distros which are i386 (IIRC)...

pacman rocks my socks, easy to use, fast etc. Most things are done via the command line.

I run it on both my computers:
AMD A'64 X2 3800+, 7800GT, 1GB DDR OCZ, Realtek on board sound, Asus A8N-SLi Premium... x86_64 version, I've got compiz and Beryl installed (compiz with Gnome, and Beryl with KDE, I like variety) ....

For my Laptop:
Waiting for things to compile is anoying, and a waste of time considering the performance gain isn't really that much.

Also like Gentoo, Arch Linux doesn't have versions in the natural sense, ie all you have to do is run #pacman -Syu and you will be at the latest version.
Also Arch Linux isn't really that complex, one of the philosophies of Arch is to keep things simple. Anyway half the people using Arch were former Gentoo users.

[EDIT]
Like Gentoo, Arch is also bleeding edge, but I've never run into any problems.

ok cool will give it a go

Dj_Jestar · 5 May 2007 at 14:45

Has the userbase picked up for Arch? Last time I looked things were still in their infancy and only a small number of people (by comparison) were using Arch.

fumbles · 7 May 2007 at 01:28

Dj_Jestar said:
Has the userbase picked up for Arch? Last time I looked things were still in their infancy and only a small number of people (by comparison) were using Arch.

They have been around for awhile, there are quite a few users but nothing compared to a major distro like Ubuntu really. Only one way to change that GET ARCH!

Dj_Jestar · 7 May 2007 at 01:30

the app-base for arch was also minimal, which is what snuffed it for me.