Gentoo vs Ubuntu

[extofer]

I was really recommended Gentoo, but I couldn't get it to install. Is there an easier way to install Gentoo?? What about Ubuntu, can it do as much as Gentoo, or at least Apache and MySQL

[mmiikkee12]

Gentoo is for experts and people who like to recompile the wheel and all its dependencies. However, it is faster. If you're not a novice with Linux I would recommend Gentoo. (although it compiles everything from scratch, which can be annoying).

Ubuntu is a good distro in my opinion. I used it for a while then removed it to explore some other distros. None of them were as good, and I'm reinstalling Ubuntu this weekend. Ubuntu (and any other distro you want, it's just more complex to set up on some) can run Apache/MySQL. It shouldn't be that hard, but I've never done it.

[alc6379]

Both are great. I wouldn't recommend Gentoo for new users, but Ubuntu works great for advanced users, as well. Both are going to do MySQL and Apache just fine, though.

If you can't get Gentoo install, I'd pick Ubuntu by process of elimination. After you've cut your teeth some with Ubuntu, maybe you'll be tempted to give Gentoo a try yet again.

[jwenting]

I have to second Ubuntu.
First ever distro for me that installed without months of having to constantly tweak things only to end up with a system that still worked only partially.

Only downside is that it takes up a lot of diskspace, the 4GB disk in my laptop is almost full of it.
But then, the same is true for most if not all other distros (and often to greater extents)...

[Mareq]

Somewhere I've red that Debian is the rock upon which Ubuntu is built... What does this mean? What are the relationships between Ubuntu and Debian?

[chrisbliss18]

It means that the designers of Ubuntu started by building off of (modifying and adding to) the Debian releases.

[Mareq]

So it means, that now, there are "Debian-Debian" and "Debian-Ubuntu" distros? Why are they building something diffrent on Debian? Isn't the "Debian-Debian" enough or is it worse in some way?

[chrisbliss18]

I can't think of a single distro that has not been built starting with a code base from some other distro. A very popular Linux distro is Slackware, and there are dozens of distros that are based off of this code. The reason for this is simple: why start from scratch when you can start from a tested and proven code base that has most of the features that you like? Ubuntu isn't Debian, only Debian is Debian, but Ubuntu started with a base of Debian code because the creators of Ubuntu liked the core concepts of Debian and wanted to implement those in their distro.

A good analogy for this is Firefox. Firefox wasn't written from scratch; rather, it was started from the code base of Mozilla. Firefox isn't the only software that is based off of Mozilla code; Netscape, Camino, Flock, and other browsers have all been built from a base of Mozilla.

You may think all this sounds odd, but it happens all the time in open-source software development.

[Mareq]

Thanks man, couple of new information for me...

So Ubuntu is only based on Debian and it means, that Ubuntu uses some Debians' basic code like kernel fragments. It doesn't mean, that Ubuntu uses also Debian packages and its other parts. Do I understand right?

[chrisbliss18]

Actually, the package format that Ubuntu uses is the same as Debian. The Ubuntu team does develop some of their own packages however. You can find more information about the relationship between Debian and Ubuntu here.

The relationship between a distro and that distro's code base are always different. To find out the similarities and differences between different distros, go to that distros website and look around.

[jbennet]

yeah, debian is very stable and reliable but not very cutting edge. It isnt very newbie friendly either as theres no GUI tools, graphical installer or LiveCD mode. Ubuntu is the opposite. Its a cutting edge debian.

There the same distro at the core in the they both use .deb/apt package management.
(generally) ubuntu is based off of the development version of debian (sid)

Generally:

debian = servers
ubuntu = desktop

[John A]

yeah, debian is very stable and reliable but not very cutting edge. It isnt very newbie friendly either as theres no GUI tools, graphical installer

News to me... ;)
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/

There the same distro at the core in the they both use .deb/apt package management.
(generally) ubuntu is based off of the development version of debian (sid)

Generally:

debian = servers
ubuntu = desktop

I had literally no problems setting up Debian on my MacBook, although there were many drivers that needed installation. My biggest gripe against Debian is its hardware detection as compared to Ubuntu, but once that's taken care of, it's actually quite easy to use. Of course, you know this since you've used Debian so much, but this is my opinion.

[jbennet]

i personally prefer debian to ubuntu as i like to do a netinstall and build a stripped down, custom system but i was generalising

[TheNNS]

Gentoo is hard to configure. for hard core linux users gentoo is better, but for newbies, ubuntu is a good starting place.

[jbennet]

i installed ubuntu on my main home pc today - works great apart from small gfx card driver issue

[richcoosa19]

Personally I think both of these distros kick ass. But it depends on what you want to use your system for as to which I would use. I personally use Gentoo as my server, and I use Ubuntu as my desktop. Ubuntu has excellent hardware detection (for goodness sake I plug in my Sansa and it opens Rhythmbox for easy drag and drop), but Gentoo has it's use flag functionality that enables certain functions to be compiled into the programs at compilation instead of having everything under the sun as in Ubuntu or pretty much any other binary based distro. Basically the main differences between Gentoo and Ubuntu is whether you would like to have a source based package manager to be able to have that functionality, or you want a binary package manager to have all program functionality enabled and fast installs at the trade of having too much bloatware and options that you will probably never use. Honestly I would pick Ubuntu for every Linux user that isn't an extreme expert because it's easy for installation, fast at installation, and overall very easy to maintain in comparing to Gentoo. Gentoo is an excellent distro, but to install it takes several hours (possibly days depending on what all you want installed) and sometimes it can uninstall packages when doing an upgrade that is dependent on another package (if you don't know how to handle this, it can be VERY frustrating - glibc did this to me and I couldn't open Amarok for 3 weeks and all I had to do was uninstall the old glibc). I have been using Ubuntu for about a week now and already I am exactly where it took me 6 months to be in Gentoo.

[jbennet]

I wouldn ever use gentoo for a server after that incident a few years ago (the one where apache got so broken that you needed to reinstall the system)

[richcoosa19]

I wouldn ever use gentoo for a server after that incident a few years ago (the one where apache got so broken that you needed to reinstall the system)

Hmm, maybe I should reconsider using Gentoo as my production webserver then.... I have had that problem too, but I thought I had just done something wrong in the config files....apparently not, since you have had the same problem.

[John A]

I assume this is related to the problem you were experiencing.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/apache-upgrading.xml

I wouldn't be so quick to throw it away. As far as I can tell, this issue has been resolved. And Gentoo is very stable; I've set up a Gentoo server and it's worked almost perfectly (granted, it's not running 24/7, but still that's saying something).

Ubuntu's also a decent server, especially for those who don't want a lot of configuration to get the server up-and-running. I have a friend who runs an Ubuntu webserver which has been extremely stable, however, there have been some issues previously with getting the virtual host directives set up correctly. I still don't have a clue what went wrong.

[jbennet]

My redhat system has been running nonstop on my server since 2001. Has been rebooted only 24 times in 6 years (for updates)

[pty]

There was a discussion on /. a while ago about the pros and cons of Gentoo on a production server.

Incidentally my servers at work all run on Debian; my desktop here is Ubuntu (installed feisty over Gentoo yesterday actually). I just think that apt is the best package management tool; fast, easy, powerful.

[jbennet]

yes, for all my LAMP needs i use debian netinstall and my LAMP tutorial (theres a thread i made here listing what you need to apt get

I use centos on my fileservers as i like the GUI tools, and mandriva or ubuntu for my desktops

[John A]

My last Debian update here was catastrophic. There's that program that runs on the Gnome system tray that said something like "you have 100 or so updates". It couldn't update half of the apps for reasons I have already forgotten.

To make matters worse, my wireless drivers wouldn't load after the updates. modprobing turned up nothing, even though the module was still on the hard drive. It was as if the updater had upgraded my kernel. My current computer location makes it very inconvenient to get a hard-wired connection, so I pretty well rely on wireless. I don't want to have to get that connection every time I update Debian. That's mainly why I have decided to switch back to Gentoo and Portage.

[jbennet]

? was that on stable or testing?
did you use only the official repos?

if you use only the official repos and the stable version i know it to be ver stable ?

[John A]

>was that on stable or testing?
Testing. There is no way that the stable version of Debian will support my hardware.

>did you use only the official repos?
Yes.

[jbennet]

I run sarge (yeah i know its old but its on a closed network) and it detects all my many CPUs, SCSI, raid and SATA

[alienlinux]

i think it's kinda useless matching gentoo and ubuntu as gentoo is a source distributon. if you mean 'which should i choose' then i'd say if you have to ask, get ubuntu ;)

[Infarction]

> if you have to ask, get ubuntu
While quite simple, that's surprisingly well put. :)

[TheNNS]

My redhat system has been running nonstop on my server since 2001. Has been rebooted only 24 times in 6 years (for updates)

wow, what are the specs of your system?

[jbennet]

Been running since 2002 actually. I got it wrong.

It has 1gb ram and 4x PIII Tualatins - 1.4 ghz each - the good server ones with the 512k cache. Must have cost a bomb (i got it free)

4x 20 gb Superfast SCSI hotswap HDD drives

Disk1 is the core OS
Disk2 is /home (shared across network, ive got my clients set up so there home is remote)

They are both mirrored onto drives 3 and 4 )

I then have 2x 80gb maxtor IDE disks. One holds my local APT mirror and the other holds my favourite distros.

It runs debian by the way. Started life as potato, then woody soon after. a few years passed then sarge came along and now etch.

It runs as my Firewall as well as providing Samba, NFS, NIS, local DNS, mail and LAMP (For development)