[colug-432] February COLUG Meeting Announcement

[Scott Merrill]

Thanks for that! I haven't laughed that hard at a Linux joke in a long time!

On Feb 22, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Bill Baker <bill_chris at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Your experience with Gentoo reminds me of this quote from bash.org:
>
> <@insomnia> it only takes three commands to install Gentoo
> <@insomnia> cfdisk /dev/hda && mkfs.xfs /dev/hda1 && mount /dev/hda1
> /mnt/gentoo/ && chroot /mnt/gentoo/ && env-update && . /etc/profile &&
> emerge sync && cd /usr/portage && scripts/bootsrap.sh && emerge system
> && emerge vim && vi /etc/fstab && emerge gentoo-dev-sources && cd
> /usr/src/linux && make menuconfig && make install modules_install &&
> emerge gnome mozilla-firefox openoffice && emerge grub && cp
> /boot/grub/grub.conf.sample /boot/grub/grub.conf && vi
> /boot/grub/grub.conf && grub && init 6
> <@insomnia> that's the first one
>
> On 02/21/2012 07:55 AM, William Yang wrote:
>> On 02/20/2012 10:35 AM, Rick Troth wrote:
>>> Having encountered widely varying opinions about source build, what do
>>> YOU say about it?  Why do we use FOSS?  If we *use* FOSS, does that
>>> mean (to you) that we should actually *build* from source?  Why and
>>> when should we and should we not [re]build from sources?
>>>
>>> I'm priming the pump for this pres.  Will be showing my own how-to,
>>> which to me seems like do-it-in-your-sleep easy.  But part of the talk
>>> will include the rationale for going this route.  Lemme know what
>>> questions or points come to mind.
>>
>> Alas, I will not be at the meeting.  But I'd like to tell a short story
>> about compiled code.
>>
>> I used to use Gentoo.  When I selected Gentoo (over RedHat), it was because
>> the platform was built from source, leading to an optimized, efficient
>> platform.  Or so I thought.
>>
>> After 4 years, I transitioned pretty much all of my systems from Gentoo to
>> Ubuntu.  My move away was not caused by the breakdown at Gentoo:  I'd
>> discovered that the act of patching a system had become onerous, expensive,
>> time-consuming and inefficient.  Long compile times were the #1 reason why
>> I felt I needed to move to something else: I was tied down by the
>> requirement to compile.
>>
>> I still use source to build custom appliance operating system images.  But
>> for day-to-day use, including reasonably standard servers and workstations,
>> I think it's a poor choice to base operations on source-compilation.  That
>> approach, which took hold in the 80's and before in *IX environments, isn't
>> an approach to modern computing.  It makes your environment optimized and
>> efficient on your existing platform, at the expensive of losing nimbleness
>> and the ability to move and change, as legacy code holds you down.
>>
>> Source is best used for customized applications, areas where superfine
>> tuning is required or behavior needs to be different from in the box.
>> However, there's been a substantial move toward "off the shelf" software
>> for more than a decade in many environments... and the reason why is
>> because it's cheaper, faster, and more efficient.
>>
>> (Free) Open source is good.  It gives you the opportunity to understand
>> what your system does.  It gives you the ability to control the behavior of
>> your system when you need to.  But it's not mandatory to build from source.
>> There's going to be a balance based on interest, time, willingness to futz
>> with internals, cost, and other factors.  I do think people who work with
>> systems regularly need to understand how to compile software, and it's part
>> of my program when I train others in systems operations and administration.
>> But as a business matter, compilation is typically a cost center.
>>
>>    -Bill
> _______________________________________________
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432