I found Gentoo slowly corrupts itself over time, with the portage cache and what not. I also had a strange udev problem. With Arch, I get the minimalism of Gentoo with x86_64-optimized packages, with the ability to rebuild anything from source if desired. Arch's rc.conf system is also simpler than Gentoo's system V style init scripts, and creating one's own packages is so much simpler with makepkg than with portage. Garrett On 3/14/2010 3:49 AM, Chuck Hallenbeck wrote: > Hi Trev, > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:26:10AM -0500, trev.saunders at gmail.com wrote: > >> Case 1: >> This is mostly servers, but also personal machines for other people >> and such where I want to do as little maintanance as posible. I also >> want a stable basic system that general is fairly small. FOr these >> system I use debian either stable or testing depending on exact needs. > > Agreed. I have made the same decision for the same reasons recently. > >> So I'm curious what people like about arch especially over gentoo? > > Sorry, I can't say, I haven't had a gentoo system running here. My > distro path has been limited, beginning with Slackware, from there to > Debian, and now to Arch. As with all Linux systems, sources are readily > available, and recompiles are easily done. Others here will have more > helpful observations comparing Arch and Gentoo, I think. > > Chuck > >
