On Sep 9, 6:54 pm, "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <zn... / cesmail.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Trans wrote:
> > But seeing that distributions are a rather personal matter, I can't
> > let an oportunity like this go by without plugging my "brand". I used
> > to be a Debian man, but these days I'm a happy Arch user --she's lean
> > and fast. I'll also put in a pitch for GoboLinux, which has a much
> > more elegant design than most distros.
>
> Isn't Arch a Debian derivative? There are lots of Debian derivatives,
> but Ubuntu has somewhat eclipsed them by sheer marketing hype. But as
> far as I can tell, it's fairly easy to make a "pure Debian" system as
> fast and lean as any of the derivatives or any other distro.

Nope. Arch is not based on Debian. Arch is it's own creation, probably
more similar to Slackware than anything else. It is about as close as
you get to a source based distro without actually becoming one. The
pacman package manager is very straightforward.

> The bridge you have to cross (eventually) is whether you ever want to do
> kernel builds or recompile packages from source. RHEL and its rebuilds
> actively *discourage* rebuilding the kernel. It's too easy to trash your
> system that way. But rebuilding packages from source is easy on all the
> major distros.
>
> Or you could use Gentoo, where you *have* to recompile everything from
> source. :)

Ah, come on! SourceMage or Lunar is where the real source code action
is at ;)

T.