I have been distro hopping for awhile and would like to be able to decide on the "one." The main thing that I know that I want in a distro is the Xfce de. Also, I like the idea of using a rolling release to be able to stay constantly up to date. Currently I am running Salix 13.37, but I am very interested in Gentoo. I have read on several different sites and reviews that a source-based distro doesn't really do much for the user vs the binary distros in that it mainly is just wasting the users time in compiling the pkgs instead of just downloading the binaries and installing them. I was want to hear the users opinions and obviously I realize that the users like gentoo otherwise they wouldn't be using it

Hi,

Thanks for this question!

Well, I started on Fedora, and now, I use Arch.
The question should however be: what distro meets your needs?

Stable install, safe no nonsense : Debian
Stable, user-friendly, no required "looks-under-the-hood" : Ubuntu
Stable, be it with some rough edges that can be sanded out while learning from it : Fedora
Stable roller: Arch

Arch is a rolling release that has in effect two types of repos: the main stuff, and the user-maintained stuff. Arch is light-wheight. But, be warned, it requires some of your input. Arch does nothing for you unless you tell it to. Example: updates. Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu tell you when there is something new. Arch does not. The installer is console based. And that installer is used to update the system, examples

System update
Install
Find something
But, Arch becomes what you want it to be.
After running the (text based) installer, you end up with a text-only system. You build it up as you need. To install XFCE:

Here's a sample output
I can give Arch a thumbs-up...be warned of the community around it, though. It's a ... somewhat hardened bunch...

To give you a glimpse, look at the install and beginners guides...

Hope to have helped a bit

Thor

I'm a die hard Gentoo fan. There are a few advantages to using a source-based distribution, which I will describe in a specifically Gentoo context:

Optional compile-time components.

Most software packages have several optional components that can be included or excluded when the software is compiled. With binary based distros, you typically just have to accept whatever settings the distro developer has picked -- like it or not. With Gentoo, you can set USE flags which allow to you to determine (either globally or on a per-package basis) what types of components are excluded or included.

While generally more functionality is better, for your personal system you might want something different: for example, you might not need vim to have X11 support, because it is being built for a server which does not have X11. Or you might want to build some other program without gnome support so you don't have to install an army of gnome library dependencies.

Security.

By default in Gentoo, the source code for every program or library you install is downloaded and archived on your system for easy access. Furthermore, the software is all compiled on your own system. This means that you don't have to trust anyone if you don't want to. All your source code is within easy reach, and you can view the code, changelogs, etc. quickly before or after actually compiling it.

Software development.

Software development is a lot more fun under Gentoo for a few reasons. For one, simply installing a package usually installs all the headers and other dependencies you need to develop for it. Also, a big plus is Gentoo's overlay system. while this is not really related to the fact that Gentoo is a source-based distro, it is nevertheless very helpful: it allows you usually to integrate the latest and greatest versions of a particular category of compilers, libraries, et cetera while leaving the rest of your system in its "stable" form.

Performance.

While source-based distributions are not a magic bullet for better performance, they can provide some improvements. In particular, you can set global build flags, which allow you to build all programs on your system with certain compiler optimizations suitable for the specific brand of processor on your system.

I'm a die hard Gentoo fan. There are a few advantages to using a source-based distribution, which I will describe in a specifically Gentoo context:

Optional compile-time components.

Most software packages have several optional components that can be included or excluded when the software is compiled. With binary based distros, you typically just have to accept whatever settings the distro developer has picked -- like it or not. With Gentoo, you can set USE flags which allow to you to determine (either globally or on a per-package basis) what types of components are excluded or included.

While generally more functionality is better, for your personal system you might want something different: for example, you might not need vim to have X11 support, because it is being built for a server which does not have X11. Or you might want to build some other program without gnome support so you don't have to install an army of gnome library dependencies.

Security.

By default in Gentoo, the source code for every program or library you install is downloaded and archived on your system for easy access. Furthermore, the software is all compiled on your own system. This means that you don't have to trust anyone if you don't want to. All your source code is within easy reach, and you can view the code, changelogs, etc. quickly before or after actually compiling it.

Software development.

Software development is a lot more fun under Gentoo for a few reasons. For one, simply installing a package usually installs all the headers and other dependencies you need to develop for it. Also, a big plus is Gentoo's overlay system. while this is not really related to the fact that Gentoo is a source-based distro, it is nevertheless very helpful: it allows you usually to integrate the latest and greatest versions of a particular category of compilers, libraries, et cetera while leaving the rest of your system in its "stable" form.

Performance.

While source-based distributions are not a magic bullet for better performance, they can provide some improvements. In particular, you can set global build flags, which allow you to build all programs on your system with certain compiler optimizations suitable for the specific brand of processor on your system.

1 members found this post helpful.

the ultimate source based distribution would be LFS, as you compile absolutely everything from source, even the kernel and bootloader are compiled from source

as sort of mentioned above, source-based vs binary-based probably won't make a huge difference in performance, however the main issue with binary based distributions is that the provided binaries are compiled with the most common options used by the average user, however for some these options are either excessive, or not adequate, or a bit of both (some options are included but not used, some options needed not included)

even ultra binary based distributions like Ubuntu can have programs compiled from source, though discouraged it can be done

compiling allows for optimization of options, you only need to configure the options you need to use and their dependencies, yes this sometimes provides a modest performance boost, but more often than not you would want to compile from source if the binary distribution doesn't provide features you need, but the program is capable of if it had been compiled with those features enabled at compile time.

sometimes these features are simply less often used, and sometimes they are disabled by default because it might violate laws in certain areas so the binary distribution has it disabled to avoid running afoul of laws (examples being cryptographic routines, or anything to do with patented technology (such as mp3s) or the DMCA), but the software has the features, you just compile them in at your own risk

I just want to clarify this point: The huge difference between LFS and all the other source-based distributions is that LFS doesn't incorporate any kind of package manager. This means that you have to keep all those thousands dependencies (compile-time and otherwise) in order all by yourself, i.e., dependency hell, as well as remembering what compile time options you wanted for each package, and so forth. Gentoo's advanced package management system allows you to enjoy all the benefits of a source-based system minus the massive headache.

Also, in Gentoo the kernel and the bootloader are compiled from source. Usually the coreutils and some other essentials (gcc and such like) are dropped in (initially) as part of a stage archive, but I'm sure you could build those yourself too if you wished.

The kernel and the bootloader are also compiled from source in Gentoo, you even have to configure it yourself (well, or let genkernel do it for you which I never did).

Sorted that out, if I had to pick one feature from Gentoo I'd say that the biggest thing are USE flags. They can give you fine grained control over what features are enabled at compile time, and that also change the dependencies. It's like a having a configure script which in addition handles dependencies.

Performance? Well, I am not a fan of benchmarks and I don't think that in most cases compiling from source is going to give you any significant improvement these days, unless you are running with very old or limited hardware.

1 members found this post helpful.

...unless you tell it to tell you. which you can. a friend whom i got interested in arch, showed me his little "there are packages to be upgraded" notification in the panel. nice little touch. i never bothered with it though, and just regularly ran packer -Syu to keep my whole system up to date, including the stuff from the Arch User Repository.

now to the question in hand....

source vs binary.

i've distro surfed a lot (seriously, a lot), so i'm reasonably familiar with the differences, and really, "the devil is in the details".
depends on your needs, and depends on the nuances and specifics of the distro and how it's used.

arch does have it's ABS (Arch Build System), so you could use it like a source-based distro... but by comparison to the straight forward simplicity of it's binary package management system, you'd have to be rather desperate for some benefit of ABS, be it customised tweaks to your packages, or just to get the newest half a day before it appears in arch (since it's usually quite fastidious in getting the newest). ABS, more comparable to slackbuild aproach, than a fully managed source-based package management, like portage, might not really offer the workflow convenience for every day use, most of us seek.

gentoo is source based, and the wording of that often scares a lot of people away without any further investigation "source based", "you mean i have to do everything by hand?" no. using portage, it's package manager that handles it all for you with it's ebuild scripts, convenience-wise, on the face of it, it's pretty much the equal of any other distribution's package manager. in some ways, even easier, since you just type "emerge gimp" or "emerge urxvt" (or emerge whatever) to install whatever you want. a few characters shorter, and easier to remember than many binary-based package managers. but here's the point... with portage, or anything that gets you a step closer to the source, you are given far more power, and freedom, to do with it what you want. now, even if you dont see any want nor need for that, perhaps thinking such is out of your skillset, i suggest that maybe one day that will change, and you'll want to fine tune stuff later on. ...at least, that's the line of reasoning i take when picking a distro using portage (or paludis). but if you're still insistent on binary packages, just to save your computer some time on installing (likely at the expense of some performance when running) packages, there is Sabayon too... it is based on gentoo, but also has it's own binary package manager, which can, with careful management, be used in conjunction with portage. best of both worlds.

about being closer to the source... short of just doing away with package management all together, and doing everything by hand, slackware is the grandaddy. sure, you can install stuff like slapt-get and others, which make slackware as easy-peasy speedy-instally as ubuntu, if you want... but i think that rather misses the pont of slackware. with slackware, you can really roll up your sleeves n pretty much do it all yourself. the advantage of this? you learn. oh boy do you LEARN! a couple of package installs in, and you'll have learned more in that day, about how your system works, than in 5 years of using ubuntu. of course, it needn't even be so hardcore as the full hands on, or as dumbed-down & wrapped in thick safety plastic as the slapt-get route... slackbuilds get you more of the best of both worlds, a little more convenient than 100% d.i.y. (but still no portage/paludis), and you still get to stay close to the source, and know a chunk about what's going on (and make your own binaries from source, to take with you, should u need them again). [edit - original poster, using salix, is already getting the cushy side of slackware, but it must be comforting to know that source installs of various methods, are nearby, on hand, clean and clear, and a savvy community nearby to help with it, should there be any problems]

source vs binary?

depends. ^_^

me personally, i do advocate us all getting a little closer to the source. even if only for a little while for an educational holiday, or even if just to be a little more ready and tooled up for that day when you want to tweak or refine, and get under the hood more.

the closer to the source we all are, the more advantages we're giving ourselves, and everyone else, of the "freedom" in "free software". no one ever called it "open binary". the "many eyes" theory, struggles with binary blobs.


[edit - my pref]
most of the time, i go for gentoo-like (gentoo, funtoo, exherbo), or gentoo-based (sabayon, toorox, papug, ututo) distros. in terms of user input, it's as convenient as any distro using a binary package manager, AND i still have so much power so neatly and conveniently made accessible to me, to fine tune, should i want to. ... ok, usually a few days or weeks behind arch, but if all you're interested in is getting the newest asap, you'd be using arch, or living off each project's version control system, doing manual source installs with no package manager assistance.

i know this sort of question musta been asked hundreds of times over the years across the net, (and i know i rambled, repeating points) but i had fun playing.

I was googling for an answer on the exact same issue and stumbled upon this thread but also on this article:

http://iwillfolo.blogspot.co.il/2013...ary-based.html

thought it maight be of use for other seekers like me...

To be perfectly honest LFS is the best source based distribution. I've tried Gentoo and honestly I just can't get it to work. I don't know what I do each and every time but the book gets vague at times and I get easily lost. LFS I can do, Gentoo, never.

LFS is very simplistic and can easily be built with Slackware and Salix out-of-the-box without requiring multiple downloads, tweaks, and installations.

Salix should be up to 14.0, which will build LFS rather easily.

i failed to get a perfectly working gentoo stage3 install a few times before i tried funtoo. funtoo stage3 install, i managed to get working perfectly first time, and the very next time i tried a gentoo stage3 install, it worked perfectly too. funny how that worked out. funtoo's install guide is more concise, more "dyslexic friendly". easier to grok the whole in one gulp.

currently on exherbo.

Unless you run to update packages in the official repos only, or to update packages both in the official repos and the AUR, every day, when nothing comes up, then the system is up-to-date, unless something is messed up with the particular mirror you're using, or the whole mirrorlist, however when a list of software that needs to be updated comes up, you got some stuff that needs updating.

Once you go past the gentoo learning curve you won't go back in my opinion. Its very easy to maintain and keep up to date, add new packages, remove packages, the system feels solid and complete. 70% of my systems run gentoo, the others run debian because the hardware is a P3 500mhz 192MB laptop and compiling gentoo on it would take a long time and my other laptop is windows7 just to keep compatibility with the rest of the world. Why don't you try installing it on a virtualbox or old computer first to get a feel for it?