Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 14th Nov 2004 23:59 UTC, submitted by Chris Gianelloni
Gentoo Gentoo is proud to present the world with Gentoo Linux 2004.3. Read more of the announcement.
Order by: Score:
OSnews on the ball as usual!
by Brett on Mon 15th Nov 2004 00:25 UTC

Pulling this down right now via secondary torrent trackers, thanks OSnews. Come on, jump on the torrent!

No Athlon?
by Roguelazer on Mon 15th Nov 2004 00:34 UTC

Looking at the list of torrents, I have been unable to find one for an AMD Athlon packages CD. Yes, I see the Athlon XP one. However, that doesn't do somebody with an Athlon, say, Thunderbird any good, now does it? I have an Athlon GRP CD for Gentoo 1.4, where'd it go for 2004.3.

Wow. That post was confused. I can't type straight today.

@Rouguelazer
by Rayiner Hashem on Mon 15th Nov 2004 00:37 UTC

Athlon XP-optimized binaries should work just fine on regular Athlons. The CPUs are nearly identical.

v hrm
by Anonymous on Mon 15th Nov 2004 00:43 UTC
Incredible...
by Sam Black on Mon 15th Nov 2004 00:44 UTC

OSNews beats out gentoo's own homepage.

Dang....
by Anonymous on Mon 15th Nov 2004 00:46 UTC

Every mirror I have tried so far gives the following message:

You don't have permission to access /pub/distributions/gentoo/releases/x86/2004.3/ on this server.

Actually...
by wolf31o2 on Mon 15th Nov 2004 00:54 UTC

The reason osnews was so fast is because I submitted the story. Gentoo's main page is served by 3 machines, and only the master is updated yet. Try refreshing or clearing your DNS cache and you'll see the front page is updated.

RE:†Actually...
by Eugenia on Mon 15th Nov 2004 01:04 UTC

This is relative. The thing is, many sites are getting the same submissions, but the thing is who gets to publish the news faster. And I am usually fast because I have internet connection most of the day, no matter where I am...

RE: RE: No Athlon
by SmartyPants on Mon 15th Nov 2004 01:10 UTC

Athlon XP-optimized binaries should work just fine on regular Athlons. The CPUs are nearly identical.

But not in every way. Regular Athlons may have problems running something compiled with the combined CFLAGS of "-march=athlon-xp" and "-m3dnow". When both these flags are set it enables gcc to use CPU extensions available in athlon-xp that are not present in the thunderbird.

Thanks!
by bbrv on Mon 15th Nov 2004 01:12 UTC

"Full pegasos support out of the box. Thanks to Freescale Semiconductor and Genesi for donating Open Desktop Workstations. It is no longer required to pass arguments to the pegasos kernel, the default arguments are compiled into the kernel."

Thanks to you too, Gentoo! :-D

R&B :-)

Oh, No!! YES YES!!
by Iluminatus on Mon 15th Nov 2004 01:26 UTC

I've just installed gentoo at 2 days ago!!

Oh well why i bored, for some reason exist "emerge -eu world".
Go for it GENTOO power

RE:@Rouguelazer
by sindre on Mon 15th Nov 2004 01:32 UTC

"Athlon XP-optimized binaries should work just fine on regular Athlons. The CPUs are nearly identical."

The athlon-xp binaries are compiled with sse-support which isn't availible on older athlons. I bet trying this would end in segfaults.

RE: RE: @Rouguelazer
by Mike on Mon 15th Nov 2004 02:35 UTC

"Athlon XP-optimized binaries should work just fine on regular Athlons. The CPUs are nearly identical."

~~~ I've tried this on my athlon tbird... for both the 2004.1 and 2004.2 releases.... it won't even boot...

The xp-optimized packages don't work with tbirds... i submitted a wishlist request for a tbird optimized iso... but, i guess it fell on deaf ears. *sigh*

Easy update
by xal on Mon 15th Nov 2004 02:39 UTC

You don't need to download CDs. this is gentoo. appreciate the power of portage!

# become root
su -
# activate the new profile
cd /etc
rm make.profile
ln -s ./usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.3 make.profile
# update the system
emerge -uDa world # D = deep, u = update, a = ask, world = everything

enjoy

RE:RE: RE: @Rouguelazer
by Wrawrat on Mon 15th Nov 2004 03:14 UTC

It's pointless to ask for a Tbird-optimised ISO if you start from the Stage 1. It would also be a pain to maintain so many different processors.

Anyway, I don't think there is a perceivable (don't mix up with measurable) speed difference between i686 and athlon-tbird...

Gentlemen! Start your compilers!!!
by mojo on Mon 15th Nov 2004 04:36 UTC

Ready! Set! Go!!

Hopefully..
by lucid on Mon 15th Nov 2004 04:39 UTC

with this release the minimal livecd's actually work. I along with a lot of others have a certain gentoo maintainer to thank for quite a few coasters and some nasty comments. Ironically enough it didn't boot on computers with a bios made by two of the biggest bios manufacturers and then blamed on the users for not having a proper bios. It's amazing how one weak link on this awesome linux chain can really screw up things for the whole.

??? Wasn't this released like a week ago???
by Pax Vitae on Mon 15th Nov 2004 06:09 UTC

Iím pretty sure I emerged this about a week ago??? Was I dreaming or did I get a RC version??? I better go check!

Regarding Athlon-optimized binaries...
by avenj on Mon 15th Nov 2004 06:09 UTC

...use i686.

Gentoo doesn't need new rls cd's :)
by eBoT on Mon 15th Nov 2004 07:06 UTC

So why not just emerge -uD world and simlink the new profile as mentioned lol! This is Gentoo we are talking about here ;)
Stay uptodate all the time anyway so who needs this iso if you are allready running it ;)

Re: Athlon Thunderbird binaries...
by Phill on Mon 15th Nov 2004 07:06 UTC

You should use i686, and in any case there isn't a whole heap of performance improvement (noticable improvement) between i686 and the ahtlon-xp sets, as someone who has tried both and is a current gentoo user.

march CFLAG
by Jeremy on Mon 15th Nov 2004 09:23 UTC

wierdness... I compiled my entire gentoo install with --march=athlon-xp for my old system. I moved the hard drive to a new system which isn't even athlon but rather Pentium 4, and it worked fine. Of course I reinstalled anyway but I thought it was kind of funky that it worked. Installing gentoo is a lot easier when you already have a working installation to get the whole thing started!

RE: march CFLAG
by Ingemar Eriksson on Mon 15th Nov 2004 10:48 UTC

the --march flag optimizes for a certain cpu while keeping backwards-compability with i386, however, the --mcpu flag optimizes for a centain and does not keep backwards-compability with older cpu.

Someone correct me if im wrong..

mcpu / march
by nxt on Mon 15th Nov 2004 11:03 UTC

-mcpu=cpu‐type
Tune to cpu‐type everything applicable about the generated code, except for the ABI and the set of available instructions.

-march=cpu‐type
Generate instructions for the machine type cpu‐type. The choices for cpu‐type are the same as for -mcpu. Moreover, specifying -march=cpu‐type implies -mcpu=cpu‐type.

So if my brain works correctly, code compiled with "-mcpu" and optimized for i686 will work on a i386, but the instruction timings will be optimized for i686. Compiled with "-march", it would SIGILL on a i386.

RE: nxt
by Ingemar Eriksson on Mon 15th Nov 2004 11:14 UTC

Ah.. thats probaby it.. i guess i was wrong.. (blame it on my insomnia) ;)

Re AMD 64 port
by Anand on Mon 15th Nov 2004 14:58 UTC

I am using Fedora core 3, last time I used Gentoo on my AMD 64 laptop it
1. hung up a lot
2. Mouse was not recognized.(There was a workaround but its plain old alps touchpad why was there no support)
3. No stark difference in speed between Gentoo and Suse 9.1 x86_64 ports.
4. Ndiswrapper failed to compile with preempt and 4k stack.
5. After kernel recompile despite having ReiserFs support I had a kernel panic.

I guess Gentoo handbook is fine but we need a short guide for installation on R3000Z.

Re: Hopefully..
by Morty on Mon 15th Nov 2004 15:48 UTC

Personally I would settle for any LiveCD working :-( I tried a few different, both minimal and the full ones but none did boot. Out of curiosity, which bios'es does not work?

Re Bios
by Anand on Mon 15th Nov 2004 16:05 UTC

If you are talking about R3000z well the stock bios booted for me. except you have to do modporobe ide-disk to get the Hard disk to be recognized.

@xal:
by AdamW on Mon 15th Nov 2004 17:19 UTC

Oh, yeah, the power of portage...because none of us using boring old been-around-for-years binary distro package managers can do that. apt-get? urpmi? Never heard of 'em.

Just a Tip
by Anonymous on Mon 15th Nov 2004 17:19 UTC

Use a Knoppix boot cd rather than the Gentoo one. I am truly surprised that the isn't (an option for) a working desktop environment on the Gentoo install discs.

I tweaked the KDE UI within Knoppix and my wife barely noticed that I was re-installing Gentoo.

@AdamW
by Anil Wang on Mon 15th Nov 2004 22:22 UTC

Portage is definitely more powerful than apt-get and it's brethren. While apt-get, yum, and urpmi can update a distribution, portage allows you update a meta-distribution.

For instance, suppose you had a customize compiled version of GNOME that excluded some standard compile time options. Portage would be able to update your distribution and ensure that the upgraded version of GNOME is compiled with the same options. You can also choose to stay with XFree86 but upgrade the rest of your distribution. You can't do either with apt-get, yum, and urpmi.

That being said, not everyone needs that power and that power does come at a cost. If you don't need that flexibility, then don't use Gentoo (I don't). But realize, that some people do.


WOW!!!
by JohnOne on Mon 15th Nov 2004 23:37 UTC

"Full pegasos support out of the box. Thanks to Freescale Semiconductor and Genesi for donating Open Desktop Workstations. It is no longer required to pass arguments to the pegasos kernel, the default arguments are compiled into the kernel."

Now PegasOS has Gentoo Linux, but it hasn't MorphOS anymore. X-D

Re: Morty @ online.no
by lucid on Tue 16th Nov 2004 07:18 UTC

Read this thread...

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=202516

It even links to the bugzilla post and the maintainer being a dick. In absolute irony check the last post on that forum thread.

Portage vs. apt-get
by Anonymous on Tue 16th Nov 2004 09:21 UTC

Anil Wang wrote:
Portage is definitely more powerful than apt-get

Did you know that the features of apt-get can be extended by several related utilities, such as apt-src?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/06/msg01110.html

Portage may be able to do some things that apt-get cannot do, but apt-get can also do MANY things that portage cannot. Does this make portage more powerful than apt-get? Definitely not.

RE: POrtage vs. apt-get
by Macguyvok on Tue 16th Nov 2004 15:59 UTC

Portage may be able to do some things that apt-get cannot do, but apt-get can also do MANY things that portage cannot. Does this make portage more powerful than apt-get? Definitely not.

Well, having never used apt-get, I'm not sure how it really compares. The only realy advantage of portage is that it really makes things easy to customize when installing from source. Some people like it to "just work" and don't want to bother 'extending' thier system tools. It really is nothing more than personal preference. Portage is very powerful, and so is apt-get. One's geared more for source, while the other is geared towards binary. (Althought portage CAN fo binary packages rather well, and apt-get can do source) I'd say, they're about even.