Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

The Decline Of Gentoo Linux

Filed under
Gentoo

I recently began charting the freefall of the Gentoo Linux distribution. The project peaked in 2003 but has been in steady decline since Daniel Robbins got up from the captains chair. The release history on distrowatch gives a good 30-thousand foot view, showing that the 2008.0 release that recently shipped was the end of a 14 month dry spell since the previous release. In nearly the same time frame the tireless Ubuntu machine continued churning through its 6-month release cycle and shipped two major updates. Even Gentoo Is For Ricers, the preferred depot for anti-gentoo sentiment, has maintained a reverent silence on gentoos inability to get updates out the door.

Long quiet periods between releases have generally meant very little to gentoo users. Portage, gentoos package management system, has typically been kept on the leading edge of upstream projects; a style of packaging that has favored early adopters and is the hallmark of the distribution. Sad then that KDE 4.1 still hasn't made it into portage. This was released at the end of July but its admission to portage has been blocked by a lack of coordination and not a small amount of infighting, as evidenced by the combativeness in this bug report. At the time of this writing, the earliest that gentoo users are likely to see KDE 4.1 in portage will be with the 4.1.2 release in October.

More Here




Gentoo's decline: missing leadership or rising Ubuntu

Matt Asay: According to Bellenger, the departure of Gentoo's project lead, Daniel Robbins, effectively killed the project. Despite Bellenger's thesis, it's not clear that Gentoo would have had much of a chance against Ubuntu, anyway, which has consumed much of the Linux desktop attention in the past few years, as a review of Google Trends suggests:

Rest Here

re: Gentoo

I think that Gentoo's decline is just plain common sense.

It's ROI has faded to nearly zero. There is little to no speed advantage or stability or custom loadout made by Gentoo's custom compiling method that isn't already possible NOW with pretty much any of the modern distros.

As with most software problems, the huge (and rapid) increase in hardware performance makes last years software performance problems history - just throw newer hardware at it and voila, problem solved.

Some argue that Gentoo is the only way to learn Linux "from the inside out". Well it's ONE way, but certainly not the only way (and I would argue not even close to being the best way).

So the self inflicted pain of waiting hours / days / weeks for your custom Gentoo build has no great reward at the end of the tunnel.

So no big payoff means who has that type of time to waste?

Like buggy whips - they were important in their day, but it's time to gift them to the Smithsonian and MOVE ON.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Debian-Based Distribution Updated With KDE 3.5 Forked Desktop

Q4OS 1.2 "Orion" is the new release that is re-based on Debian Jessie, focused on shipping its own desktop utilities and customizations, and designed to run on both old and new hardware. Read more

Atom Shell is now Electron

Atom Shell is now called Electron. You can learn more about Electron and what people are building with it at its new home electron.atom.io. Read more Also: C++ Daddy Bjarne Stroustrup outlines directions for v17

A Fedora 22 beta walk-through

The new Fedora, with its GNOME 3.16 interface, is an interesting, powerful Linux desktop. Read more Also: Web software center for Fedora Red Hat's Cross-Selling and Product Development Will Power Long-Term Growth Red Hat Updates Open Source Developer and Admin Tools

Unix and Personal Computers: Reinterpreting the Origins of Linux

So, to sum up: What Linus Torvalds, along with plenty of other hackers in the 1980s and early 1990s, wanted was a Unix-like operating system that was free to use on the affordable personal computers they owned. Access to source code was not the issue, because that was already available—through platforms such as Minix or, if they really had cash to shell out, by obtaining a source license for AT&T Unix. Therefore, the notion that early Linux programmers were motivated primarily by the ideology that software source code should be open because that is a better way to write it, or because it is simply the right thing to do, is false. Read more Also: Anti-Systemd People