Philosophical question

[Trail]

So, imagine an Ubuntu Minimal CD Installation.

Add a custom-compiled GCC 4.3.0.

Add a custom-built kernel 2.6.25.

Add a custom-build KDE 4.1beta1 installation.

What do you have? Ubuntu or Gentoo? :S

I ask because, while I've done all three above independantly, I haven't combined all of them in a single installation. But I am thinking of it, when my ISP decides that I am worthy enough to have internet at home. Either that, or just Gentoo.

But, if I do use the Ubuntu minimal CD, will apt still work? I guess. I'd like the odd -dev package or maybe some old KDE3 applications quickly installable. Then again, I don't see what's really different from Gentoo, apart from the fact that I pick compiler flags with gentoo more easily and I feel comfortable with aptitude, while I haven't tried gentoo's emerge yet.

Bah, thoughts?

PS. KDE4.1 rules. Using it at the moment.

[Inferied]

Apt works, but you'll have to edit /ect/apt/sources.list to get all reps working...

[Barrucadu]

I was wondering this a while ago, I was going to recompile my entire Arch system and thought "When you get down to it, what really differentiates distros?"
I ended up compiling a custom kernel, a few hundred packages, and editing my init scripts completely. I came to the conclusion that the package manager is what makes the distro.

[Delever]

I would define a distro as sum of distributor, packages, philosophy and community.

[Brunellus]

you have Ubuntu. You have Gentoo if you use Portage. end.