| 1 |
In message <c1CfJ-6Js-7@×××××××××××××.it>, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Whenever I see a write-up of Gentoo, it's describe as a system |
| 4 |
> similar to BSD "ports" where you build packages from source. |
| 5 |
> The main benefit claimed for this approach is that you get |
| 6 |
> better performance because all executables are optimized for |
| 7 |
> exactly the right instruction set. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Where did that bit of apocrypha come from, and why is it |
| 10 |
> parroted by so many people? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It is not as apocryphal as you suggest! |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
About 9 years ago I had a couple of boxes based on AMD K6-3 processors. No |
| 15 |
distributors built binaries for the K6 architecture; when I installed SuSE on |
| 16 |
a K6 it always used base-model Pentium packages, which ensured that |
| 17 |
instruction sets such as MMX and 3DNow! were never used. The machine ran like |
| 18 |
a clogged drain. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
When I installed Gentoo on those boxes, about 5 years ago, it was a |
| 21 |
revelation. Everything was compiled for the K6-3 processor, thus using its |
| 22 |
full instruction repertoire. Programs that took tens of seconds to respond |
| 23 |
when installed from binary RPMs suddenly responded instantly. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So, your "apocrypha" are other people's "revealed truth". ... :-) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Regards |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Dave [RLU#314465] |
| 31 |
====================================================== |
| 32 |
dwnoon@××××××××.com (David W Noon) |
| 33 |
====================================================== |
Archives