| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:43:47PM +0200, Penguin Lover Nikos Chantziaras squawked: |
| 2 |
> If you think it's worth the hassle, why not. Personally, the only |
| 3 |
> reason I would build from source on such a slow system is to get a |
| 4 |
> 64-bit build, since the -bin package seems to be 32-bit. That means the |
| 5 |
> GUI is going to look like ass on AMD64 (due to lack of 32-bit versions |
| 6 |
> of the Gtk theme engines.) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Actually, why is it that upstream does not provide 64bit binaries? (It |
| 9 |
always bothers me to see my wife's Windows 7 machines running a copy |
| 10 |
of firefox marked, in parenthesis, 32 bit.) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> If you're on 32-bit to begin with, and you're building with "pgo" |
| 13 |
> enabled, then my guess is that the performance compared to the -bin |
| 14 |
> package is about the same. But as I said previously, this can be easily |
| 15 |
> tested by running a browser benchmark, such as this: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> You could compare the results of the -bin package vs your self-compiled one. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I should definitely do that. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
W |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire |
| 26 |
et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton |
Archives