| 1 |
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 03:00 am, a tiny voice compelled Uwe Klosa to |
| 2 |
write: |
| 3 |
> I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more stable on |
| 4 |
> my system. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I've installed OO both ways in the past and stability hasn't been an issue. |
| 7 |
The only thing I noticed is that the compiled version opens faster than the |
| 8 |
binary version. As I remember, the difference was roughly 7 seconds. It seems |
| 9 |
like an eternity these days but if I weigh that 7 seconds against the time it |
| 10 |
took to compile, I would have to open the application around 4,100 times to |
| 11 |
make the 8 hours it took to compile worth my while. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Uwe |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Kristian Poul Herkild wrote: |
| 16 |
> > Joseph wrote: |
| 17 |
> >> Is there a benefit of compiling Openoffice 2.0 vs. installing from |
| 18 |
> >> binary. |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> >> I've AMD 1.8Mhz with 1Gb or Ram and it has been compiling OO 2.0 for |
| 21 |
> >> 7-hours already. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > It's likely to take somewhere around 8-11 hours on such a machine. It |
| 24 |
> > took somewhere around 10 hours for me on a 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB |
| 25 |
> > RAM. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's |
| 28 |
> > more fun ;) |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > - |
| 31 |
> > Kristian Poul Herkild |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Regards, Ernie |
| 35 |
100% Microsoft and Intel free |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
08:23:40 up 18:10, 5 users, load average: 0.09, 0.23, 0.35 |
| 38 |
Linux 2.6.5-gentoo-r1 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives