| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On 18/12/2014 04:45, Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> Is there any advantage one way or the other emerging firefox.bin vs firefox? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Depends on your needs: |
| 8 |
> > […] |
| 9 |
> > firefox-bin: |
| 10 |
> > […] |
| 11 |
> > - con: poor integration with the rest of your system. Files go where |
| 12 |
> > Mozilla says they go, the devs can only do so much to make stuff standard. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > As I see it, go with firefox unless you can't spend the cpu cycles to |
| 16 |
> > build it locally. That's true of almost all -bin packages |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Thanks posters... and especially this compete walk-thru. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Looks like its best to stick to the gentoo way of doing things and go |
| 21 |
> with non `bin'. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The only real problem I have with Firefox-bin (though I have no idea whether |
| 24 |
the non-bin is any better) is that it doesn't install as many icon files, |
| 25 |
which usually leaves me with too small an icon in KDE’s Alt-Tab switcher. I |
| 26 |
don’t have this problem on Arch. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I once -- just for fun -- compiled Firefox on an Atom N450. This has no effect |
| 29 |
on the loading time of 20 seconds. ^^ |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ |
| 33 |
Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any social network. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I think, therefore I am at the wrong place. |
Archives