| 1 |
On 23/02/12 22:11, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building from |
| 7 |
>>> source are constrained in resources to achieve this and have to resort to |
| 8 |
>>> installing bin packages. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I doubt that the bin package will be slower than the one compiled from |
| 11 |
>> source. I predict the reverse, in fact. The bin package will perform |
| 12 |
>> better. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Why don't you test it with an online browser benchmark? You can |
| 15 |
>> quickpkg the current installed version, emerge the -bin version. You |
| 16 |
>> can later emerge -C the -bin version and emerge -K the one you quickpkg'ed. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I try to avoid pre-compiled software for the opposite reason of what you |
| 19 |
> think. What makes you think that software designed and compiled to |
| 20 |
> utilize all the good parts of my system would run slower than a software |
| 21 |
> designed to run on any CPU/hardware out there? This is the first time I |
| 22 |
> ever saw anyone make this claim. Can you shed some light on this? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Already did in my other post. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Also, your assumption is wrong. Binary packages are not designed to run |
| 27 |
on any CPU and hardware out there. They are designed to run on specific |
| 28 |
architectures, and with a minimum requirement of some specific CPU. |
| 29 |
firefox-bin will certainly not run on a PPC or MIPS machine running |
| 30 |
Linux, for example. |
Archives