Because the time even out. With Source based, you compile it on the fly, and it takes a while. With Binary based, you DL a new version, then install over the old one.
I just think that by installing current right off the bat, you avoid so many other issues, that the additional time spent compiling doesn't matter. As another of my messages message showed, you'll end up compiling lots of extra packages manually even if you use a binary based distro. Kev. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Kline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 11:11 AM Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Linux Work > Kevin, > > It occurs to me that you keep saying that compile time is irrelevent. Yet this > discussion is based on your comparison of the time it takes to install Linux vs. > Windows. If you are talking about install times, then how is compile time not > relevent when you need to compile Gentoo in order to install it? Also, how can > you sit there and say that comparing the time it takes to install a binary OS > vs. a source OS is a good comparison? That is a completely rediculous > comparison. I'm not trying to bash Gentoo by saying that Red Hat is better or > anything (I've never even used Gentoo), I'm just saying that comparing Red > Hat/SuSE/Debian/Mandrake, or any binary OS install to Windows is a fair > comparison, unless you are building Windows from source. > > Jesse > > > >
