I challenge you to show me numbers proving that installing from source is faster than installing a binary and upgrading it. That's simply not true, installing a binary really takes very little time, and generally only a few things need to be updated.
Le 2 D�cembre 2002 12:32, vous avez �crit : > 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
