The reason the bsd port takes longer to build is that it has to be compiled
first. Redhat uses pre-compiled binaries (the rpm). You can download
"packages" under FreeBSD - I like compiling from the ports so that I am
certain I get it linked against the right version of the libraries.
I used to start a compilation of kde before going on vacation though, it took
easily 15 hours on a duron 700.
I have switched to fluxbox since, which takes under 5 minutes to compile and
install and does what I need :)
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 12:59:36PM -0800, Joe Pokupec wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> Thanks for your input and explanations. Here's the part I don't understand
> (very simplistic view). Both machines previously had Red Hat 9 installed on
> them. I decided that I didn't want to pay Red Hat for their up2date feature
> on each machine and decided to go back to BSD with a GUI so I could go back
> to the trusty, and free ports feature(s)...
> RH9 took less than 15 minutes to install and boot for each machine. It has
> the Blue Wave GUI and I would imagine is pretty bloated as well. So, from
> this point of view, how can one OS take 15 minutes, while the other take 15
> hours (and counting)?
> The machines are Pentium II, 333Mhz and 400 Mhz units (both are Dells). Each
> machine has 256 Megs of RAM, and one of the machines has a 60 gig drive...
> > Joe Pokupec wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >> I installed 5.1 on 2 separate machines yesterday. After the general install
> >> (which included all the Ports), I went to /usr/ports/x11/kde3 and did a:
> > What are these machines? Processor? RAM?
> >> make install clean after reading tfm.
> >> The install has been going for over 11 hours now. It's not hung up, the text
> >> is scrolling by... On both machines...
> >> Is there something I should know?
> > Yes, KDE is big ... Huge ... Like ... try to imagine more code than you
> > could ever imagine, and KDE might actually be bigger than that. See ...
> > if you took the empire state building and put the statue of liberty on top
> > of it and put them both underneath the New River Gorge Bridge, the space
> > left over wouldn't be as big as KDE. If you took all the code in KDE and
> > laid it end to end it would reach all the way to the sun, catch on fire and
> > burn your house down (although it would take 8 minutes for the fire to get
> > from the sun to your house, so you'd probably be able to get out in time)
> > The upshot is that KDE could easily take several days to compile if you're
> > dealing with less than hefty hardware. Let us know the details of the
> > hardware and we'll make some guesses on how long it should take to compile.
> >> I can re-install 5.1, 5.0, or any version on these machines if necessary,
> >> but I'm somewhat curious about this huge length of install time...
> > I doubt the version of FreeBSD is the cause. Use ALT+F2 to switch to
> > another console on one of the machines and run "top" to get an idea of
> > what's causing the problem. If the build process is causing a lot of
> > swapping, it's probably going to take 6 or 7 years for KDE to build.
> > <disclaimer>
> > I am not an insurance salesman, if your house burns down due to anything
> > you've read in this email, I make no guarantees that your homeowner's
> > policy will cover it.
> > I'm also not responsible for personal injury or damage to the statue of
> > liberty caused by trying to balance it on top of the empire state building.
> > (I still say that damn thing sways when the wind blows!)
> > Do not try this at home. Offer void where prohibited.
> > </disclaimer>
> > --
> > Bill Moran
> > Potential Technologies
> > http://www.potentialtech.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"