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