On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: > Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 18/12/2014 04:45, Harry Putnam wrote: > >> Is there any advantage one way or the other emerging firefox.bin vs > >> firefox? > > > > Depends on your needs: > > […] > > firefox-bin: > > […] > > - con: poor integration with the rest of your system. Files go where > > Mozilla says they go, the devs can only do so much to make stuff standard. > > > > > > As I see it, go with firefox unless you can't spend the cpu cycles to > > build it locally. That's true of almost all -bin packages > > Thanks posters... and especially this compete walk-thru. > > Looks like its best to stick to the gentoo way of doing things and go > with non `bin'.
The only real problem I have with Firefox-bin (though I have no idea whether the non-bin is any better) is that it doesn't install as many icon files, which usually leaves me with too small an icon in KDE’s Alt-Tab switcher. I don’t have this problem on Arch. I once -- just for fun -- compiled Firefox on an Atom N450. This has no effect on the loading time of 20 seconds. ^^ -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any social network. I think, therefore I am at the wrong place.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
