On Wednesday 30 November 2005 03:00 am, a tiny voice compelled Uwe Klosa to write: > I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more stable on > my system.
I've installed OO both ways in the past and stability hasn't been an issue. The only thing I noticed is that the compiled version opens faster than the binary version. As I remember, the difference was roughly 7 seconds. It seems like an eternity these days but if I weigh that 7 seconds against the time it took to compile, I would have to open the application around 4,100 times to make the 8 hours it took to compile worth my while. > > Uwe > > Kristian Poul Herkild wrote: > > Joseph wrote: > >> Is there a benefit of compiling Openoffice 2.0 vs. installing from > >> binary. > >> > >> I've AMD 1.8Mhz with 1Gb or Ram and it has been compiling OO 2.0 for > >> 7-hours already. > > > > It's likely to take somewhere around 8-11 hours on such a machine. It > > took somewhere around 10 hours for me on a 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB > > RAM. > > > > Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's > > more fun ;) > > > > - > > Kristian Poul Herkild -- Regards, Ernie 100% Microsoft and Intel free 08:23:40 up 18:10, 5 users, load average: 0.09, 0.23, 0.35 Linux 2.6.5-gentoo-r1 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
