Re: any use to build from source?
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: Before I answer to this question, I cannot help noting that you don't *HAVE* to compile everything from source. In fact, if you install a RELEASE version of FreeBSD and use pkg_add to install the binary, precompiled packages of just the applications you are going to use... there is absolutely no need to rebuild anything from source. True for the CDs. But once you want to upgrade, things get more complicated. For example, I did not find a package for OpenOffice 1.1.1 in the offical places, although OO is certainly an excellent candidate for a package. This led me to the conclusion that packages, in the FBSD world, are considered less important than the very well maintained ports. I would prefer it to be the other way round: go for packages, unless you want to tweak anything. Now, some of us -- actually, I feel that this is a large percentage of the FreeBSD users, if the amount of questions posted here on this list is of any significance at all -- a great percentage of us likes trimming our installations; we like building our packages with the exact options and feature sets that *we* prefer. In such cases, having the ability to build from source is absolutely marvelous. I agree with that argument, you can tailor the compilation. But it's probably not systematical, but rather the exception. I do not agree with an earlier argument, which was that you could change the source. I have been programming for 25 years now, I am certain that you don't change code, not even in a reasonably sized project, without spending a large amount of time. -pu ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: any use to build from source?
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: Indeed, packages-4-stable, packages-4.10-release on ftp.freebsd.org don't include openoffice. A search at google though yields: http://projects.imp.ch/openoffice/ which does list FreeBSD packages of OO-1.0.3 and OO-1.1.0 :-) Which is not 1.1.1 or the latest 1.1.2. This is preferable from the end-user's perspective, but I think it would exponentially increase the number of precompiled binaries the mirrors would have to keep available. If a port has 3 options and depends on another with 4 options, to host every possible combination that one might want on the FTP site 12 different combinations would have to be built and packaged! With thousands of ports in the tree this means a mind-boggingly huge number of different builds and packages can be built. Is it possible to satisfy all the users with precompiled packages? No. My argument is the other way round: build a package will *all* available options. It will be bloated, but still smaller (in download size) and faster to install. If you like it, keep it, and want to tweak it afterwards, OK, go for it, the investment is worthwile That makes one single package that should suit everybody (unless options are mutually exclusive, of course, but that's not often the case AFAIK). I believe that, for most software, we are just end-users. I have a local patch to fetchmail in my local /usr/ports tree that fixes a bug recent versions have with APOP: It didn't take me more than 15 minutes to write, but then I'm working as a programmer so that's normal. Fetchmail is, IMHO, a reasonably sized project. I'm not saying this to sound insulting to you in any way, or to boast about my ''l33t h4x0r skillz'' -- that's nonsense. I am only bringing it up as a good example where building the port *does* have obvious advantages. That is indeed a reasonable example, but I am not sure there are many of them. I also believe that the original author should, if at all possible, do this correction, because it is useful to many people. -pu ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
any use to build from source?
Hi all, I must say that I was initially interested in the idea of building software from source - but I am kind of loosing it. Certainly, it allows you to compile with the compiler options you want, you are able to optimize the binaries for your CPU, but: does it really matter? Are the speed improvements really visible? Dependencies was another argument: you compile with the correct headers of dependant files, well... is that really so? If you upgraded the dependant binaries, wouldn't you get the same effect? One certain drawback of compiling from source is the compilation time. Large packages like KDE or OpenOffice take ages, so you can't just quickly upgrade a whole system, or a large part of it. I might add that I am more the typical desktop user, not using my machines for real and specific server apps. So, my question is basically: did you, in your experience, find that compiling from source *really* has any serious advantages that make up for the time it takes? -PU ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
any use to build from source?
Hi all, I must say that I was initially interested in the idea of building software from source - but I am kind of loosing it. Certainly, it allows you to compile with the compiler options you want, you are able to optimize the binaries for your CPU, but: does it really matter? Are the speed improvements really visible? Dependencies was another argument: you compile with the correct headers of dependant files, well... is that really so? If you upgraded the dependant binaries, wouldn't you get the same effect? One certain drawback of compiling from source is the compilation time. Large packages like KDE or OpenOffice take ages, so you can't just quickly upgrade a whole system, or a large part of it. I might add that I am more the typical desktop user, not using my machines for real and specific server apps. So, my question is basically: did you, in your experience, find that compiling from source *really* has any serious advantages that make up for the time it takes? -PU ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the big difference between Linux and Unix??
Grauwmans Steven wrote: Linux is UNIX, but why is Fedora Core a Linux and FreeBSD a UNIX? I searched on the internet for an answer, but after visiting 10 sites I gave up. If U could please help me, I'm getting confused. Linux is a kernel. Fedora uses this kernel, and therefore is a Linux *distribution*, such as many other (see http://www.distrowatch.com for example). All distributions (note this term) which use this common kernel are Linux, so to say. All these distributions look and feel like Unix, they are Unix clones. FreeBSD does not use the Linux kernel, but has its own. FreeBSD is based on one of the original Unices, namely BSD Unix. Therefore, it is Unix, but not Linux. HTH. -PU ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X11 fonts
Hi all, a newbie question: I have just installed X11 (Xfree86 4.3), KDE (3.2.2) and Firebird (0.8), and surfing works very well. Compared to my Windows machine however, I think that the fonts look less appealing to what I am used to. So I need a pointer - is this due to 1) the video driver? the card is an ATI Radeon 7500, and I configured the driver 'radeon' which should be correct. 2) the X11 fonts? which one 'look best'? 3) KDE - how can I make it to use the nicer fonts? 4) Firebird? Regards, -PU ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
