lameth wrote: > I remember reading that most experienced linux users believe that > programs run best if you download the source code and compile the code > on your own machine. Is this true, do programs you compile on your own > machine run best? Or is it just a matter of knowing the program and your > computer a little better for having gone through the process of > compilation?
Back when my machines didn't matter I did this mostly as an ego/geek thing. IE: I'm geekier than thou since I compile everything myself! However, now that I run production machines my values have changed slightly. :) FWIW, I used to go straight to the source tarballs. With all the interdependancies out there now this is truly a nightmare. The need to do a security update on Apache would have a nasty trickle down effect on many of the mods I used, and compiled in statically since it was 1/1000th of 1% "faster". Uh. No, now I like "apt-get update" and "apt-get upgrade". Stable branch only, thank you very much. That said, I'm considering doing some benchmarks with OpenSSL. I keep hearing that _maybe_ compiling OpenSSL for you specific platform will have Big Performance Yeilds(tm). Though actually putting that idea into production will have to wait until my systems are so loaded that might make a difference. The only component that *will* be hugely impacted is the kernel. However, the good Debian developers alread provide a nice assortment of kernels for vitually every x86 compatible chip out there (and several non-x86 archs as well). So, after all that, I think compiling stuff yourself can be very educational, and depending on what you're using your system for, perhaps fun as well. But better? Well, I'm not so sure. The difference between a 486/66 and a Pentium 100 was pretty huge. The difference between an Pentium III 1Ghz and an Athlon XP 1800 is pretty small. Just my $0.042. (Inflation, ya know.) Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
