[alerts@infosecnews.org: [ISN] Top Ten Reasons Why Ubuntu, Is Best for Enterprise Use]

[Sunnz]

2007/11/22, David Naylor <blackdragon at highveldmail.co.za>:
> I really, really must be missing something.  Could someone please
> explain this to me:
> Why use open source if you do not even compile from source.  All Linux
> distributions (with the exception of Gentoo which was inspired by
> FreeBSD) distributes binary packages for primary consumption.  What is
> the difference between that and using Windows binary programs?  In
> both cases the source code does not take a part...
>
> I must admit that FreeBSD does distribute binary packages however it
> is much easier (both to compile and stay updated) to use Ports.  I
> have not touched a binary package since RELENG_6_0, everything is now
> compiled.  I get all the software I want with all the options I wish
> to have and all of it compiles and runs without a problem (even with
> -O2 set :-)
>


Binary packages are the _recommended_ way to install software for
OpenBSD, they even *discourage* compiling from source unless you need
optimisation, customisation or otherwise have special circumstances
and know what you are doing.

The reason is that binary packages are guaranteed to work that the
package maintainer generally know what they are doing, and that you
don't get any extra benefit from compile from source in most cases.

I know this is a FreeBSD list, but just like to point out that this
not a "Linux" thing, but just what works for you and what works for
other people.

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0