any use to build from source?

[Renato Marques]

    Hi,
    When I was using 4.1 release, removing just the hardware that I was not
using and building the Kernel gave me mutch better performance.
    I Dont know about internals so, probabily, this is not true anymore.
    Anyway, I could mount a DNS Server on a Pentium 75 Mhz with 16MB,
because the GENERIC Kernel was using about 4MB and the compiled one 2,5MB.
Samba had a much better performance too...
    That's about the Kernel, when I install any serious application  I
always compile from source, so I get the last stable release and no one from
the Ports collection, beside the fact that normaly I have to turn on/off
some options.


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>