quote: Original post by Oluseyi

quote: I dont want to use mozilla composer, mozilla calander, so I tell Portage to leave that crap out when compiling. Ergo, performance gain.

LOL. No.

When I speak of performance, I don''t include the process of compiling the applications. I refer strictly to using the apps. You should, too.

LOL, but no. I mean, the application (mozilla, in this case) will function faster without the extra bloat that comes from having the composer or calander (or anything else extra that I would never use anyway; keyword: extra - I can leave anything extra out when compiling from source.)

I run Source Mage, another (IMHO more accessible) source-based distribution.

In my mind, there are two virtues to source-based distribution -- optional dependencies and speed of packaging. Performance has nothing to do with either. As mentioned, performance is somewhat overestimated by source-based distribution users.

In a source-based distribution, one can compile any configuration of optional dependencies. In a binary distribution, you get messes like PHP requiring ImageMagick (PHP can optionally generate images, usually for things like counters), or Gimp requiring Python, Perl, and Tcl (optional scripting capabilities). Granted, this isn''t much of a concern anymore, with apt-rpm and apt-get, but they exacerbate the download time, sometimes substantially.

In Source Mage, at least, one can update a package by changing the version string to the current value. Sometimes, creating a package is equally simple. (copying and modifying a text file). This is really what I value most, and why I choose a source-based distribution.

It is theoretically possible for a source-based distribution to update by sending patches between the currently installed version and the latest version. There''s no way to easily do this in Source Mage, at present, but for most software, a patch between versions is tiny, and so compiling may be faster than downloading (or easier, for problematic connections).

quote: Really? Are you categorically sure of this, or do you just believe it because it "feels" right?

I have a "feeling" that I can categorically assume that there are people (doesnt have to be many, but thats not the point here) out in the world that want to have the best performing linux on there desktop, if you deny that then we should end this part of the debate.

quote: The people who take advantage of Linux the most are those running industrial-level applications

I guess I could say the samething to you "Really? Are you categorically sure of this, or do you just believe it because it "feels" right?", ignore it since its a pointless comment. But I agree fully, these companies need top of the line performance, but it is a company and time is money, and money isnt easy to come by.

I think why this debate is not on track is that you are thinking about linux in the business I am thinking of linux in the home. In the home, I think my statements hold well, for a hobby, but for the business they dont hold up well.

quote: But you said:

quote: I think the emerge is just sweet, and this makes linux so much easier then any other flavor out there.

Why would you say such a thing if you haven't even used all of the most popular distros (Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian)?

I have used various flavors, Redhat 6-8, mandrake 8-9, and gentoo. This is a personal opinion you should see that as I said "I think" even if I did use suse or debian and I said I think xxx is better then xxx then you have no right to tell me that my opinion is wrong. As I said before take my words only from my own experience, I am not a linux user like you are I am sure. I am more of a windows users, yet I still have my thoughts based on my own experiences. I didnt mean this reply in a mean or threating way, even if it seems so.

quote: Compiling doesn't give you control unless you know what you're compiling.

I think this answers my statement.

quote: You want control? Learn how the system works overall. Learn how to tune and adjust its behavior. Learn how to maximize resources. Set your runtime (not compile-time) environment to help you accomplish as much as possible as quickly as possible.

Compile-time is part of learning how the system works overall.

quote: Uh, it's a couple of shell commands, not rocket science. It's even GUI-driven if you use menuconfig or xmenuconfig.

When I compiled Gentoo It was my first time doing such a thing with linux and it didnt have or I didnt use a GUI, so I was following the instrustions, everything was command based. After I saw that it took about 33hours to compile what I had selected I havent recompiled the OS. So its been a while since I played with it.

quote: I only care that honest and rational representations be made in macro arguments. I responded (and continue to respond) to this thread to refute arguments re the superiority/desirability of Gentoo as a Linux distribution. Nothing that has been said since has invalidated any of my original arguments.

noted

quote: On the derivative issues of productivity and performance, no one in the compile-it camp has made any viable points to prove that compiling from source reliably improves either property. (In fact, compiling from source has no impact whatsoever on productivity after installation, and is only a negative prior to then. The argument that a compiled, as opposed to packaged, app will run faster and thus enable the user to do more cannot be verified since it cannot be proven that compilation yields noticeable speed gains.)

Then if it cant be varified then I will accept your opinion and drop this part of the debate.

quote: Define bloat.

You got it right, just extra stuff that isnt needed on a system, but just to keep this going longer (which I dont really want) is it possible to edit the code and take out what you dont want, say I wanted a command based OS, with support for my-sql and thats it, I have keyboard support, video and network support, also anything that is needed to support these few items, could I "edit the code files to only support these options?"

I am going a bit lower then just the apps, but I am just making a point. Even if its realistic or isnt.



Thnx for fixing the quotes.


EDIT: Fixed some of the format

[edited by - dalik on February 19, 2004 12:34:29 PM]

quote: Original post by aftermath
I mean, the application (mozilla, in this case) will function faster without the extra bloat that comes from having the composer or calander (or anything else extra that I would never use anyway; keyword: extra - I can leave anything extra out when compiling from source.)

Interesting. You do, of course, realize that Composer, Mail and Calendar aren''t compiled into the same binary as the browser in virtually every instance? So all you''ve done is opt not to install certain packages (and then compile the ones you did opt to install from source).

I''m not saying there''s anything wrong with doing so. I''m saying that there isn''t necessarily any benefit in doing so over selecting the same from packages.

quote: Original post by Dalik
I have a "feeling" that I can categorically assume that there are people (doesnt have to be many, but thats not the point here) out in the world that want to have the best performing linux on there desktop, if you deny that then we should end this part of the debate.

Don''t be petulant. There are obviously people who want the best-performing machine possible in whatever context they use it, be it desktop, palmtop, cell phone, workstation or coffeemaker. But you didn''t make such restrictions when you made the original statement, so don''t try and pass off retroactive application as though I intentionally misrepresented you. Say what you mean, Mean what you say.

quote:

quote: The people who take advantage of Linux the most are those running industrial-level applications

I guess I could say the samething to you "Really? Are you categorically sure of this, or do you just believe it because it "feels" right?"

Based on the information I''ve seen and based on what I know of the types of applications being run by various classes of users, I''m pretty sure that I can categorically state that industrial applications of Linux require better performance, on average, than individual. And I don''t think you can disagree with that (and retain my respect), since you yourself go on to say:

quote: ...ignore it since its a pointless comment.

Then why make it? Just to "score point"?

If you have something to say, say it. If you don''t, don''t. I don''t respond to comments/statements to which I have no rejoinders or anything to add. You should do likewise.

quote: I think why this debate is not on track is that you are thinking about linux in the business I am thinking of linux in the home. In the home, I think my statements hold well, for a hobby, but for the business they dont hold up well.

But the debate was never restricted to Linux in the home. The debate was about Linux across the board, and mine hold up across the board. Yours don''t, so you should concede the fact and move on to something else.

quote: I have used various flavors, Redhat 6-8, mandrake 8-9, and gentoo. This is a personal opinion you should see that as I said "I think" even if I did use suse or debian and I said I think xxx is better then xxx then you have no right to tell me that my opinion is wrong.

I didn''t say your opinion was wrong. Furthermore, your sentence construction doesn''t actually say what you think it says:

quote: I think the emerge is just sweet, and this makes linux so much easier then any other flavor out there.

This says "I think the emerge is just sweet" and "the emerge being sweet makes Linux so much easier than any other flavor out there." You think it says "I think the emerge is just sweet" and "I think the emerge being sweet makes Linux so much easier than any other flavor out there." I''m sorry to get all linguistic-technical on you, but your construction juxtaposes an opinion and an assertion as opposed to concatenating two opinions. (My mom''s a linguist; I can''t help it.) Because text, which is all we have on forums, is such a limited communicative form, it makes sense to expend extra effort to make your position clear.

I see your point. For future reference, let''s try to be a little more clear.

quote: Compile-time is part of learning how the system works overall.

No. Compilation is part of learning how to build the system, which has nothing to do with using the system. Many developers have built libraries that are dependencies of applications they want to use without ever learning how to use said libraries themselves.

quote: When I compiled Gentoo It was my first time doing such a thing with linux and it didnt have or I didnt use a GUI, so I was following the instrustions, everything was command based. After I saw that it took about 33hours to compile what I had selected I havent recompiled the OS. So its been a while since I played with it.

In my opinion, it is inappropriate to make definitive statements based on limited experience. It is even worse to contradict well-reasoned analyses on the same basis.

quote: You got it right, just extra stuff that isnt needed on a system, but just to keep this going longer (which I dont really want) is it possible to edit the code and take out what you dont want? Say I wanted a command based OS, with support for my-sql and thats it, I have keyboard support, video and network support, also anything that is needed to support these few items, could I "edit the code files to only support these options"?

You could, but it isn''t necessary. Just like with aftermath''s Mozilla example, most of these things aren''t built into each other. The kernel supports loadable modules, allowing functionality to be dynamically added (to an extent). Higher-level stuff like MySQL is userland, not kernel space, so there''s no need to edit the code at all! An experienced Linux sysadmin could create your config from packages in maybe an hour, maybe less. You''d still be rummaging through source files (for no good reason) trying to do the same.

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Don't be petulant. There are obviously people who want the best-performing machine possible in whatever context they use it, be it desktop, palmtop, cell phone, workstation or coffeemaker. But you didn't make such restrictions when you made the original statement, so don't try and pass off retroactive application as though I intentionally misrepresented you. Say what you mean, Mean what you say.

Noted, I will be much more careful when I make statements.

quote: Based on the information I've seen and based on what I know of the types of applications being run by various classes of users, I'm pretty sure that I can categorically state that industrial applications of Linux require better performance, on average, than individual. And I don't think you can disagree with that (and retain my respect), since you yourself go on to say:

I agree with you.

quote: I think why this debate is not on track is that you are thinking about linux in the business I am thinking of linux in the home. In the home, I think my statements hold well, for a hobby, but for the business they dont hold up well.

But the debate was never restricted to Linux in the home. The debate was about Linux across the board, and mine hold up across the board. Yours don't, so you should concede the fact and move on to something else.

Fair enough, there was no restrictions to the our debate and I wasnt expecting it to go this far, so let this section end.

quote: I'm sorry to get all linguistic-technical on you, but your construction juxtaposes an opinion and an assertion as opposed to concatenating two opinions. (My mom's a linguist; I can't help it.) Because text, which is all we have on forums, is such a limited communicative form, it makes sense to expend extra effort to make your position clear.

As long as you take the time to understand what I am saying. Which is rare on these boards in general.

quote: juxtaposes

I like this word I should take some time to look it up. As a side note, I bet your really good at scrabble.

quote: In my opinion, it is inappropriate to make definitive statements based on limited experience.

This is why you wont see me in a guru chat room, I have limited experience as I said before, we can have a debate about it and you can prove me wrong, this is what we are doing now.


I just want to ask you this question and I am sure you will have some in reply, but all I want is a yes and no response.

Is compiling from source, passing optimizations settings based on your hardware, going to run at all faster then a non-optimized compile? Yes or No.

This might seem a little unfair of a question but its where I was going with this whole thing, I believe it is faster if you compile your whole system( I understand that parts of the code cant be optimized per system, but other parts of the code can be, and this is where I was getting too. I dont care at all about productivity, I am talking about better performance, from being able to take more requests against your database, to being able to have more active players on your game server. Whatever the reason for doing such a thing.


[edited by - dalik on February 19, 2004 4:31:55 PM]

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Interesting. You do, of course, realize that Composer, Mail and Calendar aren''t compiled into the same binary as the browser in virtually every instance? So all you''ve done is opt not to install certain packages (and then compile the ones you did opt to install from source).

Just to critique, they are compiled into the same binary, however this has ZERO effect in the end because of the way the VM works. (the parts of the binary are loaded on the fly, so if you never use composer, the parts of the binary that make up composer are never loaded off the disk. obviously, this is the simplified explanation)

So, your fact was wrong, but your arguement is correct.

quote: Original post by C-Junkie

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Interesting. You do, of course, realize that Composer, Mail and Calendar aren''t compiled into the same binary as the browser in virtually every instance? So all you''ve done is opt not to install certain packages (and then compile the ones you did opt to install from source).

Just to critique, they are compiled into the same binary, however this has ZERO effect in the end because of the way the VM works. (the parts of the binary are loaded on the fly, so if you never use composer, the parts of the binary that make up composer are never loaded off the disk. obviously, this is the simplified explanation)

So, your fact was wrong, but your arguement is correct.

I wasn''t aware of that... Thanks!

quote: Original post by Dalik
I just want to ask you this question and I am sure you will have some in reply, but all I want is a yes and no response.

Is compiling from source, passing optimizations settings based on your hardware, going to run at all faster then a non-optimized compile? Yes or No.

Unfortunately, the answer is Maybe. We hope it will and we can determine that, on average, it does, but we can''t definitively make the assertion across the board. So, maybe.

quote: This might seem a little unfair of a question but its where I was going with this whole thing, I believe it is faster if you compile your whole system( I understand that parts of the code cant be optimized per system, but other parts of the code can be, and this is where I was getting too. I dont care at all about productivity, I am talking about better performance, from being able to take more requests against your database, to being able to have more active players on your game server. Whatever the reason for doing such a thing.

Again, maybe. However, I wanted to point out that structural optimizations (using a different algorithm/data structure) will yield more performance gains, on average, than compiler optimizations.

quote: Unfortunately, the answer is Maybe. We hope it will and we can determine that, on average, it does, but we can''t definitively make the assertion across the board. So, maybe.

noted

quote: Again, maybe. However, I wanted to point out that structural optimizations (using a different algorithm/data structure) will yield more performance gains, on average, than compiler optimizations.

noted

I guess this finishes our debate, it was a good experience.

Aye, one of the saner and more civilized ones, especially in Unixland!