Xorg 6.7 - Binary or Source?
This is a discussion about Xorg 6.7 - Binary or Source? in the Everything Linux category; I use Fedora Core 2 (recent Linux convert, so be patient. . . ). I'm wondering why so much of FC2 comes compiled for i386 machines. . . specifically, if the kernel benefits from being compiled to suit a particular CPU wouldn't other major system components benefit also? I can see that compiling something like gedit ...
I use Fedora Core 2 (recent Linux convert, so be patient...). I'm wondering why so much of FC2 comes compiled for i386 machines...specifically, if the kernel benefits from being compiled to suit a particular CPU wouldn't other major system components benefit also? I can see that compiling something like gedit to suit an i686 might not yield any tangible benefit...but why not something like X?
Would it make a difference or am I misunderstanding something here?
Thx...
Would it make a difference or am I misunderstanding something here?
Thx...
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Sep 6
Sep 10
0
4 minutes
Responses to this topic
OP
Any opinions?
howdy anthonyi
I'm not using Fedora but I suppose we all have seen i386-packages - regardless of the distro. As I personally "live by" the compiler I have never asked myself this question, as nearly all software packages that I use get custom-built anyway.
But as a quickshot, I'd just say the i386-compilations are the most common denominators, in other words: the "size that probably fits (almost) all machines" regardless of SSE, SSE2, 3dNow, HyperThreading and what-not-else.
You are quite right, when you think that you can gain quite some performance by using packages that are compiled with some sturdy optimizations (I still can remember my jawbone going down, watching a P3/400 under KDE after a Gentoo stage-1 installation with heavy optimization that took 3 days but performed mindbogglingly well).
Despite that: higher optimization also means reduced compatibility. So it would not make much sense to install a i686-compiled package when you want to run the content on a i386-based machine. That's what source packages are for in Linux.
Moreover: profiling an average machine would show something like this ...
Code:
As you can see: As long as we humans take our sweet time, the vast majority of the users will be quite happy even with i386-compiled packages - and the speed-hungry? Well, those just grab the src-archive and GCC 3.4, crank up the "-O" parameter and have lift-off a couple of days later
have a nice day
ps: and if you are now asking yourself "but then why is blackpage compiling every package?" - well: because I'm a geeky nerd, what did you think?
// edited as typing capabilities have gone temporarily berserk
[Edited by blackpage on 2004-09-09 15:33:54]
I'm not using Fedora but I suppose we all have seen i386-packages - regardless of the distro. As I personally "live by" the compiler I have never asked myself this question, as nearly all software packages that I use get custom-built anyway.
But as a quickshot, I'd just say the i386-compilations are the most common denominators, in other words: the "size that probably fits (almost) all machines" regardless of SSE, SSE2, 3dNow, HyperThreading and what-not-else.
You are quite right, when you think that you can gain quite some performance by using packages that are compiled with some sturdy optimizations (I still can remember my jawbone going down, watching a P3/400 under KDE after a Gentoo stage-1 installation with heavy optimization that took 3 days but performed mindbogglingly well).
Despite that: higher optimization also means reduced compatibility. So it would not make much sense to install a i686-compiled package when you want to run the content on a i386-based machine. That's what source packages are for in Linux.
Moreover: profiling an average machine would show something like this ...
Code:
wasted runtime ...=> due to non-optimized code: 0.00003141592%=> waiting on some friggin user-input: 99.99996858408%
As you can see: As long as we humans take our sweet time, the vast majority of the users will be quite happy even with i386-compiled packages - and the speed-hungry? Well, those just grab the src-archive and GCC 3.4, crank up the "-O" parameter and have lift-off a couple of days later
have a nice day
ps: and if you are now asking yourself "but then why is blackpage compiling every package?" - well: because I'm a geeky nerd, what did you think?
// edited as typing capabilities have gone temporarily berserk
[Edited by blackpage on 2004-09-09 15:33:54]
I'm too pragmatic to do a huge amount of compilation unless I have to, but, I can definately respect a person who does and still understands the overall reality of the situation
Love your 'machine profile'
Love your 'machine profile'
OP
Thanks, blackpage.
I guess I'm pretty happy with the performance of the majority of the packages on my FC2 box...but there are a number of optimizations I'd like to do...
Kernel (done)
GIMP (done)
X (not done and looks a bit more complex than the above)
GNOME/Metacity/KDE
...basically the user look and feel impacting components and GIMP because I manipulate a lot of digital images.
The thing with FC2's rpm system is that it's not made that easy to compile a multi-package beast like X or KDE. I'm thinking I may go with a stage 1 Gentoo install.
I take the points about more time being wasted waiting for user input...but my reasons for wanting to do this are kind of like yours anyway...I'm just a lot further down the learning curve!
Thanks for the help, guys.
I guess I'm pretty happy with the performance of the majority of the packages on my FC2 box...but there are a number of optimizations I'd like to do...
Kernel (done)
GIMP (done)
X (not done and looks a bit more complex than the above)
GNOME/Metacity/KDE
...basically the user look and feel impacting components and GIMP because I manipulate a lot of digital images.
The thing with FC2's rpm system is that it's not made that easy to compile a multi-package beast like X or KDE. I'm thinking I may go with a stage 1 Gentoo install.
I take the points about more time being wasted waiting for user input...but my reasons for wanting to do this are kind of like yours anyway...I'm just a lot further down the learning curve!
Thanks for the help, guys.
