On Friday 04 April 2008 01:50:02 am Ivan Savcic wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Chris Walters <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Ivan Savcic wrote: > > | Sorry for that personal message, I misclicked. It wasn't aimed at you > > | specifically. > > > > Apology accepted. I am sure most everyone, myself included, has made > > similar > > mistakes. > > Thanks. > > > | When Debian Etch was released, I wanted to give Debian a shot again in > > | some server scenarios, because of it's stability, security and ease of > > | upgrading. I now deeply respect the concept of "stable", having been > > | through security-through-bleeding-edge concept of Gentoo, for example. > > | Long End of Life of stable Debian seems priceless. Yet, on the other > > | hand, Backports filled the gap caused by some oldish packages and in > > | general there are a lot of packages for people to use. > > > > I remember the days of Sarge. I used backports then, as well as > > compiling source. Why? Is it that I have a lot of time on my hands? > > No. It is/was to > > streamline the package, and optimize it for my processor. The main > > problem with precompiled distros, IMHO, is that because the packages, > > especially the > > kernel, have to run on a multitude of different systems, they tend to be > > larger > > and slower than if you compile those packages, optimized for your > > system. > > Luckily, there are AMD64 and IA64 flavors of Debian. Shame there > aren't (stable?) versions for i686, Athlon and P3/P4. Do you have evidence that would justify this thinking? Debian already has packages optimized for sub-architectures, but only for the packages it actually makes a difference on. Optimizing the entire distribution is a waste of DD time, and mirror diskspace for truly epsilon gains. -- Paul Johnson email@example.com
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.