25 Aug
2004
25 Aug
'04
4:05 p.m.
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 07:04 am, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug, 2004 at 05:58PM +1000, Erik de Castro
Lopo spake thus:
YES. This is a much better argument. If it wasn't for having to keep a source
respository (maybe it's optional) that would save disk space. I used to mount
the cache on an NFS share (only had a 20GB disk). Now if I had an office full
of clones and a build host, that's as good as it gets.
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:56:27 -0400
Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com> wrote:
I appologise on behalf of all Gentooers. It really isn't just for
ricers, they just seem to shout loudest sometimes.
In fact, the real power of Gentoo when it comes to speed aren't these
micro-optimisations and hardcore gcc flag tuning, it's the ability to
remove certain things completely. You don't use Gnome? Well, gentoo
won't compile gnome support into your apps. There are lots and lots
of these things and they do make a difference. It's also much easier
to swap out bits of your OS - replace xfree with x.org, faster
lighter tty gubbins, etc.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:35:12PM -0400, John
Check wrote:
<vent=11/10>
I wish that attitude was more prevalent in the ricer community.
I've been getting emails from a Gentoo ricer suggesting a whole
bunch of "optimisations" for libsndfile. A small number of these
were valid, but the vast majority were not measurably faster as
measured by the benchmark program shipped with libsndfile.
</vent> > > It's completely dwarfed by compile
time.
Are you sure you wanted to say that ;)
Yes. First rule of optimization: don't optimize something that's
statistically irrelevant. Personally, I don't bother, but that's where
the real speed
differences come from. Absolutely nothing is installed unless you
need it or asked for it. No daemons floating around "just in case".
Also a cogent point.
Anyway, I think I'll stop now. If anyone knows
where that article
about the two emacs users comparing their systems is, please send me
a link.
James
> Erik
Me Too!