Re: [ALACPP] GCC and friends

[Christopher Smith <x@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 18:14, Jon Stewart wrote:
> Only swap and /home are encrypted, though. Everything else under / is on 
> an unencrypted, un-RAIDed disk. It would be interesting to compare 
> compiles between the two.

Well, hopefully you aren't hitting swap too much. If that's the case
then this shouldn't be too bad. I thought you had the whole thing
encrypted (questionable security value given that most of your files
would be known plaintext).

> > Believe me, if you think you know what's going on with your system
> > when you install Slackware, you'll learn sooo much more when you install
> > Gentoo. ;-) From a security standpoint, I think you'll find Gentoo's
> > kernel includes a lot more patches for doing security stuff than
> > Slackware.
> 
> I also find the fine-grained dependency checking in Gentoo intriguing. 
> However, I don't buy the "everything's compiled for your particular 
> machine, so it's way faster" argument (not that you're making this 
> argument :-). In the aggregate, I suspect Gentoo machines have a higher 
> load average than machines running binary distros, due to all the 
> compiling.

Gentoo has an image of being all about the speed, but I agree with you
that the "way faster" case is rediculously overstated. I'd be surprised
if my systems was much more than 5% faster on average because of
processor specific optimizations (and it might even be slower). The real
advantage of a source distribution lies elsewhere. For example, if you
need debug symbols and source code for a particular library, there's
nothing easier. There's the compiler/library version mismatch problem
that magically disappears. That kind of stuff. It just turns out that
code runs better when it's all compiled and linked together with a
consistent configuration that makes sense for you.

> But, hey, Slackware, man. Slack-ware. Instant credibility in the office.

It's all about the geek chic. ;-)

> > I dunno. These days >4GB hardly seems like a large file. :-(
>
> Or 100GB disk images. My company's product stores all of its bookmarks in 
> RAM; when you bookmark every porn graphic on a 100+ GB drive, 32 bit 
> addressing starts to feel the strain.

Sounds like time to buy an Opteron. ;-) Or maybe just store the
bookmarks in a Berkeley DB file.

> > > I use SourceSafe at work, and I find that it is no worse than CVS on a 
> > > day-to-day basis. Which is pretty sad commentary. :-)
> > 
> > Yeah, and suggests SourceSafe has improved dramatically since I last
> > used it. ;-)
> 
> The most common complaint I've heard about SourceSafe from CVS folks is 
> that it only supports exclusive locking; this is the default, true, but 
> it's really easy to turn off. If you turn it off, you've basically got a 
> Windows-only CVS. In my view, they both suck too much.

Oh there are so many other reasons that SourceSafe sucks worse than CVS.
For all I know they've been fixed, but back in the SourceSafe 5 days...
my God! The agony!

--Chris
_______________________________________________
alacpp mailing list
alacpp@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/alacpp