
Permalink for comment 302847
Member since:

This old argument has been pushed over and over and I'm getting seriously tired of it.

You can argue to death that compiling from source is a better alternative, but you can't argue against the facts that it:

1) is more resource intensive in a given time span
2) takes longer time
3) isn't inheritly more secure
4) doesn't by definition/design mean more options
5) is in at least 99% of the cases done for the same 2
architectures (i386, x86-64/amd64)
6) of those 2 architectures generally is optimized to
run on i686, or it does not run faster
7) does not by definition/design run faster
8) does not by definition/design allow for better
9) ad infinitum ad nausseum...

In other words, it's not the holy grail of anything, except for the few that understand and _actually read_ the source code, which I bet you don't (because statistically I'll be right), and in the _specific_ case where the developers didn't bother to write the software with an interface that allows for a similar level of configurability.

FreeBSD is great, stable, useful and all kinds of other nice things, but the reason Yahoo isn't complaining has nothing to do with their having troubles with it or not. A large corporation doesn't tell its customers (and the world) that they're having troubles; they solve them internally or hire more people to solve the problems at hand, or - in one particular case I can think of - they silently ignore and publicly deny the existence of such problems and rename "security holes repair" to "service pack".

Reply Parent Score: 1