Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 01:50:37 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Lokadamus <lokadamus@gmx.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Probs with FreeBSD 10- Beta/ RC and Xorg Message-ID: <20131228015037.bff71cc4.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <52BE044F.6090800@gmx.de> References: <52BDC486.1060901@gmx.de> <20131228061414.2bc6aef3@X220.alogt.com> <52BE044F.6090800@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 23:50:55 +0100, Lokadamus wrote:
> Compile xorg from ports needs 2 days to compile on my old P4- 3GHz. This
> is not an Option. :(
Excuse my question - is this _for real_? I've been using a P4 2 GHz
for many years and didn't have such high compile times. Yes, sure,
compiling stuff like X.org or OpenOffice may take some hours, even
the OS needs few hours, and a kernel half an hour, but TWO DAYS
really sounds too high...
I've been compiling a FreeBSD v4 OS on a 150 MHz Pentium ("P1")
with 64 MB (Megabytes!) RAM once which required almost 24 hours.
But the time invested was _well_ invested: When everything was
installed, configured, tweaked and tuned, that particular system
would run X, WindowMaker, xmms (MP3 player), mplayer (video),
Opera (web browser), wget and some new compile jobs _at the same
time_ without "skipping audio" - the thing many users of "modern"
computers seem to complain when they move a window across the
screen - and the web browser and GUI still being fully responsive.
>From today's point of view, that sounds like magic. :-)
Of course, you're talking about _today's_ X.org which might be much
more voluminous than X.org 5 years ago. On the other hand, what
about the modularity? X.org isn't a steaming pile of source code
anymore, there are many optional parts.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131228015037.bff71cc4.freebsd>