R U a source or binary person

greetings

I prefer compiling software from source and only use pre-compiled binaries if I am unable to do so from source. What is your preferred way of installing software????????????????????

Binary. It's faster to install, and with 64-bit software, there's nowhere near as many options that can be added/omitted to improve performance compared to 32-bit. Since I made the jump to 64-bit quite a few years ago now, I only compile software that isn't available in binary. And even then, I'm more likely to find an alternative that is rather than compile from source.

my experience is somewhat limited and while I do use mostly binary packages I've found that packages compiled from source tend to be more stable and/or reliable. I base that on programs I've found That when installed from a distro's binary repo's either wouldn't run at all or ran but were buggy, while if I compiled the same program from source it worked flawlessly.
Others might have different experiences but that is mine.

I tend to compile from source. It's usually both quick and easy, and I can always get the very latest version of the software if that's what I need. Also, dependency issues tend to show themselves during compilation, and the error messages are usually quite clear about what file or library is missing or needs to be upgraded.

Having said that, I've recently gotten into the habit of making packages of the newly compiled programs and then installing that package, rather than just running "make install". It makes it slightly easier to remove or upgrade the software later on.

Binary through the distro's central package management system.

Ever tried to keep a program that you've compiled from source up-to-date as new releases are rolled out? How about 20 of those programs? It gets real old, real fast.

I mostly compile from source. I use slackbuild scripts as much as possible, and most of those compile from source. Unless a binary package comes from a source I trust, I worry about whether it may have been compromised, or might not function correctly on my system. And if I compile from source, I know whether I'm missing any dependencies, and I can choose the build options I want.

I guess I'm a whatever is easiest kind of guy.

On Slackware, I use Slackbuilds as much as possible. On distros with repos, I generally with the package manager.

I am quite willing to compile from sources if I need to. If I must, I generally get the sources from sourceforge, the project homepage, or some other site that has proven itself trustworthy.

I'd probably prefer binary, but i like the flexibility that Gentoo provides, so build-from-source it is.

I like the concept of building from source, alas in my experience i don't know how to do it properly, so i'm not very good at it, so i tend to stick to binary unless i have too. I've only recently begun backporting and editing Debian packages; once i become confident doing that, i may teach my self to compile better, and make my own packages.

Originally Posted by anonymousLQ greetings I prefer compiling software from source and only use pre-compiled binaries if I am unable to do so from source. What is your preferred way of installing software????????????????????

Hello

If I'm running something like Crux or Gentoo, I always build all packages from source. Otherwise, I stick with binaries on most other distros because I become overly impatient with certain package builds from source.

Binaries with dependency checking. But I will use source only when necessary. I recently installed ccrypt from source and tovid from svn

I notice some said slackbuilds, isn't that the same as source installation via a script to automate the process

Originally Posted by Timothy Miller Binary. It's faster to install, and with 64-bit software, there's nowhere near as many options that can be added/omitted to improve performance compared to 32-bit. Since I made the jump to 64-bit quite a few years ago now, I only compile software that isn't available in binary. And even then, I'm more likely to find an alternative that is rather than compile from source.

This.

There's very few reasons to build from source other than "for a challenge". Pretty much the big two are for minimalist programming on small platforms (resurging with the emergence of the Raspberry Pi and Arduino) and security, for ultra-hardened platforms.

Binary/packaged installs are easier to upgrade and remove when something goes wrong or needs to be patched, as well.

I go either way, depending on the system and what I'm able to do. As a Slackware user, I've come to appreciate slackbuilds.org, which wraps up program source for not-included-by-Pat software in the same "SlackBuild" scripts that Pat uses for Slackware itself; another program called sbopkg automates the download and installation processes as well, making for a quite convenient build/installation process for source-distributed software.

I think now that I'm more comfortable with how source tarballs tend to work (i.e. "./configure && make && make install" unless README says otherwise), I'm starting to enjoy the idea of being able to customize my software to my heart's content. Yay FOSS!

Use packages for the most part, though if I want to become familiar with the software or configure it granularly, I compile. I usually compile Apache.

I will use both when and where appropriate