Title question.

Well, I have been wondering this for QUITE a while now...searched many different websites and can't seem to find an answer....is there anything BETTER about each one? (I'm currently on Mandy 9.2).

Thanks much for any help,
./tiger

Source installations give you much more control over the installation unlike compiled source. I think this is better, others just find it time consuming.

sure source ensures that you compile for the right kernel. this can and most oftenly is crucial. Second source is generaly more availible then binary. This can be nice if you change your kernel or upgrade. In which case all you do is recompile the source. Third souce can show you problems in the program's that if you were so inclined might fix and send the patch to the author. If you did then you would really be a linux user.

ooh! A mod answered me lol

thanks!

"more control over installation"...

I always have wondered about this when I hear it. Whenever I download a program, untar it etc., it always creates its own directories...

...am I missin' something?

./tiger

Before you configure it run:
./configure --help

You'll see what options are available to configure the install such as choosing where you want the files to go and which optional components you want to build.

no tar defaultly decompresses an entire directory this way what you are seeing in say quake2.4/ directory is multiple files and directories arranged just how the program likes it to be. This is because a lot of scripts will use relitive commands such as make ../../../makefile. this would mean that if one does not have the dir's set up right the scripts fail. If you were feeling ambitious or just bored you could move around everything and then fix all the little errors. Now as far as control, think about it. In a binary file what can you easily edit? The Makefile? or how about the Install script? Not really. you could just edit the Makefile and change the version or insert your own script/program with no problem. I have rarely found errors with source compiles. Sure it takes a little time. But the source is usally smaller download and it allows me to tinker.

I would definitely advocate installing from source rather than from binary files. If the package was created on a machine that contains all possible dependencies (even 'optional' dependencies, like for plugins) then you must have them too, even if you have no intention of installing or using the 'optional' ones. At least if you are compiling from source you have control over which 'optional' dependencies are met, and which are not.

I hope that wasn't too convoluted: I am not really alert today