More specifically, Portage. I know use flags and “optimization” are all the hype, but really, would the average user even see a benefit from customizing all their use flags? Especially a benefit that compensates for the constant compilation?

I installed it once to help grow my e-peen, but immediately switched back to Arch after watching my system compile.

Those who daily drive it, do compilation and use flags annoy you, and do you see any real benefit?

  • neuromancer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re getting to control over what is to be built and what’s not, and since softwares are compiled and optimised according to my hardware, they are lighter and faster with less attack surface.

    How would in decrease the attack surface?

    You need not only need the application and required libraries, you also need the full tool chain to build it, I don’t see how this doesn’t drastically increase the attack surface.

    • 30021190@lemmy.cloud.aboutcher.co.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because you can compile parts out of many programs and suites; you can also change dependencies, such as never including audio support or MP3 libs for anything. Sure it means no sound but if you’re on a system without speakers then it’s no real loss and you’ve reduced your attack surface.

      • neuromancer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You still need all the tools need to compile, which you don’t need if you only use binaries. The resulting binary might be smaller, but the overall process is much larger.

        Unless you are going to do a security audit on each step of the build process, I don’t see how you are reducing the attack surface.