I see many apps can be downloadd as an exe or source, would I be right in assuming this source code needs to be compiled?

What are the advantages to this? Does it mean it is custom built for my system so to speak? How the fuck do I compile something?

How do I think of so many questions? Why do I not use google*?




*I know this one, it is more "pleasant" to ask ppl you know, and you often get the answer in plain english LOL

OK, the only thing I have ever compiled (other than things I've written myself) was MAME and the advantage of doing so (over the available binaries) was that I could enable drivers that were not enabled by default and play games that the MAME developers didn't want made public.

The advantage is that you can tailor the installation to your specific needs, if you don't like something (and you know how to) then change it and compile your version. The quick answer is though, unless you're going to amend the source to meet your own needs and you're capable of doing so then you don't need to compile you own version.

(all this assumes you're running a windows system)

OK cheers for that Mr PCA, that was why I asked to get a quick answer. I was not gonna learn how to do all that shit if there were no real advatages to it.

Strange question. I compile all the stuff on my computer myself. Does not everybody?

Customisation and screening what your running is the reason you have source code. I could, for example, grab the vanilla emule source code, cram in some features from the emule boards, do a bit of tweaking of the visualisation features i want, compile and then run a custom version of emule that does exactly what i want, without the useless bloat that is clocking up with every release. GeoShell is open source so if i was that way inclined piss around with it and add some junk.

M$ and the like claim opensource is more insecure but this is a total crock, open/closed source status doesn't mean jack shit, its the quality of the program that matters. The only trends where bugs are concerned is that open source software normally gets all the bugs reported off the bat, whereas more and more bugs get revealed and can be much more damaging later down the line with closed source.

Reason stuff is opensource --> features, features, features. Many people working on the source means more patches. fixes and features. Reassurance/credit is another reason. Much more reassuring for people to see the source and people can get shit loads of credit for programs they distribute for free
Downside --> arseholes can exploit the source (emule leech mods for example), these extra eyes are all hobbiests anyways, not necessarily people who are going to play nice or even bother to report bugs.

Reason stuff is closedsource --> money
downside --> windows> bugs go unfixed, often unomptimised solutions.

Eitherway, opensource just means that it can be better for people that have lots and lots of time to do shit or live with tinfoil wrapped round there head in their mum's basement and need to read each line of code in the linux kernal

To compile you of course need... a compiler ie. you need g/g++ to compile c/c++ (*cough* emule), python for... well..python, javac/jikes for java, etc.

@wargand don't be a door knob you bloody penguin

There is one more thing I wonder. With Linux I compile everything myself because I can optimize the code to my processor. Ok, not all programs benefit from it, but it is quite a difference whether I compile a program for a i386 or a i686. Now, on what platforms is Windoze running? I know, no sane person would run Windoze on a i386 (no sane person would run it anyways, but this is a different story), but would it still be possible provided there is enough ram and terrible slow speed neglected? Would it start at all? This would mean Windoze is actually compiled for a i386. Or are there several binary versions on an installation disk? What about Athlon support? One size fits all usually means the lowest common denominator. Thanks, not for me.

dunno actually, anyone got Bill Gates on speed dial?

You can see emule versions with AMD omptimisation but beyond that normally the bytecode is for windows os and os translates the instructions into the right control set instructions I *think*

Not something I'm really that bothered about too much (until software catches up), as soon as someone cracks NTFS (stablely), I'm outter here

Yes, it should work*. the instruction set i80386 uses was unchanged until intel released the pentium mmx (which added a few instructions). I think we had an i386 based server running winnt 3.x or 4.x where i worked 10 years ago..



Yep! Apart from some codecs i guess, most of the microsoft code doesn't use mmx/sse/3dnow and would therefore work on a i386.
You probably need an fpu though, wasn't it called i80387?

* Afaik, XP uses the cpuid instruction and refuses to install on slow cpu's