On 22 Aug 2001 21:06:07 GMT, Yvan Loranger staggered into the Black Sun
>I know [some if not all] reasons for compiling your own under Linux,
>but I'm curious as to how many do-it-yourself people [percentage?]
>1) modify source code
>2) read the source for suspicious code (*)
>3) compile against a better environment than the software authors used
>Any ideas or pointers to "studies"?
(*): Missing footnote -- segmentation fault.
I don't know of any formal studies that have been done on this.
However, I'd take a wild guess and say that Linux users fall broadly
into these groups:
0. Users who use what came with the default install and never look at
1. Users who use rpm/apt-get/pkgtool to install the junk they need
2. Users who grab tarballs and ./configure && make && make install
I would have to guess that most current Linux users fall into group 2,
since there is a lot of good stuff that isn't available in RPM format.
Once you start compiling things, you quickly find that there are typos
within some code, mangled Makefiles, paths that need to be changed
because the original author made assumptions, etcetera. From there,
it's not a big leap to modifying the source itself, even if it's
something trivial like "I wonder if I can modify joystick.c and make
ljohn recognize all the buttons on my joystick..."
Point 3 is probably too vague. "better environment" is very
subjective--after all, some would consider a stripped-down LFS to be the
best environment, and just try building KDE2 successfully there....
Your results will be skewed depending on where you ask this question,
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / That which does not kill us
http://www.brainbench.com / makes us stranger.
-----------------------------/ --Trevor Goodchild, "AEon Flux"