Software for Linux is a lot more complicated than, say, software for MacOs. Instead of having one simple binary that you update for every version of the operating system, you have hundreds of binaries for many Linux distros, with different package managers, formats, init systems, and even userlands. Many people see this as an issue, and try to use a universal package manager, and then they fight about which universal package manager to use. But, I am here to propose, that not only is the fragmenting of Linux not an issue, universal package managers are unneeded and inefficient.
I don’t know very much about this topic, but I think that building a binary yourself can be faster because it can make optimizations involving non-standard CPU features (distro packages have to be compiled without these because the user’s CPU might not support the extension)
I don’t know very much about this topic, but I think that building a binary yourself can be faster because it can make optimizations involving non-standard CPU features (distro packages have to be compiled without these because the user’s CPU might not support the extension)