Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #9228 > unrolled thread

Are we just running in place?

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 15:53 +0300
    Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 13:43 +0000
      Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 10:28 -0400
        Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place?     wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-30 09:05 -0700
            Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:25 -0400
              Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:28 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:32 +0000
                Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-01 20:01 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:11 +0100
                    Re: Are we just running in place? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-11-04 22:29 +0000
                      Re: Are we just running in place? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 16:44 -0600
                      Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 23:04 -0500
                        Re: Are we just running in place? Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:34 -0600
                        Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-11-05 10:30 +0300
                        Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Chadfield <stephen@chadfield.com> - 2015-11-05 13:39 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:30 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-31 08:05 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:01 +0100
        Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 17:34 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:49 -0400
            Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:23 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:59 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-01 01:33 -0300
              Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:19 +0100
                Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:21 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:33 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:59 -0500
              Re: Are we just running in place? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-11-03 17:29 +0000
                Re: Are we just running in place? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 10:14 -0800
          Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:39 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 19:22 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2015-10-30 20:27 +0100
                Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-30 20:08 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-30 21:21 +0000
                    Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:15 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 14:19 +0000
                    Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 16:15 +0000
                      Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-02 12:29 -0500
                      Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 19:13 +0000
                        Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 21:25 +0000
                          Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-03 14:03 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 21:11 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-11-01 01:23 -0300
        Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 20:05 +0000
      Re: Are we just running in place? Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-30 19:53 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:09 -0500
      Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-01 09:42 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-01 13:33 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:45 +1100
            Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:06 +0100
      Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-03 22:06 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:43 +0100
          Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-03 23:46 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 04:35 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:24 +0100
              Re: Are we just running in place? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-04 09:55 +0000
                Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 12:42 +0100
            Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 14:57 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 11:29 -0500
              Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 16:43 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 17:55 +0100
                Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 18:04 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 18:48 +0000
                    Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 13:05 -0600
                    Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 19:36 +0000
                  Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:15 +0100
                    Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 21:35 +0000
              Re: Are we just running in place? Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2015-11-04 21:07 +0100
          Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:52 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 02:56 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-04 11:05 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 03:12 +0000
            Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:02 +0100
              Re: Are we just running in place? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-08 11:48 +0100
          Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0100
          Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 09:01 +1100
            Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-05 00:09 +0000
        Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 11:03 -0500
          Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:25 +0000
          Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-05 08:01 +0000
    Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-31 15:09 +1100
    Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 11:11 +0000
      Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-31 14:57 +0300
      Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 10:19 -0400
        Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 16:28 +0000
      Re: Are we just running in place?     wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:14 -0700

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#9238

"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:

> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message 
> news:n0vun0$9kt$2@dont-email.me...
>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>>> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/
>>> Very well said.
>>> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a 
>>> retina
>>> display,
>>> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can 
>>> control
>>> from the
>>> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in
>>> 1971.
>>> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has
>>> progressed, I feel more
>>> and more divorced from the computers that I love.
>>
>> Simple cure.  Run Linux.
>> Don't use any of the highfalutin desktops, just a basic WM.
>
> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know what is 
> happening
> underneath.

Don't agree.
I'm running fine with 2GB.
Sure, Firefox forced me to go from 1GB to 2GB but I don't blame Linux
and given the nature of the beast (Firefox/Flash), the huge memory
footprint seemed unavoidable.
Every time I wanted to find out what was going on underneath,
I had little trouble getting the knowledge I wanted.
Except of course for Flash, which I keep mostly disabled.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9239

"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:n10afr$vqp$3@dont-email.me...
> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>>
>> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know what 
>> is
>> happening
>> underneath.
>
> Don't agree.
> I'm running fine with 2GB.

I rest my case.

RSX11-M ran in about 20kB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9243

"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message 
>news:n10afr$vqp$3@dont-email.me...
>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know what 
>>> is
>>> happening
>>> underneath.
>>
>> Don't agree.
>> I'm running fine with 2GB.
>
>I rest my case.
>
>RSX11-M ran in about 20kB

TSS8.24 ran in 12 kb (two 4kw fields).

Thankfully, I don't need to do my daily work on
TSS8.24 any more.

Most of us realize that apples != oranges.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9279

"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:

> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message 
> news:n10afr$vqp$3@dont-email.me...
>
>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not
>>> know what is happening underneath.
>>
>> Don't agree.  I'm running fine with 2GB.
> 
> I rest my case.

I run Slackware Linux with X and twm on 500M.  Play video (DVD, video
files and a cam on my microscope), edit images, use a GUI web browser,
run a old game in dosemu, news, mail, multiple emacsen, sometimes
wireshark.  I see the "desktop" as easily dispensible bloat and don't
use it.  A now somewhat elderly IBM P4.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9363

On 2015-10-30, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message 
> news:n10afr$vqp$3@dont-email.me...
>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know what 
>>> is
>>> happening
>>> underneath.
>>
>> Don't agree.
>> I'm running fine with 2GB.
>
> I rest my case.
>
> RSX11-M ran in about 20kB

And RT-11 ran in even less.  IIRC you could see 56KB free on a 64KB
system. I'm not sure I want to go back to the sparsity of that.

-- 
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly
go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or
repair.                                                       -- HHGTTG

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9392

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:19:05 +0100, Paul Sture wrote:

> On 2015-10-30, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:n10afr$vqp$3@dont-email.me...
>>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know
>>>> what is happening underneath.
>>>
>>> Don't agree.
>>> I'm running fine with 2GB.
>>
>> I rest my case.
>>
>> RSX11-M ran in about 20kB
> 
> And RT-11 ran in even less.  IIRC you could see 56KB free on a 64KB
> system. I'm not sure I want to go back to the sparsity of that.

And I believe DOS/BATCH ran in even less!



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9241

"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message 
>news:n0vun0$9kt$2@dont-email.me...
>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>>> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/
>>> Very well said.
>>> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a 
>>> retina
>>> display,
>>> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can 
>>> control
>>> from the
>>> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in
>>> 1971.
>>> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has
>>> progressed, I feel more
>>> and more divorced from the computers that I love.
>>
>> Simple cure.  Run Linux.
>> Don't use any of the highfalutin desktops, just a basic WM.
>
>Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know what is 
>happening
>underneath.

Beg to differ.

However, systemd is the first step towards megabloat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9304

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:33:18PM +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
> >"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message 
> >news:n0vun0$9kt$2@dont-email.me...
> >> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
> >>> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/
> >>> Very well said.
> >>> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a 
> >>> retina
> >>> display,
> >>> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can 
> >>> control
> >>> from the
> >>> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in
> >>> 1971.
> >>> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has
> >>> progressed, I feel more
> >>> and more divorced from the computers that I love.
> >>
> >> Simple cure.  Run Linux.
> >> Don't use any of the highfalutin desktops, just a basic WM.
> >
> >Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know what is 
> >happening
> >underneath.
> 
> Beg to differ.
> 
> However, systemd is the first step towards megabloat.

I used to be able to maintain and upgrade my Linux system from the
individually distributed sources.  Around 2002 or so that became
impractical; I recall attempting to integrate Gnome into my build
process and becoming bogged down in endless third-party dependencies.
It is much worse today.

I do not even know what is all installed on my various systems.  On
one, /usr/bin holds 2500 entries and weighs in at 400MB.  With the
exception of the compiler and related tools they are stripped of debug
sections.  The installed system is 9G including log files and such.
It is impractical to expect that I could reasonably inspect the system
to positively ascertain that there is no malware included with it.  To
make matters worse, I run 7 virtual machines (in 8G) which are made up
of a heterogenous collection of Linux distributions.  Four are running
with less than 512M RAM.

Even the "small" linux distributions are quite large, although it may
at least be said that they are practical for older computers.

When I could at least compile everything from sources it was still
impractical to verify all of the code for security purposes.

And of course if the TLA community can do a MITM attack on you, they
can substitute their own version of Ubuntu when you go to download the
latest and greatest.  SSL only helps you if the root CA is
uncompromised, and if your client-side certificate DB is also
unmolested.

So not only do we have to contend with massive software bloat, but it
is essentially impossile to review and verify it all.



--
The practitioners of Freemasonry are the rabid Islamic extremists of
Christiandom.  Heroin makes them invincible and all-knowing, and
therefore superior to mere mortals.  Their primary distinguishing
characteristic is the habit of Orwellian doublethink which permits
them to be uncivilized while faking participation in civil society.
Pound for pound they are umatched for sheer density of stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9349

In article <78b4ab2383a93a3-a7fd2@gmail.com>,
Uncle Steve  <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:
>I used to be able to maintain and upgrade my Linux system from the
>individually distributed sources.  Around 2002 or so that became
>impractical; I recall attempting to integrate Gnome into my build
>process and becoming bogged down in endless third-party dependencies.
>It is much worse today.

I was using Linux From Scratch for a bit, after starting way back when with
SLS (downloaded onto a stack of 5.25" floppies) and then Slackware and SuSE. 
When looking for something to automate LFS, I stumbled across Gentoo.  Aside
from a brief detour into Ubuntu (still on one of my notebooks) and Raspbian
(on the obvious platform), it's been all Gentoo ever since.  It's been much
easier to just punch in "emerge -auND world" every once in a while and let
the system figure out dependencies than to have to chase down all of them
manually.

The only downside is that compiling from source can take a while, but I
suspect you knew that already.  That said, I even have Gentoo running on the
Raspberry Pi (and compiled on the Raspberry Pi too, not cross-compiled).

>I do not even know what is all installed on my various systems.

equery list \*

...or, if you just want to see what packages you've added to the base
system, skipping the base-system components and dependencies:

sudo cat /var/lib/portage/world

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/           Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9350

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 6:32:07 PM UTC+1, Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <78b4ab2383a93a3-a7fd2@gmail.com>,
> Uncle Steve  <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I used to be able to maintain and upgrade my Linux system from the
> >individually distributed sources.  Around 2002 or so that became
> >impractical; I recall attempting to integrate Gnome into my build
> >process and becoming bogged down in endless third-party dependencies.
> >It is much worse today.
> 
> I was using Linux From Scratch for a bit, after starting way back when with
> SLS (downloaded onto a stack of 5.25" floppies) and then Slackware and SuSE. 
> When looking for something to automate LFS, I stumbled across Gentoo.  Aside
> from a brief detour into Ubuntu (still on one of my notebooks) and Raspbian
> (on the obvious platform), it's been all Gentoo ever since.  It's been much
> easier to just punch in "emerge -auND world" every once in a while and let
> the system figure out dependencies than to have to chase down all of them
> manually.
> 
> The only downside is that compiling from source can take a while, but I
> suspect you knew that already.  That said, I even have Gentoo running on the
> Raspberry Pi (and compiled on the Raspberry Pi too, not cross-compiled).
> 
> >I do not even know what is all installed on my various systems.
> 
> equery list \*
> 

On my "second" machine (the one I have at home, used for.. whatever I may
need) I have a Gentoo, but on my "primary" one (the one I use for work) I
have an Ubuntu.

I love Gentoo (much more than LFS (if I have to go at that level, like I
used to do working on embedded systems, I just download, compile and
configure everything myself, I don't need a "distro")) but it just has too
many downsides to be the "primary" system. It used to be, but now..

- If you take a new machine, the first (and maybe also the second) week is
"lost" just to install all the software you need.
- Updates are slow, so, while on my Ubuntu machine I update as soon as an
update is available, on the Gentoo one I do the "Sunday upgrade" like in the
old days; but nowadays it could take more than just a Sunday i.e. if a new
version of LibreOffice is the repositories. This isn't good security-wide.
- Sometimes you just need a software for two hours. It doesn't happen often,
but when it happens you better have an excuse for you boss better than
'Sorry, I have a Gentoo, I need two hours more just to see the file our
clients sent us'.
- On my second system the keyboard looks weird. Well, this is not Gentoo's
fault, but I had to remind myself that I absolutely need to buy a new one
for that machine, it's giving me the creeps.

Ciao!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9242

In comp.misc gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message 
> news:n0vun0$9kt$2@dont-email.me...
> > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
> >> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message
> >> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/
> >> Very well said.
> >> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a 
> >> retina
> >> display,
> >> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can 
> >> control
> >> from the
> >> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in
> >> 1971.
> >> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has
> >> progressed, I feel more
> >> and more divorced from the computers that I love.
> >
> > Simple cure.  Run Linux.
> > Don't use any of the highfalutin desktops, just a basic WM.

> Even then, you need several mega bytes of bloat and you do not know
> what is happening underneath.

The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes on my 64-bit Slackware system
here.  That is not even a megabyte yet.

Its (fvwm2) core usage, according to top, is 168m.  That is a far cry
from "firefox the bloated" which is currently using 1,895m and is the
#1 consumer of memory (X is number 2, at a paltry 304m, part of which
is video card memory mmap'ed into the process that top counts towards
the process).

Now, knowing everything that is happening underneath, yeah, that is a
much harder task.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9244

"Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message 
news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me...
> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes

Why?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9245

Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth:
> "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me...
>> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes
>
> Why?
>
>
Because it is from another era?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9250

In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth:
> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me...
> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes
> >
> > Why?
> >
> Because it is from another era?

If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated:

-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  124616 Jan  4  2005 fvwm95*
-r-xr-sr-x  1 root  kmem   403716 Apr 29  2004 icewm
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  235384 Jan  4  2005 mwm*
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  137384 Jan  4  2005 twm*

Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat
to this.

Bruce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9252

bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes:
> If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated:
>
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  124616 Jan  4  2005 fvwm95*
> -r-xr-sr-x  1 root  kmem   403716 Apr 29  2004 icewm
        ^             ^^^^

...what?

> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  235384 Jan  4  2005 mwm*
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  137384 Jan  4  2005 twm*
>
> Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat
> to this.
>
> Bruce

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9254

In article <87wpu4jbmo.fsf@mantic.terraraq.uk>,
Richard Kettlewell  <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes:
> > If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated:
> >
> > -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  124616 Jan  4  2005 fvwm95*
> > -r-xr-sr-x  1 root  kmem   403716 Apr 29  2004 icewm
>         ^             ^^^^
> 
> ...what?

Perhaps also from another era.  A smaller security hole than:

-rws--x--x  1 root  wheel  244536 Jan  4  2005 xterm-static*

Bruce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9322

bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes:
>In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
>Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth:
>> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message
>> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me...
>> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes
>> >
>> > Why?
>> >
>> Because it is from another era?
>
>If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated:
>
>-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  124616 Jan  4  2005 fvwm95*
>-r-xr-sr-x  1 root  kmem   403716 Apr 29  2004 icewm
>-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  235384 Jan  4  2005 mwm*
>-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  137384 Jan  4  2005 twm*
>
>Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat
>to this.


Except that they are, wait for it, shared.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9329

In article <giKZx.6499$CP7.3911@fx11.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
> bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes:
> >In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> >Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth:
> >> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message
> >> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me...
> >> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >> >
> >> Because it is from another era?
> >
> >If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated:
> >
> >-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  124616 Jan  4  2005 fvwm95*
> >-r-xr-sr-x  1 root  kmem   403716 Apr 29  2004 icewm
> >-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  235384 Jan  4  2005 mwm*
> >-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  137384 Jan  4  2005 twm*
> >
> >Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat
> >to this.
> 
> Except that they are, wait for it, shared.

That is one of the reasons why they increase bloat.  Their bloat is mostly
in time, but sometimes it is in space too.  Both programs and libraries are
normally shared if either is active or cached.  But programs usually have
better locality than libraries, so the sharing works better for them.  It
takes only about 5 active instances of the FreeBSD sh for it to take less
physical memory due to not using shared libraries.  The version without
shared libraries starts about 3.5 times faster in the usual case where
the programs are and shared libraries mostly cached (although not
necessarily active.

The above understates the size of fvwm2.  It always had many standard
extensions:

-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  149388 Jan  4  2005 FvwmBanner*
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   41384 Jan  4  2005 FvwmButtons*
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   38200 Jan  4  2005 FvwmIconBox*
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   31236 Jan  4  2005 FvwmPager*
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   35440 Jan  4  2005 FvwmTaskBar*
[Ones smaller than 30K not shown]

Perhaps the version of size 800+K is large because it has most of these
are compiled in -- the opposite of shared libraries.

Bruce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9333

bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes:

> In article <giKZx.6499$CP7.3911@fx11.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes:
>> >In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> >Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth:
>> >> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me...
>> >> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes
>> >> >
>> >> > Why?
>> >> >
>> >> Because it is from another era?
>> >
>> >If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated:
>> >
>> >-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  124616 Jan  4  2005 fvwm95*
>> >-r-xr-sr-x  1 root  kmem   403716 Apr 29  2004 icewm
>> >-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  235384 Jan  4  2005 mwm*
>> >-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  137384 Jan  4  2005 twm*
>> >
>> >Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat
>> >to this.
>> 
>> Except that they are, wait for it, shared.
>
> That is one of the reasons why they increase bloat.  Their bloat is mostly
> in time, but sometimes it is in space too.  Both programs and libraries are
> normally shared if either is active or cached.  But programs usually have
> better locality than libraries, so the sharing works better for them.  It
> takes only about 5 active instances of the FreeBSD sh for it to take less
> physical memory due to not using shared libraries.  The version without
> shared libraries starts about 3.5 times faster in the usual case where
> the programs are and shared libraries mostly cached (although not
> necessarily active.
>
> The above understates the size of fvwm2.  It always had many standard
> extensions:
>
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  149388 Jan  4  2005 FvwmBanner*

Only run at start up.
Entirely optional.

> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   41384 Jan  4  2005 FvwmButtons*
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   38200 Jan  4  2005 FvwmIconBox*
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   31236 Jan  4  2005 FvwmPager*
> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   35440 Jan  4  2005 FvwmTaskBar*

You can run one, none, or all.
The TaskBar and Buttons are redundant, you'd normally run
one or the other.

I run none of them.
I run FvwmAnimate but just for fun.

> [Ones smaller than 30K not shown]
>
> Perhaps the version of size 800+K is large because it has most of these
> are compiled in -- the opposite of shared libraries.

None of these are compiled into Fvwm.
The whole idea is to get things users may not want out of required memory.

Looking at executable size is, of course, wrong.  I have massively
higher numbers on my 64bit system.

My RES number out of top is 4776.
I may have debug enabled, and the binary is not stripped.
Not that RES is perfect either.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9335

bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes:
>In article <giKZx.6499$CP7.3911@fx11.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes:
>> >In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
>> >Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth:
>> >> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me...
>> >> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes
>> >> >
>> >> > Why?
>> >> >
>> >> Because it is from another era?
>> >
>> >If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated:
>> >
>> >-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  124616 Jan  4  2005 fvwm95*
>> >-r-xr-sr-x  1 root  kmem   403716 Apr 29  2004 icewm
>> >-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  235384 Jan  4  2005 mwm*
>> >-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  137384 Jan  4  2005 twm*
>> >
>> >Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat
>> >to this.
>> 
>> Except that they are, wait for it, shared.
>
>That is one of the reasons why they increase bloat.  Their bloat is mostly

Added GOT/PLT may increase the memory utilization a bit, but it's still
significantly less than the static version would be.  There will also be
an imperceptable performance hit from the symbol lookup the first time
a shared object function is called or shared global variable is accessed.
Subsequent accesses pay a simple indirection penalty which is obviated
by the microarchitecture of most modern processors.

The key is that the big shared objects (such as libc or the graphics
libraries, for example) are
shared amongst _all_ processes, not just instances of the shell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web