Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenBSD 5.1 Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    Is it possible to overcommit physical memory (RAM + swap) without overcommiting free memory (RAM + swap)?
    This seems to be possible in modes 0 and 1, but you have to define exactly what you understand by this.

    If you are fully POSIX compliant, you can also "overcommit" POSIX limit. POSIX doesn't prohibits non-POSIX functions.
    It doesn't matter, because you can be smarter than POSIX and rather trying to be fully POSIX compliant you can do some things better on your own.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by LightBit View Post
      I was talking about glibc (because it is being used by most of distributions). I know there are alternatives.
      Debian and Ubuntu probably use eglibc which seems to be much less bloated.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        Debian and Ubuntu probably use eglibc which seems to be much less bloated.
        Size of library is the same. So it just seems.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          This seems to be possible in modes 0 and 1, but you have to define exactly what you understand by this.
          I mean It's not logical, but forget about it.


          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          It doesn't matter, because you can be smarter than POSIX and rather trying to be fully POSIX compliant you can do some things better on your own.
          This is what Microsoft did.
          If everyone would speak it's own language, so they wouldn't understand each other, they would be smarter?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by LightBit View Post
            Size of library is the same. So it just seems.
            The size of the library is just one part. There are also other possibilities like header files in ELF library or GCC optimizations. You probably didn't check with the same GCC version.

            http://www.techpulp.com/blog/tag/tri...ux-elf-binary/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by LightBit View Post
              I mean It's not logical, but forget about it.
              I meant it's logical when the mode 2 is set.

              This is what Microsoft did.
              If everyone would speak it's own language, so they wouldn't understand each other, they would be smarter?
              Yes and thanks to this MS was very strong in many areas. The difference is there are people who care about being compatible with others and there are people who don't. I support interoperability in things like web, but I don't care when comes to other things. Those who are stronger dictate rules.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                The size of the library is just one part. There are also other possibilities like header files in ELF library or GCC optimizations. You probably didn't check with the same GCC version.

                http://www.techpulp.com/blog/tag/tri...ux-elf-binary/
                As I said everything was "strip -s". Optimisations are -O2 on Arch Linux and I think it's the same on Ubuntu where I checked eglibc. Arch Linux has a bit newer GCC. Header files are only needed when compiling. Both libraries where the same version 2.15.
                eglibc is glibc with few patches, it can't be so smaller.
                Last edited by LightBit; 05-07-2012, 10:10 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  Yes and thanks to this MS was very strong in many areas.
                  Particularly in a monopoly.


                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  The difference is there are people who care about being compatible with others and there are people who don't. I support interoperability in things like web, but I don't care when comes to other things. Those who are stronger dictate rules.
                  So you don't care if your application is portable or not?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                    Particularly in a monopoly.



                    So you don't care if your application is portable or not?
                    All he cares about is that linux is #1, he is actually worse than a mac fanboy its really sad to read.
                    This 'community' at phoronix is very close minded, they just want to replace MS's monopoly with
                    one of linux.

                    They are to cheap to buy windows or a decent pc that can handle windows 7, so they roll linux.
                    They then login to phoronix to troll any topic that is not about linux, spewing great comments about
                    how amazing KMS and udev is (lol).
                    Last edited by soupbowl; 05-07-2012, 12:45 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                      As I said everything was "strip -s". Optimisations are -O2 on Arch Linux and I think it's the same on Ubuntu where I checked eglibc. Arch Linux has a bit newer GCC. Header files are only needed when compiling. Both libraries where the same version 2.15.
                      eglibc is glibc with few patches, it can't be so smaller.
                      But you have probably much older GCC in OpenBSD, so it will be good to check the same version. Also, you may find answers here:

                      http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/...ny/teensy.html
                      http://cs.mipt.ru/docs/comp/eng/os/l...f-howto-1.html

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X