Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alpine Linux 3.12 Released With D Language Support, MIPS64 Port

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

  • Alpine Linux 3.12 Released With D Language Support, MIPS64 Port

    Phoronix: Alpine Linux 3.12 Released With D Language Support, MIPS64 Port

    Version 3.12 of the Alpine Linux lightweight distribution built around musl libc and Busybox is now available for this platform popular with containers and other embedded use-cases...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-3.12-Released

  • #2
    That's interesting. Alpine is clearly targeted at embedded applications (much more than containers IMO), but unless I'm wrong, Dlang is virtually never used in that area (nor is it particularly suitable for it).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by jacob View Post
      That's interesting. Alpine is clearly targeted at embedded applications (much more than containers IMO), but unless I'm wrong, Dlang is virtually never used in that area (nor is it particularly suitable for it).
      Not true. Alpine is used in the context of docker, in order to build minimal containerized applications. Any cloud D application will benefit from ability to run on Alpine.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by RushPL View Post
        Not true.
        Pretty sure he's a troll. All his posts are just as dumb as this one.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jacob View Post
          That's interesting. Alpine is clearly targeted at embedded applications (much more than containers IMO), but unless I'm wrong, Dlang is virtually never used in that area (nor is it particularly suitable for it).
          The moment people see "busybox", they can't stop thinking embedded.

          It is suited to be used anywhere you want a bloat free OS. As a result Desktop scenarios are not well supported.
          I use it on many servers in a virtualized environment.

          I just wish that cloud providers like DigitalOcean, etc would start offering it as a standard config.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Raka555 View Post

            The moment people see "busybox", they can't stop thinking embedded.

            It is suited to be used anywhere you want a bloat free OS. As a result Desktop scenarios are not well supported.
            I use it on many servers in a virtualized environment.

            I just wish that cloud providers like DigitalOcean, etc would start offering it as a standard config.
            I think "Crap, are the GNU tools available".

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

              I think "Crap, are the GNU tools available".
              Code:
              apk add util-linux procps
              I can't live with only busybox, either.

              Comment


              • #8
                I run Alpine on bare metal as my primary home server. The reasons why are sanity and security (e.g. the absence of systemd). Next best thing to OpenBSD in the Linux world, although it is true muse-libc does lead to some software portability glitches.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by fazalmajid View Post
                  I run Alpine on bare metal as my primary home server. The reasons why are sanity and security (e.g. the absence of systemd). Next best thing to OpenBSD in the Linux world, although it is true muse-libc does lead to some software portability glitches.
                  musl libc is awesome for static linking and embedded, but using it on bigger machines is just throwing away performance for no good reason. The arch-specific implementations of memchr(), memcpy(), etc. in glibc are so much faster than musl it's not even funny.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Larry$ilverstein View Post

                    musl libc is awesome for static linking and embedded, but using it on bigger machines is just throwing away performance for no good reason. The arch-specific implementations of memchr(), memcpy(), etc. in glibc are so much faster than musl it's not even funny.
                    Care to share some links to benchmarks with us to this effect ?

                    Or maybe it is something Michael would like to test ...
                    Last edited by Raka555; 05-30-2020, 07:22 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X