Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Libertine: Allowing X11 Debian Packages To Run On The Next-Gen Ubuntu Desktop

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by bkor View Post
    That's a nice marketing answer. I'll phrase it differently then: Is the webbrowser really not part of your "next-gen converged desktop"? You'll deliver a desktop whereby the webbrowser is running in some legacy environment?!?
    Ubuntu already has a native browser that does not use X11, it works fine on my Unity 8 desktop, phone, and tablet. You also have the choice of installing one of Google's Chromish browsers, or Firefox, or Opera, or whatever tool you want to do you job even if it means doing it through legacy support. If you want, you could even install a remote desktop application and run your Internet Explorer on a Windows XP system if it's really important to you that the browser be a part of the OS. Or no browser at all if your IoT toaster doesn't need to be used to sell your eyes to advertisers.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      Snap packages are huge, it pulls in a gigabyte of redundant dependencies.
      Please tell me people aren't still using the debug LibreOffice nonsense as an argument.

      Snaps are not huge at all.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by d2kx View Post

        Please tell me people aren't still using the debug LibreOffice nonsense as an argument.

        Snaps are not huge at all.
        It's a good strawman arguement and no matter how many times you correct him/her, he/she will still bring it up.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by d2kx View Post

          Please tell me people aren't still using the debug LibreOffice nonsense as an argument.

          Snaps are not huge at all.
          Due to the lack of runtime though, snap still is relatively bigger (not like 1 gig, but more like 1mb-150mb depending on the app). Plus having a common runtime would save on RAM if multiple flatpack apps are running, as only one instance of the library needs to be loaded into memory.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Mystro256 View Post

            Due to the lack of runtime though, snap still is relatively bigger (not like 1 gig, but more like 1mb-150mb depending on the app). Plus having a common runtime would save on RAM if multiple flatpack apps are running, as only one instance of the library needs to be loaded into memory.
            It isn't so much about ram usage as it is about being a disk bottleneck. Longer load times and such. Yes the linux kernel does disk cache, but it does not help on first load or bootup. Yes SSD's are faster than HDD's, but they are still terribly slow. 1mB would only be a few ms, but 150mB would be at least a few seconds. It's a terrible idea. Smaller in this instance is most definitely better.
            Last edited by duby229; 05 July 2016, 01:36 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by duby229 View Post

              It isn't so much about ram usage as it is about being a disk bottleneck. Longer load times and such. Yes the linux kernel does disk cache, but it does not help on first load or bootup. Yes SSD's are faster than HDD's, but they are still terribly slow.
              Indeed, disk times are still the bigger bottleneck. I presume a runtime would help with that, given it doesn't need to load the same libraries for each app, just once.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Mystro256 View Post

                Indeed, disk times are still the bigger bottleneck. I presume a runtime would help with that, given it doesn't need to load the same libraries for each app, just once.
                And... please tell me a real life example where one needs to run a program multiple times?
                LibreOffice for example open all docs in one running exe.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post

                  It isn't so much about ram usage as it is about being a disk bottleneck. Longer load times and such. Yes the linux kernel does disk cache, but it does not help on first load or bootup. Yes SSD's are faster than HDD's, but they are still terribly slow. 1mB would only be a few ms, but 150mB would be at least a few seconds. It's a terrible idea. Smaller in this instance is most definitely better.
                  150MB difference is the snap difference, not the actual memory difference you get when you run the program... As libraries are loaded in both case where will the performance issue comes from?

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Passso View Post

                    And... please tell me a real life example where one needs to run a program multiple times?
                    LibreOffice for example open all docs in one running exe.
                    That's not what he was saying. In fact it's the first run, even if it's the only run, that matters most.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Passso View Post

                      150MB difference is the snap difference, not the actual memory difference you get when you run the program... As libraries are loaded in both case where will the performance issue comes from?
                      Because disks have huge latencies? It's not magic, if code is executing, then the executable had to be read from disk at some point in the past. And that point is where the bottleneck will be. It may sound small to you, but many small latencies add up.

                      EDIT: So lets say you are a snap maintainer and app-A is packaged with lib-1, also app-B is packaged with lib-1. That's two instances of lib-1 that needs to get loaded. Every single instance beyond the first one is a disk bottleneck. So the the way Linux caches files is by location, so if exactly the same file is loaded twice from different locations, the disk cache can't tell that and it gets loaded from disk twice.
                      Last edited by duby229; 06 July 2016, 09:43 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X