Re: Python init

Noah Dain wrote: particularly relevant: http://www.pardus.org.tr/eng/projeler/comar/SpeedingUpLinuxWithPardus.html Awesome read. Kinda neat to see a concept I was kicking around in my head realized independently elsewhere. Thank you very much for the link. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [

Re: Python init

On 8/21/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:11:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > > > Not that all of the libraries need to be moved into the root partition > > for it to function as a stable init platform. Outside of sys (which is > > compiled in), os, re

Re: Python init (was: bash vs. python scripts - which one is better?)

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 02:07:23PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote: > On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Steve Lamb wrote: > > >When it comes to Python in a role of system initialization > >there are some very simple things one can do that would > >dramatically increase load times. First off the pre-c

Re: Python init

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:11:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > Not that all of the libraries need to be moved into the root partition > for it to function as a stable init platform. Outside of sys (which is > compiled in), os, re, shutil, time and datetime I can't think of anything > that

Re: Python init

Rick Thomas wrote: Hmmm... Now, that's a problem! During the early part of the boot process the root filesystem is read-only until it's been fsck'ed. There's no safe place to put the compiled modules. Not really. It cannot be compiled during the initial run if the filesystem is RO. Ho

Re: Python init (was: bash vs. python scripts - which one is better?)

On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Steve Lamb wrote: When it comes to Python in a role of system initialization there are some very simple things one can do that would dramatically increase load times. First off the pre-compiling of modules that Python does means subsequent boots would not

Re: Python init

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:22:27AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > bash weighs in at 1.6Mb > > zsh comes in at 10.4Mb... This is an interesting observation. I guess it's just the price you pay for features; there doesn't seem to be any free lunch anwhere! :-) Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamu

Re: Python init

Vincent Lefevre wrote: Nothing was dropped from Perl. It seems that the main problem concerning FreeBSD is that Perl was growing quite fast (e.g. more and more features, not needed in the FreeBSD base), and of course, installing an incomplete version of Perl would lead to problems. See

Re: Python init (was: bash vs. python scripts - which one is better?)

On 2007-08-20 19:45:19 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: >> There are also maintenance issues with incorporating a complex language >> that's under active development as a critical part of an operating system. >> FreeBSD dropped Perl from their base system because "base Perl" became >> such a pain to ma

Re: Python init

Steve Lamb wrote: When it comes to Python in a role of system initialization there are some very simple things one can do that would dramatically increase load times. Decrease load times, increase efficiency. Meh, my mind combined the two rather poorly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Python init (was: bash vs. python scripts - which one is better?)

David Brodbeck wrote: The other is that the load time for bash is shorter. Everyone complains that their system boots too slowly as it is. ;) Microscopically. On the other hand it has been my experience that it isn't the load time of bash that is the problem, it is the constant fork/exec