> Here is a Shell script, "fact.sh", that reads integers on the standard
input and factorizes them:
Thank you for elaborating on this. Actually your example perfectly falls
within "caching for a strategic reason". There are 2 points in your example,
deserving further elaboration.
heyjoe's insistence that "scarce" just means "finite" is nothing more than a
linguistic distraction to avoid admitting that no one ever said RAM was
infinite. MB has already clarified what he means by "scarce". I use the same
exact definition. If you or heyjoe want to use "scarce" to mean
DFSG is not 100% compatible with GNU FSDG.
That said, the reason for the assertion that WebEngine is non-free is that
it's based on Chromium. I have never seen anyone actually evidence the claim
that Chromium is proprietary.
> It is just that the kernel cannot take initiatives that require
application-level knowledge (such as the fact that a function will often be
called with the same arguments). The programmer has to do the work in that
case.
No, it is perfectly within the kernel's initiative. Kernel does not
Resources are always scarce (limited) and should be used responsibly.
>>> They are always limited. They are not always scarce.
>> Scarce means restricted in quantity.
>No, it does not. It means "insufficient to satisfy the need or demand":
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scarce
Arguing with fruits is a waste of time.
> The kernel cannot know a costly function will be frequently called with the
same arguments and will always return the same value given the same arguments
(i.e., does not depend on anything but its arguments). A cache at the
application-level is not reimplementing the caches at
Now you can type another 50 pages of argumentation that the dictionary of
your choice is the ultimate source of truth, how wrong everyone else is and
that this is very related to lightweight browsers.
> The obvious thing to do is that, you must allocate no more RAM than you
really need, and leave the rest (deciding what to do with free RAM) to the
kernel.
Glad to see that at least 1 person understands what was saying.
> Qupzilla has severe freedom issues according to Hyperbola - it depends on
nonfree qt5-webengine.
Are you sure about that?
Initially I had taken your word for it, then recently wanted to check it for
myself. Both Qupzilla and all its dependencies (including libqt5webengine*)
are in the
> Manipulating data that is sequentially stored in RAM is faster because of
CPU cache and sequential prefetching
And also because DRAM is accessed page-wise. Changing page is much more
expensive than accessing data on the same (already selected) page.
> The same idea, at another level,
> The program I work on (pattern mining, nothing to do with Web browsers) is
a 650 kB binary which can easily use GB of RAM
Dedicated software usually has its own very peculiar resource needs. Once I
was working on an R program of 100K or so in size that consumed moderate RAM
while maxing
Thank you both, MB and Onpon for the interesting elaboration on this whole
"lightweight program" topic. Though I already knew the underlying principles,
I never actively thought about what "lightweight" actually means.
But I guess the discussion is just wasting your time from here on...
> Python is an interpreted language and you don't know how the interpreter
handles the data internally.
https://github.com/python/cpython
> They are always limited. They are not always scarce.
Scarce means restricted in quantity. Of course they are always scarce, you
don't have unrestricted amount of anything. Once again you are arguing for
the sake of it.
The space-time trade-off has absolutely nothing to do with where all
Resources are always scarce (limited) and should be used responsibly.
You need free RAM for handling new processes and peak loads.
RAM is not sequential in the sense that it is like a rewinding tape but: you
can't pass the whole RAM through the CPU in a single CPU clock. There is the
> your expectations of efficiency are contrary to the basic programming
principle: that a program should use only as much memory as it actually needs
for completing the task and that memory usage should be optimized.
That is only a "basic programming principle" if RAM is scarce. RAM is not
> The point is that if you can spare RAM, ideally, you should be using all of
it. In a perfect world, the programs you're running would use every byte of
RAM available and then release it to new programs as they launch. We of
course don't live in a perfect world, so some inefficiency (i.e.
> Starting a new program requires free memory.
Yes, but if you pay more attention to the context of what I was saying, that
would be included under the umbrella of "use". There's a difference between
using 2GB right now and using 2GB ever. The point is that if you can spare
RAM, ideally,
onpon4:
The only way reducing RAM consumption will ever help performance is if you're
using so much RAM that it's going into swap, and very few people have so
little RAM that that's going to happen.
heyjoe:
Well, it is not the only way. It is possible to use RAM inefficiently without
> No, there are not.
Did you read the whole meat of what I have posted? If you did, I wouldn't now
have to post this rather pedantic clarification.
#1 Memory consumption
#2 Download size
#3 CPU consumption
#4 UI complexity
I didn't say #2 and #4 are the *same* variables. I said they are
> No, if you're not swapping, there's no performance loss.
You are wrong. If you constantly allocate and deallocate huge amounts of
memory this is an overhead. So caching in RAM is not a performance benefit
per se.
> There is zero benefit to having RAM free that you're not using.
Starting
No, if you're not swapping, there's no performance loss. There is zero
benefit to having RAM free that you're not using. If you're only ever using 2
GB of RAM out of 16 GB, those other 14 GB are doing absolutely nothing for
you.
Totally agreed. And I've touched the issue in my post also. But again, this
is a small time trade off compared to design excellence and functionality.
It is important to note that there is a limit. There is no way to have low
CPU and low memory usage at the same time. Usually more memory is used to
reduce the computational overhead (example: storing pre-calculated data in
cache, so that it is not calculated again and again) or you can save
> The question that comes to mind for
> me is, "lightweight" in what sense?
In essence #2 and #4 are redundant - they are by-products of #1 and #3 to
large extent.
That leaves us with #1 and #3.
It is true that in programming it is often necessary to trade one for the
other: I.e. given
Well, it is not the only way. It is possible to use RAM inefficiently without
swapping. There are also programs which don't free up memory properly.
Exactly. I don't think a lot of people understand that increased RAM and hard
disk consumption is often done intentionally to improve performance. The only
way reducing RAM consumption will ever help performance is if you're using so
much RAM that it's going into swap, and very few people
And not forgetting that security is a much bigger thing than just SSL.
Keeping in mind that security is important too.
https://www.howsmyssl.com/
Yes. That's why the so called lightweight browsers may not have any
significant benefit. In fact their limitations may be more significant than
their lightness.
I am on openSUSE and it is not on their repos. No idea what to do with a .deb
package and I don't find anything about how to compile that in a custom
directory (without having to install it in system-wide directories etc). I
was hoping to be able to download a binary which I can simply
It is available for other distros, I know people with Mint who have it.
Further other unbranded Firefox browsers accomplish the same thing with no
difference in software, such as Parabola's Ice Weasel. That said you might be
able to compile uses a package from
Yes, but you can do that with any Firefox based browser
It is possible to optimize performance through about:config settings (turn of
disk cache, tune mem cache size and others).
I still wish I could test Abrowser without having to install the whole
Trisquel.
The question that comes to mind for me is, "lightweight" in what sense? I
don't think anyone who requests a "lightweight" browser really understands
what they're asking for. Here are a few possibilities I can think of:
1. Low memory footprint (e.g. because your computer only has 1GB of RAM)
Palemoon is not a lightweight browser, it's a fork of Firefox using an
outdated fork of gecko. Abrowser, which comes with Trisquel is as "light" as
Palemoon, while also not being out of date in an attempt to preserve features
no one cares about from very early versions of Firefox.
Just use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_web_browsers
FWIW Facebook is not less proprietary than Palemoon (just saying).
Qupzilla has severe freedom issues according to Hyperbola - it depends on
nonfree qt5-webengine.
Netsurf is very basic (it doesn't even fully support JavaScript).
Qupzilla (Falcon)?
WebKit based, not much plugins but essential ones are there, is fairly
compatible (better than Midori in my experience), fairly lightweight (memory
footprint approximately half of Firefox and twice of Midori or so)
One drawback (from my POW) is that it is being
You can try Seamonkey/Iceape - it is also a Mozilla based browser which is
compatible with most add-ons. If you want a browser based on older ESR
Firefox (version 52) you can try IceCat/Iceweasel. If you want a browser
similar to Abrowser but with support for legacy add-ons you can try out
Midor is a lightweight and fast browser. But it is not enough for me. It does
not work perfectly with facebook. It can not rendering Bangla (as I am a
Bangladeshi) font properly.
PaleMoon also a lightweight browser and perfect for me but it's binary
package is proprietary.
I need a
43 matches
Mail list logo
