GtkDialog - Make Image / Save / SFS files utility.

Under development: PCMCIA, wireless, etc.
Message
Author
amigo
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#41 Post by amigo »

.bash_* files are only read when a login terminal is started.
If you want to autostart rox, then you need to put the command elsewhere. Which WM are you using?

All tools which use FUSE are, in theory, slower than the direct access afforded by normal filesystem drivers. However, at least for unionfs-fuse, it is still faster than disk I/O so now slowness can be measured.

Mounts, in and of themselves, do not impose any RAM penalty at all. It is unlikely that a user would have many of these private union/chroots running at once -and if they did it still poses no speed/memory disadvantages.

The fact that this method *can* be used for anything should not lead one to overuse the trick. All the ideas about sfs/appdir are great for *applications*, but one should not use these methods for libraries. Libs should always be in a normal installed package so they can be accounted for by the package manager.

The Chakra project put it nicely in their specs for bundle management: a bundle may depend on any package, but may not depend on any other bundle.

mikeb, I use unionfs-fuse chroots as part of src2pkg package creation - a quick, easy, dependable way to isolate package content-creation for those builds which don't support DESTDIR or other such methods. Been using it for years without any problems.

The example AppRun for chrome is really still very basic -I tried to keep it that way so that the couple of lines which are the gist of the mechanism stand out.

Firefox is really not a good example either -exactly because it is made to run from 'anywhere'. Most apps are not.

One thing to keep in mind, under Apple OSX, everything which doesn't come included with the OS is a bundle. Any bundle which needs libs which are not part of the original OS, or needs to replace those, comes with those libs inside the bundle. Trying to reference another bundle as a dependency poses lots of problems, so the use of some intermediate sfs with a bunch of extra libs is not really viable.

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#42 Post by sunburnt »

Yep, if other folks try to use a "lib sfs file" it`s bound to have bad results.
If the lib sfs was compiled on the os, and all apps that use it were complied with it... Maybe.?

# I like the idea of one or two union AppPkgs with most of the "stubborn" apps in them.
The rest: "Easy to get to run", or "exec. modded", or apps compiled "relocated or relative".

amigo; I got Saintless`s Wheezy booting to the Rox desktop with icons. Many thanks my friend...
Strangely many web pages said .bashrc was the place to start apps. I didn`t think so...

Debian is a real wake-up call for my many easy years here at Puppy. But I knew that...
Doing the simplest stuff is a struggle, many would quit. But this is a real opportunity for me.
The folks at Debian really have made a can of worms. Barry did a good "simplification job".


# Now I need to learn how to add JWM tray apps, and where to get them.
.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#43 Post by mikeb »

Barry simplified slackware...you can see traces of it...slackware is simpler I find and from the world of puppy you would find it the most familiar...main difference would be the init run levels.

When I make an sfs I include any libs that are not in the core / host system. In other words any package can run without the need for any other. Seems sensible and duplicate libs are not a problems or a major size penalty. I have one exception and that is QT. Its chunky and versions change often and its not part of the core on anything I run.(bear in mind a 100MB core is retained for easy usb stick or cd usage for debugging/fixing/testing) I also have wxwidgets as a module but that's only for testing..I add the needed libs if I keep the app. In fact when trying a new app each additional dependancy is quickly deb2lzm and added until all works...I then have a bundle to add to the app sfs. Non destructive testing is my want :)
Of course goes without saying so i will that such libs should be built or chosen for that same core system. Thats roughly the slax approach too.

Bad is the app that does require oddball libs... I remember xaralx being like that years ago and its not a good situation.
There is a good reason the likes of debian catagorise their packages by version.

Isolation...definately a bonus for building . I used to boot pfix=ram with the dev on puppy.... now I just don't save with my archive save. On slax I have got lazy and just add the dev file and build...and thats with a save folder....but only for standard stuff. If its mingw or tinylibc for example I go into no save mode. Adding a dev package should not affect the running of the system but life is not always perfect which is another one to consider.
I also like to test new apps before adding and easy removal / isolation is a must for me.

Performance... well anything outside the core is an sfs in these parts...some are just a few hundred k and all seems happy...a heavy window manager would on the other hand be noticed.

have fun

mike

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#44 Post by mikeb »

chrome...well I question a web browser thats larger than some of my puppies...and thats comparing compressed to compressed.

mike

amigo
Posts: 2629
Joined: Mon 02 Apr 2007, 06:52

#45 Post by amigo »

I like the way chromium starts and displays, but I'm doing a long penance for using Opera so many years...
I don't really like 'predictive' features unless I'm writing them myself.

Any decent browser is gonna be huge with whatever it needs -I worry more about the experience than the size of software. And I think that most users are perfectly willing to 'pay' in disk-space for any application they really want or need.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#46 Post by mikeb »

Webkit was always chunky... wonder what all that code is for. I remember the days when konqueror crashed all over the place and was as slow as hell... so credit to google for taking their software and improving it. (or whoever first wrote it... nokia?)
I suppose using free software as your base makes good sense in terms of profit :)

Much of the rendering in firefox seems to be handled in raw javascript..opera compiles it in some way.....webkit..some other binary method.... for FF that must be a source of slowdown. When I was younger and bored I de-commented and de-whitespeced all the code in firefox 1.5... its was considerably more responsive for it. Using gtk2 must have a speed penalty too. Qt is large but give better dynamic performance I find.

mike

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#47 Post by sunburnt »

Mike; Do you happen to know how JWM loads the apps into the tray.?
I know about the <Swallow > tag in .jwmrc, but it says nothing about 4 items in the tray.

See here: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=90778

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#48 Post by mikeb »

Mike; Do you happen to know how JWM loads the apps into the tray.?
Badly I suspect ... :D

Actually not a clue...its on my top 10 lists of things to remove from puppy which apparently makes them no longer puppies. I will have to think of a new name... Guinea Piggies seems apt and we have an extremely cute long haired one here.
Would I have to call 'pets' 'family'?

Michael

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#49 Post by jpeps »

mikeb wrote: When I was younger and bored I de-commented and de-whitespeced all the code in firefox 1.5... its was considerably more responsive for it.
mike
Maybe you didn't know that code gets compiled into machine code like you do now, and that it was only your imagination. Comments and whitespaces are considered good coding practices to make it understandable for later editing.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#50 Post by mikeb »

Code: Select all

Maybe you didn't know that code gets compiled into machine code like you do now, and that it was only your imagination. 
Ah you saw an opportunity to troll again ...welcome to the thread. :)

Now the xul interpreter is compiled but take a stroll into firefox/chrome and you will see some jar files. Look inside and you will see a pile of uncompressed (and uncompiled) javascript. This is the code that handles the html... running on xul but its raw script in this bunny..

Thanks for the clarification ..i never realised when I write in C that it is compiled into machine code. When I did program directly in machine code to make drivers many moon ago I obviously did not understand that either.

So desparate to try and discredit...you need a hobby...one I can understand with my limited intelligence.

mike

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#51 Post by jpeps »

mikeb wrote:
Thanks for the clarification ..i never realised when I write in C that it is compiled into machine code. When I did program directly in machine code to make drivers many moon ago I obviously did not understand that either.
You're welcome. AFAIK White space and comments are ignored, so it makes no sense to eliminate them.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#52 Post by mikeb »

Well since the javascript has to be parsed then that includes reading all the text and then filtering out white space and comments. And in this case some files had up to 33% of the text as comments.

But since you have shown yourself to know nothing about firefox or about code parsing these comments are pointless.

If you want to annoy please get your facts right first so as not to embarrass yourself.

Quite pathetic really. Is there not a life out there you can join?

mike

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#53 Post by jpeps »

mikeb wrote:Well since the javascript has to be parsed then that includes reading all the text and then filtering out white space and comments. And in this case some files had up to 33% of the text as comments.
Absurd. All the code gets converted to machine code. How much longer do you think it takes to ignore a comment?

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#54 Post by mikeb »

Absurd. All the code gets converted to machine code. How much longer do you think it takes to ignore a comment?
Yes it gets converted at runtime just like bash...the extra overhead of an interpreter..... which is why there was a speed gain by removing 30% of unneeded text....simply less to read...ignoring comments and whitespace does require processing by the interpreter.
Also hence my original comment of firefoxes structure is less efficient than the others.

Interpreter... you know what one is? I hope so. The reason why scripts are slower than compiled code is a clue.

You ignore every techinical question I have asked on here...it must be rubbing off.

feel free to carry on with absurdity...

You need to loosen up...go out, have a few drinks.....some dancing...meet women...that sort of thing. :)

Well time to have fun...I am sure you will entertain me further but at least you won't be bothering someone else. :D . You can get all the attention I am sure you feel you deserve here.

mike

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#55 Post by jpeps »

mikeb wrote:
Yes it gets converted at runtime just like bash...the extra overhead of an interpreter..... which is why there was a speed gain by removing 30% of unneeded text....simply less to read...ignoring comments and whitespace does require processing by the interpreter.
Also hence my original comment of firefoxes structure is less efficient than the others.
I'm sure the mozilla team will be greatfull to hear that removing whitespaces has such a profound performance enhancement. Think of the implications for other software that still contains whitespaces (not to mention.....comments!) I guess you were right all along. Professionals DON'T know what they're doing; it takes a genius to get it right.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#56 Post by mikeb »

If you bother to read properly I never claimed a profound performance increase .... a bit snappier to quote myself.
You totally missed my point in your frenzied haste.... the code that runs firefox is uncompiled javascript/xul... if it were compiled in some way it would indeed improve performance. I merely mentioned how tediously reducing the size of those scripts by 30% in itself had a noticeable if somewhat slight effect. In other words how much more would it benefit if that code was compiled.
Please spend time getting accainted with how firefox works...perhaps then you could suggest some improvements.

There are various techniques to shut out the obvious pain that my existance is obviously causing you. :D

Otherwise I recommend freenode irc... it embraced people like you and you could spend endless hours annoying those who love that sort of attention

best wishes and cream buns

your ever faithful servent

Mike

ps getting bored and so are others I would expect so no more replies for you I am afraid...its been enlightening as usual.

jpeps
Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008, 19:00

#57 Post by jpeps »

mikeb wrote:If you bother to read properly I never claimed a profound performance increase .... a bit snappier to quote myself..
You can't even get that right.

Post Reply