Re: musl 0.9.3 released

[orc <orc@sibserver.ru>]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:46:52 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:31:12AM +0800, orc wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 01:22:20 -0400
> > Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> > 
> > > If I were going to switch to x86_64 cpu, which I will probably do
> > > in the next few years, x32 would certainly be appealing. Not
> > > decided for sure, but it seems very nice to get all the important
> > > benefits of a 64-bit cpu with none of the bloat.
> > 
> > Somewhat bloated, but not so much. Often I see only that massive
> > apps like web browsers eat much of RAM usually. 2G usually enough
> > for me to run 3-4 qemu-kvm's and bloated Firefox 12 (eats about
> > 700M usually, critical was 1G and 100M swap, 1 month of it's
> > uptime). Now I use 4G (additional 2G is for tmpfs. I like to store
> > large blobs in /tmp often). I use x86_64 for 3 years without any
> > problems. If Firefox (or any application of same class, chromium
> > probably) will continue to grow, then five or seven years will be
> > enough to make x32 be obsoleted (compared with ff3, it's maximum
> > memusage was 300M, and for 3.6 it was 400M).
> 
> Assuming the market is shifting to battery-powered mobile devices
> possibly intended to run for days or even weeks without charging, I
> think we're going to start seeing some more efficient apps. I don't
> doubt the old behemoths will still be around for a while, but musl is
> developed with the assumption/intention that efficiency is going to be
> one of the important design criteria for future software. If we were
> happy with the level of bloat you're describing above, I think lots of
> people in this community would just forget about musl and use glibc...

I agree with you here. I hope that shift will force appmakers to
make their software much more better and efficient.

> 
> Rich