Re: contest proposal
Russell Coker via linux-aus <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.australia |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <24009262.ouqheUzb2q@xev> |
On Monday, 1 January 2024 13:18:40 AEDT Info via linux-aus wrote: > #1 recommendation. As tested on 2 GB Raspberry Pi 4. > > Tackle Web browsers. Yes, browsers have been very big for quite a while. Chrome (and presumably all derivatives) has recently followed the example of Firefox in freeing memory from unused tabs (I know someone who has over 2000 Firefox tabs on a system with 16G of RAM). > Use Firefox as an example. Installing NoScript reduces all overheads by > heaps. Gone is most of the spyware, trackware, and general junkware. Make > Noscript style controls standard built in. What does NoScript break? We need documentation on this, and maybe some changes to defaults of OS installs. Does Firefox have a "managed mode" like Chrome/Chromium/Edge do so you can set a file in /etc to force install of extensions without the user being bothered? Building this in to web browsers would be worthy of a trophy. > Firefox writes millions of little status updates to disk. The latest Firefox > is unusable on a microSD card as a result. Switching to an SSD makes it > just usable. There is a setting to reduce writes but it is hidden. Make it > a standard click setting and the default for anything not running from > NVMe. Sounds like a great idea, could we do this at package install time? Could we have a distribution package named optimise-slow-storage to change the config of Firefox etc in this regard? > Ok, no need for $20. Buy me a coffee. They are almost $20 now. :-) ;) > #2 Replacing some utilities with C or Rust versions would help. I use a C > framework style library to make the replacement easier. Are there any frequently used utilities in slower language that are bottlenecks? Also we should just stop using some of the older programs. gzip for example makes no sense nowadays, for almost any data you have you can find another compression algorithm that is faster and better, a lot faster, or a lot better. > #3 Take the junk out of GTK to make it perform. That would make many program > upgrades easy. Sounds like a good thing to do. I don't know enough about GTK to know if it's actually bad or just has the usual level of overhead due to developers not needing to optimise for RAM in most cases. But going through the main large software stacks and looking for commonly used code that can be slightly reduced could give some real benefits. If you have 1000 graphical controls and save a few words on each that could potentially improve cache efficiency on some critical paths. > My 16 GB machine easily handles a file cache for my 2 TB disks. Some of my 4 > TB disks blow out the cache. 64 GB would be nice. What cache are you using? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ linux-aus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to linux-aus-unsubscribe-cunTk1MwBs8iFSDQTTA3OBCuuivNXqWP@public.gmane.org