7 ms·

Not convinced. First, this analysis was done on Arch Linux, a source-based distribution. Since you know at compile time what your environment is, I would expec

Not convinced. First, this analysis was done on Arch Linux, a source-based distribution. Since you know at compile time what your environment is, I would expect the benefits to be smaller. And of course, this means you're willing to do a lot of recompiles. I'd like to see analysis done on more traditional (& common) binary distros. Second, the arguments seem a little cherry-picked. "Over half of your libraries are used by fewer than 0.1% of your executables." is cute. But modern systems have a lot of executables, so 0.1% > 1, so that still matters, and what about the other half. Finally, we're already having serious problems getting containers to upgrade when a security vulnerability is found. Requiring recompilation of all transitive users is not likely to win any update speed contests. If it's completely automated then it would work, but any rocks in the process will leave people endlessly vulnerable. See the Android ecosystem, etc.

eeereerews 6y ago
What do you mean by "source-based distribution"?
- riquito 6y ago
  One without packages shipped as prebuilt binaries: Gentoo [1] would be a good example. You compile every binary yourself (sometime you can use prebuilt binaries for the biggest software, if you are so inclined and the distro allows it). [1] https://www.gentoo.org/ https://www.gentoo.org/
  - danShumway 6y ago
    My Arch install doesn't compile anything locally unless I'm installing from AUR. Maybe it's doing it behind the scenes or something, but I'm doubtful, because otherwise I think my upgrades would take a lot longer.
  - lordleft 6y ago
    Doesn't arch use AUR / pacman for binaries / package management? I wasn't aware that like Gentoo you had to compile most software
    - ddevault 6y ago
      No, he's wrong. Arch Linux is primarily a binary distribution.
legulere 6y ago
How is arch Linux a source based distro?
abjKT26nO8 6y ago
> First, this analysis was done on Arch Linux, a source-based distribution. Since you know at compile time what your environment is, I would expect the benefits to be smaller. And of course, this means you're willing to do a lot of recompiles. I'd like to see analysis done on more traditional (& common) binary distros. Arch Linux is not Gentoo. And AUR is only a secondary method of installing software. So I'm not sure what you mean.
- cookiecaper 6y ago
  It's not Gentoo, but in practice, many frequently-used packages remain in the AUR and an AUR helper to make that transparent is standard kit for anyone using the box as a workstation. It's much more "source-based" than it may appear at first glance. I have ~15G of self-built packages sitting in my PKGDEST right now, if that counts for anything.
  - techntoke 6y ago
    Have you checked if they have official packages yet? I was surprised to find that half my AUR packages already were in official recently. Font packages and Android Studio can easily take up 5G. Also, you don't need an AUR helper.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      Agreed; I main Arch and I very rarely install packages from AUR. Rare enough that I've never felt the need to install a helper, it would just be unnecessary clutter. I suspect many users will need to dip into AUR once or twice for unsual packages, but I'm mildly skeptical that most users need to dip into AUR often enough that compile times would be a serious argument against static linking.
  - zenhack 6y ago
    > an AUR helper to make that transparent is standard kit for anyone using the box as a workstation Fwiw, I've been using arch as my daily driver continuously for 14 years and haven't ever really felt the strong need for an AUR helper.
BeetleB 6y ago
> First, this analysis was done on Arch Linux, a source-based distribution. Since you know at compile time what your environment is, I would expect the benefits to be smaller. And of course, this means you're willing to do a lot of recompiles. I run Gentoo as my Linux box. It takes a long time to compile stuff as it is (and I have a 22 core machine). Being forced to compile a lot more because everything is linked statically would be a nightmare. This is definitely not a plus for source based distributions.
- bjourne 6y ago
  Running Gentoo and complaining about long compile times is like cutting off your leg and complaining that walking hurts.
  - pengaru 6y ago
    > Running Gentoo and complaining about long compile times is like cutting off your leg and complaining that walking hurts. I fail to see the relevance of this comparison. It's more like wearing fitted clothing and (rationally) objecting to requiring a visit to your tailor every time you change your socks.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    I'm not complaining, and I can live with the compile times I currently have. I'm pointing out that saying this will benefit source based distributions more is nonsense.
- eikenberry 6y ago
  If compilers weren't so pathetically slow this wouldn't be that much of an issue. If this became widespread it might have the positive impact on projects like LLVM and get them to pay some attention to compiling time, not just optimization.
  - btilly 6y ago
    The problem with compile times is mostly not the compiler's fault. It is with the project setup. See http://www.real-linux.org.uk/recursivemake.pdf http://www.real-linux.org.uk/recursivemake.pdf for a classic explanation.
kick 6y ago
This comment hits all of the boxes for everything that is wrong with Hacker News. "First, false statement. Since you know false assumption, I would false conclusion. And of course, this means false conclusion. I'd like to see analysis done on what you did them on." "Second, the arguments seem a little cherry-picked. "Quote from article about W and Z" is cute. But modern systems have a lot of Z, and Obviously You Didn't Consider This." "Finally, we're already having serious problems getting Thing the Author Almost Always Rags on for Sucking to upgrade when a security vulnerability is found. Requiring recompilation of all transitive users who the author doesn't care about and who the author has already told are wrong is not likely to win any update speed contests for a use-case the author thinks is invalid. If it's completely automated then the perceived invalid use case would still be viable, but any rocks in the process will leave people with perceived invalid use case endlessly vulnerable. See Notoriously Bad Ecosystem That Isn't Relevant to the Article, etc."
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I know it's a popular Hacker News trope, but when done well I actually appreciate comments of the style "the author does a comparison and has some results, but do also keep in mind xyz that is non-obvious". I know there is a problem with people who go through articles and try to pick things that could affect the results and treat that as invalidating them, but more often than not simple comparisons like these do have more to say about them than what is presented and I don't want to discourage those.
  - kick 6y ago
    This one in particular was done terribly, and is imitating ones in the same style. I don't dislike the act of disagreement, nor even disagreements in this vein, I dislike the act of being confident, and further condescending ("is cute"), while making so many obvious mistakes that could be corrected with even a speck of knowledge about what you're talking about.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  Actually, this is a very serious topic, and TFA is wrong in a number of ways. HN commenters being able to say so is everything that's right with HN. My own commentary on TFA is all over the comments on this HN post. I put more effort and detail into my comments on this post than GP, but GP is not wrong. Commenting that a comment is exemplary of all that's wrong with HN is... popular, I'll grant you that, but it grates, and it's not really right. It's a "shut up" argument. Just downvote what you don't like, upvote what you do like, and reply with detailed commentary where you have something important to say. No need to disparage commenters.

eeereerews 6y ago

What do you mean by "source-based distribution"?

riquito 6y ago
One without packages shipped as prebuilt binaries: Gentoo [1] would be a good example. You compile every binary yourself (sometime you can use prebuilt binaries for the biggest software, if you are so inclined and the distro allows it). [1] https://www.gentoo.org/ https://www.gentoo.org/
- danShumway 6y ago
  My Arch install doesn't compile anything locally unless I'm installing from AUR. Maybe it's doing it behind the scenes or something, but I'm doubtful, because otherwise I think my upgrades would take a lot longer.
- lordleft 6y ago
  Doesn't arch use AUR / pacman for binaries / package management? I wasn't aware that like Gentoo you had to compile most software
  - ddevault 6y ago
    No, he's wrong. Arch Linux is primarily a binary distribution.

legulere 6y ago

How is arch Linux a source based distro?

abjKT26nO8 6y ago

> First, this analysis was done on Arch Linux, a source-based distribution. Since you know at compile time what your environment is, I would expect the benefits to be smaller. And of course, this means you're willing to do a lot of recompiles. I'd like to see analysis done on more traditional (& common) binary distros. Arch Linux is not Gentoo. And AUR is only a secondary method of installing software. So I'm not sure what you mean.

cookiecaper 6y ago
It's not Gentoo, but in practice, many frequently-used packages remain in the AUR and an AUR helper to make that transparent is standard kit for anyone using the box as a workstation. It's much more "source-based" than it may appear at first glance. I have ~15G of self-built packages sitting in my PKGDEST right now, if that counts for anything.
- techntoke 6y ago
  Have you checked if they have official packages yet? I was surprised to find that half my AUR packages already were in official recently. Font packages and Android Studio can easily take up 5G. Also, you don't need an AUR helper.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    Agreed; I main Arch and I very rarely install packages from AUR. Rare enough that I've never felt the need to install a helper, it would just be unnecessary clutter. I suspect many users will need to dip into AUR once or twice for unsual packages, but I'm mildly skeptical that most users need to dip into AUR often enough that compile times would be a serious argument against static linking.
- zenhack 6y ago
  > an AUR helper to make that transparent is standard kit for anyone using the box as a workstation Fwiw, I've been using arch as my daily driver continuously for 14 years and haven't ever really felt the strong need for an AUR helper.

BeetleB 6y ago

> First, this analysis was done on Arch Linux, a source-based distribution. Since you know at compile time what your environment is, I would expect the benefits to be smaller. And of course, this means you're willing to do a lot of recompiles. I run Gentoo as my Linux box. It takes a long time to compile stuff as it is (and I have a 22 core machine). Being forced to compile a lot more because everything is linked statically would be a nightmare. This is definitely not a plus for source based distributions.

bjourne 6y ago
Running Gentoo and complaining about long compile times is like cutting off your leg and complaining that walking hurts.
- pengaru 6y ago
  > Running Gentoo and complaining about long compile times is like cutting off your leg and complaining that walking hurts. I fail to see the relevance of this comparison. It's more like wearing fitted clothing and (rationally) objecting to requiring a visit to your tailor every time you change your socks.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  I'm not complaining, and I can live with the compile times I currently have. I'm pointing out that saying this will benefit source based distributions more is nonsense.
eikenberry 6y ago
If compilers weren't so pathetically slow this wouldn't be that much of an issue. If this became widespread it might have the positive impact on projects like LLVM and get them to pay some attention to compiling time, not just optimization.
- btilly 6y ago
  The problem with compile times is mostly not the compiler's fault. It is with the project setup. See http://www.real-linux.org.uk/recursivemake.pdf http://www.real-linux.org.uk/recursivemake.pdf for a classic explanation.

kick 6y ago

This comment hits all of the boxes for everything that is wrong with Hacker News. "First, false statement. Since you know false assumption, I would false conclusion. And of course, this means false conclusion. I'd like to see analysis done on what you did them on." "Second, the arguments seem a little cherry-picked. "Quote from article about W and Z" is cute. But modern systems have a lot of Z, and Obviously You Didn't Consider This." "Finally, we're already having serious problems getting Thing the Author Almost Always Rags on for Sucking to upgrade when a security vulnerability is found. Requiring recompilation of all transitive users who the author doesn't care about and who the author has already told are wrong is not likely to win any update speed contests for a use-case the author thinks is invalid. If it's completely automated then the perceived invalid use case would still be viable, but any rocks in the process will leave people with perceived invalid use case endlessly vulnerable. See Notoriously Bad Ecosystem That Isn't Relevant to the Article, etc."

saagarjha 6y ago
I know it's a popular Hacker News trope, but when done well I actually appreciate comments of the style "the author does a comparison and has some results, but do also keep in mind xyz that is non-obvious". I know there is a problem with people who go through articles and try to pick things that could affect the results and treat that as invalidating them, but more often than not simple comparisons like these do have more to say about them than what is presented and I don't want to discourage those.
- kick 6y ago
  This one in particular was done terribly, and is imitating ones in the same style. I don't dislike the act of disagreement, nor even disagreements in this vein, I dislike the act of being confident, and further condescending ("is cute"), while making so many obvious mistakes that could be corrected with even a speck of knowledge about what you're talking about.
cryptonector 6y ago
Actually, this is a very serious topic, and TFA is wrong in a number of ways. HN commenters being able to say so is everything that's right with HN. My own commentary on TFA is all over the comments on this HN post. I put more effort and detail into my comments on this post than GP, but GP is not wrong. Commenting that a comment is exemplary of all that's wrong with HN is... popular, I'll grant you that, but it grates, and it's not really right. It's a "shut up" argument. Just downvote what you don't like, upvote what you do like, and reply with detailed commentary where you have something important to say. No need to disparage commenters.