4 ms·

Honestly, is 140 MB really a problem anymore? Like yeah, I don't like the idea that everything using Electron includes and runs an entire browser API every tim

Honestly, is 140 MB really a problem anymore? Like yeah, I don't like the idea that everything using Electron includes and runs an entire browser API every time they execute. But these days 140 MB is chump change. Unless you're on Hughesnet, I get the impression most users have the disk space and bandwidth to deal with a one-time download of 140 MB. Yes, it'd certainly be nice if it could be 5 MB instead. It's pretty stupid that applications of old could probably do the same stuff with even less than that, but today we just use applications as dumping grounds for imported modules. At the same time, I think we are kind of living in the past when it comes to being concerned about megabytes. Countless people stream gigabytes of video daily. The reason I am more concerned with browser APIs than bandwidth is because more code running in memory means more things to either potentially go wrong or be exploited. Even then, that's not really high on my list of concerns.

selfhoster11 5y ago
When every application is an Electron application, you suddenly can only run one quarter of the number of applications concurrently. If your workflow depends on multiple applications running at the same time to remain efficient, that's not great. And no, I can't just "buy more RAM", because it might be soldered onto the mainboard, or out of the available budget range for such upgrades. That's without even getting into people that still have limited bandwidth in 2021.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  Not every application is an Electron app and you have plenty of choices if you don't want to use Electron apps. It really depends on individual use. For instance, I am currently running at least 6 browser engine instances as I type this, probably more than that, and I just am not experiencing a meaningful performance hit that would cause me to get pissed at Electron. If that happens to you, then sure, I can't argue against that. But yours may not be everyone's experience. I am personally skeptical as to whether 140 MB (I'm pretty sure we were talking about binary size, not memory usage) is as big a problem as HN makes it out to be.
  - fouric 5y ago
    > For instance, I am currently running at least 6 browser engine instances as I type this, probably more than that, and I just am not experiencing a meaningful performance hit Repeat after me: your computer is not the same as everyone else's computer. As a programmer, your computer is statistically significantly better than the average user's. If you're running 6 browser engine instances without noticing, it's almost certainly way better. My wife's laptop is an almost decade-old Thinkpad x230 tablet. Looking on eBay, I see that most of the available x230's have Intel Core i7-3520M[1] processors (22nm, 2c/4t, 2.9 GHz base clock, 5 MB L3), and my machine has 4 GB of RAM. You willing to bet that you could run 5 Electron instances on that machine without any noticeable slowdowns, especially when doing something like running a sixth browser for web browsing? According to Mozilla's hardware report as of the time of this comment, the median Firefox user's machine has two physical cores[2]. 8GB of RAM, sure, but a full quarter still have only 4GB. The most popular graphics vendor is Intel integrated graphics. And so on. You want to post your machine specs? [1] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/64893/intel-core-i73520m-processor-4m-cache-up-to-3-60-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/64893/i... [2] https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware
    - ravenstine 5y ago
      > Repeat after me: your computer is not the same as everyone else's computer. You're repeating pretty much what I said, so I really am not receptive to this "repeat after me" statement you're making towards me. I think I agree with you and see your point, but I see what you wrote as kind of standoffish. Like, post my machine specs? lol There's no need to be that sarcastic. Also, just because the big Electron apps are a problem for a part of the user base, I don't think that's necessarily evidence that they are an outright problem. I could just as easily come up with anecdotes of people I know whom aren't developers and run multiple Electron-based apps. It really wouldn't prove anything. It would certainly be a bigger problem if literally every app is an Electron app. Even in 2021 most of what I'm using isn't using a browser engine. Then again, maybe there are plenty of circumstances where people are forced to use lots of apps that all bundle browser engines. I really don't have much knowledge about that. Maybe this is way more common than I've been lead to believe. My original question was really about just how prevalent the need for apps smaller than 140 MB actually is. As far as I can tell, that's a valid question, even if some of my premise was out of ignorance.
belthesar 5y ago
Is it a problem? I wouldn't call it an earth-shattering one, but yeah, I think we're rife with opportunity to, say, take a note from Docker's use of UnionFS, to provide common baseline electron, and layer on dependencies on top of it. For first world countries, the concept of burning gigabytes of data on the daily is no real concern, but in less connected places, less privileged regions of the world, gigabytes an hour is a pipe dream. Even for us folks with more dense data connectivity, making more room on transit bandwidth is a boon for everyone (even if it is to make more room to stream more cat videos). Happily cede that it's not a top level concern, but I do agree with the sentiment that we can do better, and we should try to.
fouric 5y ago
> Honestly, is 140 MB really a problem anymore? Yes. I have a 1 GiB/month cellular data plan. If I'm on the go, or my home internet is down (like it is now), that 140 MB is a seventh of my internet for the entire month. If you live in Africa and have a connection like Ben Kuhn, 2.6 mbps[1], then downloading that 140 MB installer will take over 7 minutes, while a 5 MB installer will take 15 seconds, and Windirstat's 630 KB will take about 2 seconds. If you have a 16k connection from Ethiopia[1], then 140 MB takes almost 20 hours to download (5 MB is 43 minutes, 630 KB is 5 and a half minutes). Good luck with that. If you're on a 32 GB SSD (like I was just a few years ago), 140 MB for a highly specialized tool is a huge amount. Or if you're building a system recovery image. Or, if you have a large, but slow, HDD in an older computer (or worse - a small and slow SSD in a netbook), then reading that 140 MB installer (or the potentially-even-larger installed program) is going to be far worse than a 5 MB one. I can think of a dozen situations where 140 MB is a problem. Don't assume that everyone else is in the same situation as you. As a matter of fact, if you're a programmer, your hardware is probably significantly better than the average computer user. [1] https://danluu.com/web-bloat/ https://danluu.com/web-bloat/
Shadonototra 5y ago
Yes, it cost more in bandwidth, CDN has to cache file on actual disks, the more used, the more you need It cost more electricity to download, and users has to store file too, it causes bloat, and then system bloat if you also have to install it So yes, file size, performance, bandwidth optimization, everything matter, EVEN MORE IN TODAY DAY AND AGE! 1000x disk increase only just for a GUI for dd is beyond useless, a pure egoist waste
mindslight 5y ago
Yes. The gargantuan size implies it's some complex application carrying out out some special processes, rather than a simple utility that can also be performed with shell builtins. This makes users less in touch with the workings of systems, which if they're playing around with disk images, is the opposite of what they'd like to accomplish.

selfhoster11 5y ago

When every application is an Electron application, you suddenly can only run one quarter of the number of applications concurrently. If your workflow depends on multiple applications running at the same time to remain efficient, that's not great. And no, I can't just "buy more RAM", because it might be soldered onto the mainboard, or out of the available budget range for such upgrades. That's without even getting into people that still have limited bandwidth in 2021.

ravenstine 5y ago
Not every application is an Electron app and you have plenty of choices if you don't want to use Electron apps. It really depends on individual use. For instance, I am currently running at least 6 browser engine instances as I type this, probably more than that, and I just am not experiencing a meaningful performance hit that would cause me to get pissed at Electron. If that happens to you, then sure, I can't argue against that. But yours may not be everyone's experience. I am personally skeptical as to whether 140 MB (I'm pretty sure we were talking about binary size, not memory usage) is as big a problem as HN makes it out to be.
- fouric 5y ago
  > For instance, I am currently running at least 6 browser engine instances as I type this, probably more than that, and I just am not experiencing a meaningful performance hit Repeat after me: your computer is not the same as everyone else's computer. As a programmer, your computer is statistically significantly better than the average user's. If you're running 6 browser engine instances without noticing, it's almost certainly way better. My wife's laptop is an almost decade-old Thinkpad x230 tablet. Looking on eBay, I see that most of the available x230's have Intel Core i7-3520M[1] processors (22nm, 2c/4t, 2.9 GHz base clock, 5 MB L3), and my machine has 4 GB of RAM. You willing to bet that you could run 5 Electron instances on that machine without any noticeable slowdowns, especially when doing something like running a sixth browser for web browsing? According to Mozilla's hardware report as of the time of this comment, the median Firefox user's machine has two physical cores[2]. 8GB of RAM, sure, but a full quarter still have only 4GB. The most popular graphics vendor is Intel integrated graphics. And so on. You want to post your machine specs? [1] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/64893/intel-core-i73520m-processor-4m-cache-up-to-3-60-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/64893/i... [2] https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    > Repeat after me: your computer is not the same as everyone else's computer. You're repeating pretty much what I said, so I really am not receptive to this "repeat after me" statement you're making towards me. I think I agree with you and see your point, but I see what you wrote as kind of standoffish. Like, post my machine specs? lol There's no need to be that sarcastic. Also, just because the big Electron apps are a problem for a part of the user base, I don't think that's necessarily evidence that they are an outright problem. I could just as easily come up with anecdotes of people I know whom aren't developers and run multiple Electron-based apps. It really wouldn't prove anything. It would certainly be a bigger problem if literally every app is an Electron app. Even in 2021 most of what I'm using isn't using a browser engine. Then again, maybe there are plenty of circumstances where people are forced to use lots of apps that all bundle browser engines. I really don't have much knowledge about that. Maybe this is way more common than I've been lead to believe. My original question was really about just how prevalent the need for apps smaller than 140 MB actually is. As far as I can tell, that's a valid question, even if some of my premise was out of ignorance.

belthesar 5y ago

Is it a problem? I wouldn't call it an earth-shattering one, but yeah, I think we're rife with opportunity to, say, take a note from Docker's use of UnionFS, to provide common baseline electron, and layer on dependencies on top of it. For first world countries, the concept of burning gigabytes of data on the daily is no real concern, but in less connected places, less privileged regions of the world, gigabytes an hour is a pipe dream. Even for us folks with more dense data connectivity, making more room on transit bandwidth is a boon for everyone (even if it is to make more room to stream more cat videos). Happily cede that it's not a top level concern, but I do agree with the sentiment that we can do better, and we should try to.

fouric 5y ago

> Honestly, is 140 MB really a problem anymore? Yes. I have a 1 GiB/month cellular data plan. If I'm on the go, or my home internet is down (like it is now), that 140 MB is a seventh of my internet for the entire month. If you live in Africa and have a connection like Ben Kuhn, 2.6 mbps[1], then downloading that 140 MB installer will take over 7 minutes, while a 5 MB installer will take 15 seconds, and Windirstat's 630 KB will take about 2 seconds. If you have a 16k connection from Ethiopia[1], then 140 MB takes almost 20 hours to download (5 MB is 43 minutes, 630 KB is 5 and a half minutes). Good luck with that. If you're on a 32 GB SSD (like I was just a few years ago), 140 MB for a highly specialized tool is a huge amount. Or if you're building a system recovery image. Or, if you have a large, but slow, HDD in an older computer (or worse - a small and slow SSD in a netbook), then reading that 140 MB installer (or the potentially-even-larger installed program) is going to be far worse than a 5 MB one. I can think of a dozen situations where 140 MB is a problem. Don't assume that everyone else is in the same situation as you. As a matter of fact, if you're a programmer, your hardware is probably significantly better than the average computer user. [1] https://danluu.com/web-bloat/ https://danluu.com/web-bloat/

Shadonototra 5y ago

Yes, it cost more in bandwidth, CDN has to cache file on actual disks, the more used, the more you need It cost more electricity to download, and users has to store file too, it causes bloat, and then system bloat if you also have to install it So yes, file size, performance, bandwidth optimization, everything matter, EVEN MORE IN TODAY DAY AND AGE! 1000x disk increase only just for a GUI for dd is beyond useless, a pure egoist waste

mindslight 5y ago

Yes. The gargantuan size implies it's some complex application carrying out out some special processes, rather than a simple utility that can also be performed with shell builtins. This makes users less in touch with the workings of systems, which if they're playing around with disk images, is the opposite of what they'd like to accomplish.