3 ms·

This is the weird mismatch between compiled and javascript code from your own link which I am familiar with however I do thank you for linking it here as I shal

This is the weird mismatch between compiled and javascript code from your own link which I am familiar with however I do thank you for linking it here as I shall substantiate my argument based on your own link. >-------------------------------------------------------------- Here’s the problem: C objects don’t track who owns them; instead, they only track how many owners they have. This is the traditional reference counting mechanism, and it works fine in C land because C is not garbage collected. To the garbage collector, however, the C objects would look like this: The garbage collector has no means to know the relationships between C objects. The garbage collector, then, will go there and destroy the root one. This object will be finalized, and the directly dependent objects will be marked for garbage collection. Only the directly dependent objects are marked for the next garbage collection. The “solution” is basically throwing a grenade to kill ants. We now queue a garbage collection every time an object is marked for destruction. So every single time an object becomes red, as in the example, we queue a GC. This is, of course, a very aggressive solution. But it is not all bad. Some early tests shows that this has a small impact on performance – at least, it’s much smaller than what we were expecting. >-------------------------------------------------------------- This is basically garbage engineering that shouldn't have made it out of the design stage let alone been knocking over systems for 8 years. Moving on. In essence a substantial chunk of the Linux desktop crowd feels like gnome is crap and has correctly understood that they aren't welcome to fix it because project owners have a very opinionated vision on how the Linux desktop works. This is probably why 60% of Linux Desktop users don't use it. https://linux-hardware.org/?view=os_de https://linux-hardware.org/?view=os_de If Pop!_OS succeeds in replacing it and Ubuntu ends up adopting it will probably drop from 40% of users to closer to 5%. It would be in serious danger of irrelevancy at that point if it weren't Red Hats baby. You are welcome to your own opinion on the utility of the gnome desktop but the idea expressed by the grand parent post that the Linux desktop space ought to just settle on a singular environment that cannot even convince the majority of users to use it despite having more corporate money spent on it in a year than other environments in history seems ill founded. Edit: > the apps themselves are supposed to implement session management to insure against any system crash Well designed software environments don't crash in a way that causes the underlying OS or end user applications to die. One time in a decade would be one time too many. Session management makes perfect sense as defense in depth for data loss not least of which because hardware failure, power loss, battery exhaustion happen but this isn't even remotely a defense against gnome's unreliable software design where features available in other environments as options require monkey patching gnome's javascript desktop wherein any addon up to and including a hokey little weather widget can somehow destroy the entire session because the underlying javascript changed between X.n and X.n+1. For practical purposes such crashes can cause the loss of user data and punting responsibility to user apps is absolutely ridiculous.

throwaway82652 5y ago
>This is basically garbage engineering that shouldn't have made it out of the design stage let alone been knocking over systems for 8 years. No, this makes no sense and you're still misunderstanding the problem. This issue occurs anywhere in any system where you connect a GC to an outside system. Every javascript implementation has to contend with it. It also can happen in a lot of other places, for example, if you bind a random C API to Python. It's not a weird mismatch. There are plenty of bad issues with mozjs right now but this is not one of them. >In essence a substantial chunk of the Linux desktop crowd feels like gnome is crap and has correctly understood that they aren't welcome to fix it because project owners have a very opinionated vision on how the Linux desktop works. Ok, so what? There are approximately zero projects in the Linux desktop that aren't opinionated, and there are approximately zero people in the Linux desktop crowd who don't think some other project is crap. You don't have to spend very long reading HN and slashdot comments to figure that one out. If you think GNOME was the first project to reject changes, then I have some very bad news for you. >You are welcome to your own opinion on the utility of the gnome desktop I don't care about the utility of GNOME. I actually think GNOME is very bad and I agree with some of your other criticisms. I just wish you wouldn't ruin your comment with these other same nonsensical criticisms that we've seen so many times that never go anywhere in a productive direction. Stick to the good criticisms, avoid these petty gripes unless you have something useful to add. Every time I can honestly pin these type of comments to people who aren't desktop developers because it's always the same refrain about how they should have designed it better the first time 20 years ago or something like that. That's a boring comment, it has no intellectual value. You can do better than this. And I'm sorry I don't have a time machine, I wish I did. >Well designed software environments don't crash in a way that causes the underlying OS or end user applications to die. One time in a decade would be one time too many. Then don't install badly designed extensions. If you think that is a nonsense response then please rethink what you're trying to say here. The worst offender for hard system crashes in Linux is still driver bugs. Do you really think driver developers want that to happen? >this isn't even remotely a defense against gnome's unreliable software design This doesn't follow. The problem here is not the design, the problem is rather a lack of design. >any addon up to and including a hokey little weather widget can somehow destroy the entire session because the underlying javascript changed between X.n and X.n+1. And small changes in the drivers can crash your whole kernel too. I still don't know what point you're trying to make here, besides asking for someone to fix the crash. >For practical purposes such crashes can cause the loss of user data and punting responsibility to user apps is absolutely ridiculous. No, it is not ridiculous at all. Nothing is being punted. The apps have always had this responsibility. Some crummy desktop applications are just slow to catch up here. Most of the "serious work" apps I've seen (like word processors, spreadsheets, photoshop, etc) have their own auto-backup and have had it for decades because that's the most reasonable thing to do. Almost all mobile apps are also designed this way because the OS can kill them at any time or the device can lose power at any time. But you knew that already?

throwaway82652 5y ago

>This is basically garbage engineering that shouldn't have made it out of the design stage let alone been knocking over systems for 8 years. No, this makes no sense and you're still misunderstanding the problem. This issue occurs anywhere in any system where you connect a GC to an outside system. Every javascript implementation has to contend with it. It also can happen in a lot of other places, for example, if you bind a random C API to Python. It's not a weird mismatch. There are plenty of bad issues with mozjs right now but this is not one of them. >In essence a substantial chunk of the Linux desktop crowd feels like gnome is crap and has correctly understood that they aren't welcome to fix it because project owners have a very opinionated vision on how the Linux desktop works. Ok, so what? There are approximately zero projects in the Linux desktop that aren't opinionated, and there are approximately zero people in the Linux desktop crowd who don't think some other project is crap. You don't have to spend very long reading HN and slashdot comments to figure that one out. If you think GNOME was the first project to reject changes, then I have some very bad news for you. >You are welcome to your own opinion on the utility of the gnome desktop I don't care about the utility of GNOME. I actually think GNOME is very bad and I agree with some of your other criticisms. I just wish you wouldn't ruin your comment with these other same nonsensical criticisms that we've seen so many times that never go anywhere in a productive direction. Stick to the good criticisms, avoid these petty gripes unless you have something useful to add. Every time I can honestly pin these type of comments to people who aren't desktop developers because it's always the same refrain about how they should have designed it better the first time 20 years ago or something like that. That's a boring comment, it has no intellectual value. You can do better than this. And I'm sorry I don't have a time machine, I wish I did. >Well designed software environments don't crash in a way that causes the underlying OS or end user applications to die. One time in a decade would be one time too many. Then don't install badly designed extensions. If you think that is a nonsense response then please rethink what you're trying to say here. The worst offender for hard system crashes in Linux is still driver bugs. Do you really think driver developers want that to happen? >this isn't even remotely a defense against gnome's unreliable software design This doesn't follow. The problem here is not the design, the problem is rather a lack of design. >any addon up to and including a hokey little weather widget can somehow destroy the entire session because the underlying javascript changed between X.n and X.n+1. And small changes in the drivers can crash your whole kernel too. I still don't know what point you're trying to make here, besides asking for someone to fix the crash. >For practical purposes such crashes can cause the loss of user data and punting responsibility to user apps is absolutely ridiculous. No, it is not ridiculous at all. Nothing is being punted. The apps have always had this responsibility. Some crummy desktop applications are just slow to catch up here. Most of the "serious work" apps I've seen (like word processors, spreadsheets, photoshop, etc) have their own auto-backup and have had it for decades because that's the most reasonable thing to do. Almost all mobile apps are also designed this way because the OS can kill them at any time or the device can lose power at any time. But you knew that already?