It's a fun route! If you give it a shot and have a bike that fits you good you'd be amazed at how quickly you can build up fitness for cycling, heavy or not.
My wife has a sense of fashion and I do not. When we go out she's always dressed precisely and, left without guidance, I look like a hike might break out at any minute.
Relwen's excellent. Sturdy clothes with utility -- my concern -- good looking for a variety of semi-casual to formal occasions. I wear their hunting jacket as a general purpose blazer.
> It's busy-work that provides no business benefit, but-for our supplier's problems.
I dunno, if I were paying for a particular quality-of-service I'd want my requests authenticated so I can make claims if that QoS is breached. Relying on public pulls negates that.
Making sure you can hold your suppliers to contract terms is basic due diligence.
It is a trade-off. For many services I would absolutely agree with you, but for hosting public open-source binaries, well, that really should just work, and there's value in keeping our infrastructure simpler.
At my university, performance. The CS department was clued into Linux development but also the Haskell world so darcs use among students was high. Our underpowered lab machines and personal devices struggled with darcs for reasons I no longer remembered and a group of us made use of mercurial for an OS project and had a rough go of it as the patch sets got more and more convoluted. Back in those days the core was C but a lot of the logic was Python which struggled on the memory constrained devices available. Some one of us learned about git trying to get into Linux kernel work, told the rest of us and it was just comically fast, is my memory. I spent a tedious weekend converting all my projects to git and never looked back, myself.
Some years later Facebook did a lot of work to improve the speed of mercurial but the ship had sailed. Interesting idea though.
I agree. If we were to try and pin a thought process to an additional level of systems programmer it’d involve writing an allocator that’s custom to your domain. The problem with garbage collection for the systems’ case is you’re opting into a set of undefined and uncontrolled runtime behavior which is okay until it catastrophically isn’t. An allocator is the same but with less surface area and you can swap it at need.
I'm not tracking how your question follows. If by garbage collection you mean a system in which resources are cleaned up at or after the moment they are marked as no longer being necessary then, sure, I guess I can see a thread here, although I think it a thin connection. The conversation up-thread is about runtime garbage collectors which are a mechanism with more semantic properties than this expansive definition implies and possessing an internal complexity that is opaque to the user. An allocator does have the more expensive definition I think you might be operating with, as does a filesystem, but it's the opacity and intrinsic binding to a specific runtime GC that makes it a challenging tool for systems programming.
Go for instance bills itself as a systems language and that's true for domains where bounded, predictable memory consumption / CPU trade-offs are not necessary _because_ the runtime GC is bundled and non-negotiable. Its behavior also shifts with releases. A systems program relying on an allocator alone can choose to ignore the allocator until it's a problem and swap the implementation out for one -- perhaps custom made -- that tailors to the domain.
An OS would have a very hard time determining whether a page is "unused" or not. Normal GCs have to know at least which fields of a data structure contain pointers so it can find unreachable objects. To an OS, all memory is just opaque bytes, and it would have no way to know if any given 8 bytes is a pointer to a page or a 64-bit integer that happens to have the same value. This is pretty much why C/C++ don't have garbage collectors currently.
> To an OS, all memory is just opaque bytes, and it would have no way to know if any given 8 bytes is a pointer to a page or a 64-bit integer that happens to have the same value.
This is like saying to an OS all file descriptors are just integers.
I doubt GC would work on file descriptors either. How could an OS tell when scanning through memory if every 4 bytes is a file descriptor it must keep alive, or an integer that just happens to have the same value?
Not to mention that file descriptors (and pointers!) may not be stored by value. A program might have a set of fds and only store the first one, since it has some way to calculate the others, eg by adding one.
A gargbage collector need not be conservative. Interestingly linux (and most posix compliant unices I guess) implements, as last resort, an actual tracing file descriptor garbage collector to track the lifetime of file descriptors: as they can be shared across processes via unix sockets (potentially recursively), arbitrary cycles can be created and reference counting is not enough.
The OS already does that, though? Your program requests some number of pages of virtual memory, and the OS uses a GC-like mechanism to allocate physical memory to those virtual pages on demand, wiping and reusing it soon after the virtual pages are unmapped.
It's just that programs tend to want to manage objects with sub-page granularity (as well as on separate threads in parallel), and at that level there are infinitely many possible access patterns and reachability criteria that a GC might want to optimize for.
AFAIK, no OS uses a "GC-like mechanism" to handle page allocation.
When a process requests additional pages be added to its address space, they remain in that address space until the process explicitly releases them or the process exits. At that time they go back on the free list to be re-used.
GC implies "finding" unused stuff among something other than a free list.
I was mainly thinking of the zeroing strategy: when a page is freed from one process, it generally has to be zeroed before being handed to another process. It looks like Linux does this as lazily as possible, but some of the BSDs allegedly use idle cycles to zero pages. So I'd consider that a form of GC to reclaim dirty pages, though I'll concede that it isn't as common as I thought.
> Meanwhile an OS uses the filesystem for just about everything and it is also a garbage collected system ...
so many serious applications end-up reimplementing their own custom user-space / process-level filesystem for specific tasks because how SLOW can OS filesystems be though
Melville was a prominent author, an early sex symbol even, owing to the success and popularity of his novels before Moby Dick. That novel was hugely controversial in its day -- perceived as blasphemous, overwrought -- and it ruined his reputation as an author. Also, he'd spent money he didn't really have during the writing of Moby Dick so that when it flopped he couldn't survive on the famine part of the feast/famine divide.
Point being, had Melville continued writing south pacific adventure novels he probably would not be remembered today but might have died a well-off man.
This doesn’t line up with what is written on his Wikipedia page at all, which claims it was his next novel that was more controversial, and he clearly wasn’t that poor because he did a grand tour of Europe and the Mediterranean a few years after
I can’t speak to the Wikipedia page as I have not read it but the biographical material in my Norton Critical Moby Dick and Delbanco’s Melville line up: Moby Dick was a flop and ruined his reputation in society, Pierre not selling further precipitated the crisis built from choices made while riding a high into The Whale.
Melville bought many things with debt: his farm, his rare books, clothes. I don’t find it unimaginable that he paid for the grand tour with debt spending either.
> From the highest levels to the lowest levels, power dynamics decide how things are.
Even granting this premise, which I don't, the interpretation you are operating under -- all but the 1% or 10% or whatever get get crushed -- is not realistic. Folks live happy, contented lives today in community with others. Many species other than human care for the elderly or their sick and long-term disabled. Keeping with the evolutionary model why would altruism continually evolve into species without utility?
I guess, on a personal note, I hope things improve for you.
Is this meant to be a game? I am unable to type my own prompt, the site is filling its own prompt in and then requesting that I press enter to allow it to do so again. I figured there was an intro but the self-play is more and more elaborate without handing it over to the player.
