What's that? Never heard of that.hoppel wrote: I'm trying to find a safe and easy way of using the UPX packer under Linux.
Linux is not Windows!!hoppel wrote: Under Windows I just pack every program after the installation.
You are using a Windows program to manipulate Linux binaries??? That's definitely a great way to hose your installation and to destroy those binarieshoppel wrote: The easiest way I figured out was packing the Linux files under Windows by using a ext3 file system for Windows.
You're not supposed to touch such important system locations manually. And especially not with Windows tools!!hoppel wrote: when I packed whole usr/bin the system didn't start the next time
Let go of your Windows habits. Linux binaries are more or less already optimised (to sane levels at least). Linux is not Windows.hoppel wrote: I'd still like to pack my files, because I want to save space on my hard disk and because it makes programs start faster.
Why would I want to do that??? Windows must be a seriously *BROKEN* operating system if it teaches users to do such things and they even regard such monstrous manipulations of system binaries as being 'normal'.hoppel wrote: Is there already a way of doing it in one of this two ways?
you are using a Windows program to manipulate Linux binaries??? That's definitely a great way to hose your installation and to destroy those binaries
The binaries already are small like hell and optimised. There is no need for touching them.
And hose my perfectly running Linux systems??? No thankshoppel wrote: Well, you should give it a try yourself.
OK, my bad. I honestly didn't know about this UPX thing. But so far you're the only guy using this it seems (at least here) ... or else I suppose this would be wider known around here?hoppel wrote: No, UPX can pack Windows, Linux and even Atari program files. It doesn't matter which platform you use for UPX itself.
I doubt that this really makes such a difference. On a decent system with a reasonable fast disk and fully supported disk controller I doubt you will notice any difference. Also: How do you test this? Do you reboot between your attempts? Because if you first start Firefox (before using UPX) then portions of it will be in the system's cache and buffer memory (portions of your RAM that are idle and are re-routed to perform this job). When you then start it again it will show up way way faster than it did before: because now the additional cache and buffers come into play and programs will be loaded faster. So if you used UPX between the two runs then the perceived speed-increase may also have a lot to do with all the buffering going on. So for a serious test you'd have to reboot your machine between the runs and make sure nothing is in the memory buffer.hoppel wrote: And btw., I tested it successfully with Linux programs, and they are also getting much faster.
Even if ... we're talking fractions of seconds here. Sorry to say so, but that's almost ridiculous. And the really big chunky parts are not really the binaries themselves but all the libs (Qt, GTK+, and what not else....) that need to be loaded too.hoppel wrote: Well, you're wrong. Or maybe you're not quite right. They could be more optimized.
Do you reboot between your attempts? Because if you first start Firefox (before using UPX) then portions of it will be in the system's cache and buffer memory (portions of your RAM that are idle and are re-routed to perform this job).
But as I said above ... I doubt that you will get lots of speed increase out of this. All this reminds me of old Windows programs such as "RAM Doubler" and "MagnaRAM", and such which promised to 'optimize and even double your RAM' so programs would run faster. Yeah yeah. Right. I'd rather spend my money on more RAM and super-fast SATA disks ...
If you really want to have a distro where you can tune your binaries to the max: get Gentoo Linux and then set your 'build options' to optimise your binaries like mad. That should do it then for you.
As I said above. It would be better to spend a bit money on decent hardware (more RAM is always good) and not touch the OS's binaries.
Besides ... Whenever you update a program package chances are that your 'optimised' binary will be replaced and overwritten again.
Yes, I know. But I still question the validity of some of the points people make about its use. Where I personally see a perfectly OK example where UPX should used is e.g. if you want to build a really small distro that will fit as much as possible on a small "mini-CD" or USB-stick ...hoppel wrote: UPX is not a hoax! It's just a runtime compressing tool
Nope, it's even better. Gentoo --provided you configured it properly-- produces super-fast-as-hell binaries. When I still worked for HP we built a server once, just for the purpose of playing around with it: Gentoo on really nice hardware (ProLiant server!), 'make.conf' optimisation levels to the max, and everything "non-essential" thrown away. The speed of this thing was mind-blowing.hoppel wrote: That's not the same.
Sounds more like you have problems with your disk partitions , e.g. everything on one filesystem .... except /home maybe (sorry should this be a wrong assumption here ...)? So the Firefox inside WINE would then probably live on your /home partition, whereas the native Linux Firefox will be on /usr .... If /usr somehow got badly fragmented (as would be the case if you didn't separate it from the rest ...) then anything and everything that needs to start from it is super-duper slow.hoppel wrote: but when I see my Windows version of Firefox starting faster using WINE than the Linux version (and I even tried Swiftfox), than IMHO there's a design flaw.
I wish.hoppel wrote: Maybe you buy a new computer every time a program starts slowly ....
Sounds more like you have problems with your disk partitions , e.g. everything on one filesystem .... except /home maybe (sorry should this be a wrong assumption here ...)? So the Firefox inside WINE would then probably live on your /home partition, whereas the native Linux Firefox will be on /usr .... If /usr somehow got badly fragmented (as would be the case if you didn't separate it from the rest ...) then anything and everything that needs to start from it is super-duper slow.
Gentoo is nice for certain purposes ... but I wouldn't want to use it on a daily basis. It just breaks too easily. And if you're an update-junkie ... Well, on Gentoo this means you'll be compiling day and night. That's not really productive. If anything then I am a "Debian-junkie". I just love all those Debian-based distros, simply because of "apt" and all the flexibility you get with it.hoppel wrote: And if you're a convinced Gentoo-user, what are you doing in this forum?
Users browsing this forum: I2k4 and 37 guests