[Arm-netbook] GK802 for $70

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello,

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:08:25 +0200
Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir at cohens.org.il> wrote:

> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:24:31PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> 
> > That's not what I mean of course. There're "dedicated" package
> > managers for embedded systems. Opkg
> > (http://code.google.com/p/opkg/) is pretty good, as exemplified by
> > multi-year OpenWRT experience
> 
> Any bug reports on dpkg and apt regarding the inefficiencies? 

In another mail I quoted couple of Ubuntu bugreports regarding dpkg
disk thrashing on *big boxes*:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpkg/+bug/580537
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpkg/+bug/570805

No idea about reports regarding performance on "embedded" systems,
and just the same no idea if dpkg developers would care. dpkg
definitely has different target usage - like doing stuff on critical IT
infrastructure services, where you can argue for the need of
reinsurance. Of course, ideally it should be configurable (overcautious
vs performant), but again, who has idea if it is and how to do that? So
all in all, besides choice "try to get dpkg right for small-perf
systems", another one is just as valid - try something else,
specifically optimized for performance and no-bloat.

> It is a
> software under active development (unlike opkg that has not seen any
> commit since Nov-2012 and its wiki page has a number of broken links).

Eh, Nov-2012 is just half-year ago. Debian Stable ships software few
years old as comparison. There wouldn't be a need to update package
manager source too often - it's basic part of system and got to
be stable. That said, opkg waits its hero who will save out of SVN into
git.

And opkg is pretty much de facto package manager for embedded systems -
Optware, OpenWRT use it, it's default package manager in OpenEmbedded,
so many distro built on it use it either.

> 
> > (especially since
> > yours truly did some profiling and fixed some glorious
> > inefficiencies: http://code.google.com/p/opkg/source/detail?r=17
> > http://code.google.com/p/opkg/source/detail?r=18)
> 
> With all due respect, this means you fixed a number of issues with the
> new code base of Opkg (which may mena anything between "it was horrble
> and now it is just bad" to "it was good and now it is the best"). This
> says nothing with regards to the performamnce of any other program.

Sure. That was just an illustration of:

1. Software which is targeted for low-resource usage still has gaping
inefficiencies (try to extrapolate that to software that doesn't target
low resource usage).

2. Humble me, besides flaming on mailing lists, also tried to change
the situation.

> 
> -- 
> Tzafrir Cohen         | tzafrir at jabber.org | VIM is


-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:pmiscml at gmail.com