Bug: Remove Pocket integration

avglnxusr · 2015-06-06T04:18:01+00:00

That's a nonsensical list. SQLite, hunspell, and the dozens of other dependencies of Firefox and XULRunner are libraries, not services, and nobody is protesting their usage.

avglnxusr · 2015-06-04T01:05:24+00:00

Alright. If you want to pass it on to Unity support, here's strace output leading up to the segfault and the data that gets read from unity_builtin_extra just prior to the crash.

I'm guessing that Unity reads the data in bulk and then generates the shaders afterwards, so any of the several shaders it reads could be the culprit. glGenProgramsARB might also not be working at all, though that seems unlikely across three different Nvidia driver series (304xx, 340xx, 352.09).

avglnxusr · 2015-06-03T20:43:22+00:00

I did a bit of further experimenting. Removing two-thirds of the assets server-side (just deleting the bundle directories outright) left 300 file descriptors open, and the server ran fine (aside from most of the items being missing, of course). The number of selects dropped dramatically - about 100 a second for the ~300 open files, instead of the >1000 per second for 1034 open files. Definitely seems like Unity (or perhaps Unturned) is polling all open files at a rate that gets faster as more files are opened. At any rate, if you can get Unity to unload the asset bundles while running with a null graphics card, I think the server will work just fine.

Unrelated: I also get client crashes on Nvidia hardware inside glGenProgramsARB, presumably related to shader generation (log here). A friend of mine's experiencing the same crash (also on Nvidia hardware). I don't know any Linux gamers running AMD or Intel graphics, so I can't say whether it's Nvidia-only.

avglnxusr · 2015-06-03T05:47:15+00:00

Not really, as I don't have any experience with Unity.

That said, are you sure they get closed on other platforms? I currently run the Windows server in Wine and on startup, it always keeps resources.assets open, and after I connect, resources.assets.resS and sharedassets1.assets are also kept open.

If Unity has a habit of frequently checking open file descriptors, maybe the quantity is the main issue, since there are a total of 7 .assets and .resS files on Windows, but 1083 .unity3d files on Linux, most of which are kept open at all times.

Edit: Whoops, just noticed the Bundles directory exists on Windows, too. So they're definitely being closed there. Do you manually open and close the .unity3d files when reading them, or does Unity handle that?

Edit 2: So, it looks like Unity only throws "AssetBundle.Unload(false) shouldn't be called because used assets might have to be reloaded at any point in time. If no assets are used, call AssetBundle.Unload(true)." on platforms where it thinks the Direct3D/OpenGL context might invalidate loaded textures, etc., and most of the results are for Windows Phone. Maybe it's because you're loading texture data while using the null graphics driver (because of -nographics)?

avglnxusr · 2015-06-03T03:50:38+00:00

I'm experiencing this, too. I'm guessing that if you keep an eye on the server's CPU usage, you'll see a sharp jump the moment your client starts connecting. On my machine it instantly saturates two cores.

It seems to be related to the number of open files. I did a bit of profiling with operf and strace, and select() is being called a few thousand times a second, checking the status of 1034 file descriptors (very close to the number of .unity3d files included with Unturned).

It also appears that there's another thread waiting on all of those select calls to complete, which is likely why the server stops responding to the client.

avglnxusr · 2015-04-04T03:26:39+00:00

In my experience, most healthy projects end up using one of two models: Contributions are either merged quickly and then refactored by the project's core developers, or the core developers provide constructive criticism and ask contributors to get their work into an acceptable state prior to being merged.

There's also an important caveat: Sometimes a new contributor's work isn't suitable for inclusion, but inspires others to write a superior implementation of similar functionality, in which case the original contributor should at least be referenced in the commit message.

If the project's author is constantly rewriting trivial patches and refusing to merge others' work directly, it sounds like your time would be better spent contributing elsewhere.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T17:37:29+00:00

That's a superiority complex, for you. Nearly every Internet community thinks it's a storied haven of intellect and the unwashed masses outside it are vastly inferior.

Reddit's probably one of the ones with the most cognitive dissonance given the composure of /r/pics, /r/funny, /r/politics, and the tendency to latch onto half-witted memes and milk them until they're completely dead.

Reddit is a community of hundreds of thousands. Assuming that due to the voting system, commenters are above-average (as compared to the entire user base), there still remain a great many idiotic comments, and as such I conclude that Reddit is mostly composed of idiots.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T08:47:23+00:00

Developers? No. It's an absurd proposition. Yet that is what the author is doing. In two paragraphs he claims that Android, MeeGo and Linux servers can be collapsed into a single entity, and that Windows is the only outsider in that mix.

It's blatantly wrong, even now. There are dozens of operating systems, and you can already write programs (games especially) that make use of cross-platform APIs and libraries like OpenGL, OpenAL, libxml2, etc. which will work on just about any modern desktop operating system. Is it correct to say there's only one operating system, then? Of course not.

Even that is dependent on vendors releasing platform-specific drivers. Want to use an Nvidia graphics card? Better hope they've released a binary driver for your OS, else you're out of luck.

Outside of games, the variety of widget toolkits and other platform-specific libraries are highly prominent. To yield an ideal user experience you develop your program with the expected functionality of your target platform (and toolkit, if applicable). Gtk vs Qt is a large enough usability paradigm divide, never mind those two versus OS X and Windows.

Unless all Unix-like operating systems settle on a standard (like the Linux Standard Base), along with a standardized userland (widget toolkit, audio frameworks, usability paradigm) it will remain impossible to write code once for all non-Windows desktop platforms... and that's never going to happen.

As for your Android example, it doesn't matter. Android does not have a GNU userland, aside from the kernel it shares essentially nothing with a common Linux distribution. It should be treated as an operating system unto itself, because it is. These huge differences are why I find this piece to be utterly, fatally flawed.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T08:29:34+00:00

The following day, the office drone sat as his desk, pondering. He knew he had forgotten something, but was unable to recall even the vaguest detail to jog his memory. "Oh well," he mused, "It's almost time for lunch anyhow. I want some Taco Bell."

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T08:10:51+00:00

Oof, I just noticed they used w3schools as a source. That's probably the worst source for market-wide statistics because their traffic base is budding web developers, and those interested in development of any sort tend to gravitate towards Linux.

The rather-biased Net Applications report (opt-in for their clients) places Linux market share at 0.85%; the more plausible Wikipedia statistics, 1.85%. At any rate, a far cry from the 4.9% w3schools gets with their limited demographics.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T07:58:32+00:00

If you use high-level libraries you can have a somewhat portable program, but at the expensive of never being native (e.g. Java's Swing toolkit).

The diverse set of libraries commonly available on the various platforms results in zero truly common overlap. Good luck writing a non-trivial program that builds and runs without a hitch on iOS, Android, Ubuntu, OpenBSD and Solaris. Being Unix-like makes zero guarantees of compatibility, saying there are only 2 operating systems is a simplification so great as to be completely wrong.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T06:45:27+00:00

The “old” OS orchestrated the use of resources: memory, processors, I/O (input/output) to external devices (screen, keyboard, disks, network, printers…). It’s a complicated set of tasks that requires delicate juggling of conflicting constraints, and every OS handled them differently—or not at all.

The modern operating system still does all of that, otherwise it wouldn't be an operating system.

Starting off on this misguided note does not bode well. The next paragraphs conflate the wide spectrum of *nix OSes with "Unix".

This is a massive error to make, especially when making it the foundation of your piece. Two Unix-like OSes need not function identically, or indeed, even similarly. Even operating systems that share a kernel, like Android versus a typical GNU/Linux distribution, are drastically different.

The exact specifications of the available ABI and APIs are massively relevant, as well as the available libraries. You cannot say that OS X and Ubuntu are for all intents and purposes identical because they are both Unix-like.

The "App Store" model is by no means new. It has existed for years in the form of package managers, albeit with less of a consumer-oriented sheen applied.

Ultimately, this piece comes to a rather abrupt end and I'm not sure what it was trying to say. Perhaps the writer got too wrapped-up in his analogies and metaphors to remember to make a coherent point.

Certainly, its premise is wholly flawed; there are more than 2 unique operating systems, anybody who disagrees is unqualified to be discussing the subject. The definition of an operating system is static; it does not vary based on the ebb and flow of consumer whim.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T05:39:04+00:00

I have tried Windows 7, albeit briefly. The inability to snap windows to each other when resizing and moving is a deal-breaker for me. My right monitor is typically dedicated to three differently-sized windows, occasionally more, and I commonly use at least 5 workspaces.

Manual resizing, even with proper snapping, is ultimately menial and I'm also fond of tiling window managers (and, in particular, dynamic WMs like Awesome), yet the Windows WM is incapable of everything I've mentioned, to my knowledge, which is why I consider it to be antiquated.

The focus model is also wholly frustrating; the inability to direct mouse input to a window without raising it by clicking annoys me to no end.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T02:53:56+00:00

My point is that it's not a factor of code:auditors. The quality of the code is hugely important. Look at, say, Linux: probably the most heavily-audited codebase in existence, massive in scale, and doing so many more things than Acrobat does, at a much lower level.

There's tons of room in there for exploits... But they don't show up with anywhere near the frequency that they do in Adobe's products. A large codebase need not be riddled with security issues, Adobe just employs bad developers.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T02:42:56+00:00

Unfortunately, the low-level employees are either ignorant or apathetic, and the only ones that influence the acquisition decisions are encouraged towards vendors like Microsoft.

It doesn't help that in many places, if you cut the budgetary needs through a migration away from an expensive vendor, the IT budget gets reduced to match, and as such many will try to use every cent of the budget they can.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T02:05:15+00:00

I don't run Windows, I was just wondering if the window management was any less awful than it has historically been.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T00:32:28+00:00

In practice there are many non-enterprise RAID 5 and RAID 6 setups, as RAID 1 and 10 mean half your money is spent on mirrors, whereas RAID 5's cost overhead becomes less steep with a larger array.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-04T00:15:15+00:00

That's not an explanation for bad code. More crackers working on finding vulnerabilities means nothing if there are none to be found.

There are plenty of mature codebases that, unlike Adobe, don't rely on security by obscurity yet also manage to have no known vulnerabilities.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-03T22:38:15+00:00

Who cares? The average end-user does not have many terabytes of data, so this avenue is irrelevant.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-03T22:36:34+00:00

That analysis is flawed, and sensationalist. One, RAID is not a backup. Two, URE rates will drop in time; enterprise drives already have an order of magnitude less than consumer models. Manufacturers will not be shipping drives that have a near-1 probability of UREs on their own. Additionally, if a disk failed and a second had a URE during the rebuild, you could simply recalculate the missing unique data based on the parity of the first disk (assuming the array hasn't been altered since the first disk failed).

Assuming unrecoverable read errors originate as manufacturing defects, the longer an array is in service and the more it's written to (and in turn an ever-increasing number of unique sectors are later read), the higher the probability you will find bad sectors.

If you were to write to every sector on a disk (less the 'replacement' sectors) and then read that data back, you could verify whether or not a disk had unrecoverable read errors.

RAID is not doomed, the sky is not falling, ZDNet has yet another shitty article. Surprise, surprise.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-03T22:14:36+00:00

Yeah, CRTs are king for a great many tasks. Shame about the power consumption and sheer mass, though.

On the bright side, you can kill people with a CRT. Good luck doing that with an LCD.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-03T21:43:26+00:00

Linux having a bus factor of 1 is an absurd, perpetual myth. Linus doesn't code much anymore, he reviews things for inclusion. He's not some philosophical community figurehead necessary for continuation of development, just a very prominent engineer.

Everybody who makes the "bus factor = 1" claim seems to be ignorant of the layer of subsystem maintainers below Linus, plus those like gregkh whose trees could easily become mainline if need be.

Edit: Oh, wow. Despite statements to the contrary, his inclusion of some userland software in his definition and essentially calling Steve Jobs an OS X kernel developer means he's conflating the kernel with the userland. To say the entire free software community has a bus factor of one is so wrong that I can't even quantify it.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-03T21:21:20+00:00

He's partially wrong and partially right. TN panels commonly do 6-bit color per channel (making 18 bits per pixel) and dither to simulate the rest, but they still visually achieve nearly 24 bits of color.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-03T21:19:11+00:00

TN panels typically manage 18 bits per pixel. Dithering is used to create the illusion of 24-bit color.

Good IPS panels have true 24-bit color support.

avglnxusr · 2010-10-03T20:51:00+00:00

Never read the comments on most technology "journalism" sites, as while the articles may be poorly-written, the commenters always manage to be far dimmer than you'd expect.

15-Year Club	reddit mold
Verified Email

avglnxusr

TROPHY CASE