Love to see upgrades with a negative net size lmao. Software should get more optimized with time, not more bloated. Oop, just got the gnome console popup notification saying that my install command finished running, sweet – it took as long as making this post

  • kryptonidas@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Back in the day there was a Mac OS update (Snow Leopard) that took gigabytes off. They dropped support for PowerPC CPUs. So the compiled binaries basically got slashed in half.

    The goals of Snow Leopard were improved performance, greater efficiency and the reduction of its overall memory footprint, unlike previous versions of Mac OS X which focused more on new features. Apple famously marketed Snow Leopard as having “zero new features”.[13] Its name signified its goal to be a refinement of the previous OS X version, Leopard.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard

      • frazorth@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yes. Thats how they made everything seem magical to the end user.

        Two architectures, and two binaries in the single package.

        All those programs that only had binaries in the old architecture ran through the emulator Rosetta.

        Once the old architecture had been deprecated long enough, they dropped the PPC compilation in the binaries.

        There was the technique to regain disk space by deleting the unused architecture binaries from the bundles.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I don’t know if that’s what they did for the PowerPC -> Intel switch, but now with the Intel -> ARM switch, Xcode compiler tools spit out dual arch binaries, so you can run the same binary natively on x86 or ARM. Things that aren’t compiled that way yet and only have x86 binaries, will be run using Rosetta 2.

        Doesn’t matter much to the end user though. It’s all just pretty seamless if you’re on an ARM Mac and idk if there’s much or any problems on x86 Macs yet regarding binary compatibility. I actually doubt there is.

        • frazorth@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It was exactly the same.

          Its why the Intel -> Arm is called Rosetta 2 and not Rosetta.

      • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It probably made the downloaded binary smaller, but the actual instal size for x86 machines probably didn’t change much.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          …what?

          We’re talking about the end of the transitional period from PowerPC (the G3 and G4 iMacs and iBooks) to the Intel architecture (about the time they went to the Macbook nomenclature). If I read this right, they didn’t push separate PowerPC and Intel architecture versions, you’d just get MacOS (or in those days, OSX) and it would ship with both binaries. Which, compiled binaries would be quite different for different architectures, data files, graphics, interpreted code etc. would be similar but pre-compiled binaries would be different.

          I know for awhile a lot of applications were only available for PowerPC, so they did the Rosetta translation layer, which is a reason why you’d find PowerPC binaries on an Intel system. They did exactly that again with the transition from x86 to ARM.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            I already responded to you in another comment, but:

            If I read this right, they didn’t push separate PowerPC and Intel architecture versions, you’d just get MacOS (or in those days, OSX) and it would ship with both binaries.

            No, it’s even crazier than that. You didn’t get separate PowerPC and Intel binaries either. You got fat binaries that had machine code for both architectures!

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Might happen again one day if they decide to drop x86 support. Which they likely will.

        • Irelephant@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          idk, apple is very trigger-happy when it comes to discontinuing things (outside of the iphones, strangely.) i think by 2030 we will be long gone from apple x86 machines.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Well they haven’t made a single x86 machine in what, 4 or 5 years?

          The 2024 version of MacOS doesn’t support anything older than 2017 and for most models it’s more like 2018-2020

          I’d say in 2-3 years they’ll drop support for all x86 machines, at which point first party binaries can stop shipping with x86 code. Then eventually, several years later, they’ll drop support for x86 emulation via Rosetta 2, so that’s another thing they can drop from the OS. And once xcode stops giving you those fat dual-arch binaries, other software will also take a bit less space.

  • boonhet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Decided to try this out on Tumbleweed. I last updated yesterday. Today I have 4 packages to upgrade and doing so will drop ruby 3.3. Looks like I also have Ruby 3.4 installed so likely I had a package depending on 3.3 and another on 3.4 and now the 3.3 has moved to 3.4. I regained a whopping 30 MB disk space!

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    OS is bloat, if you’re not shifting CPU registers by hand are you even a Linux user?

    spoiler

    No, because Linux is a kernel/OS, and OS is bloat

  • Acoustic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I’m not a programmer by any means, but I’m guessing, they are just removing old redundant features and code, but I could be very wrong here.

    • lime!
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 hours ago

      a new version of a program can also move to a different set of dependencies that is shared with another program, so you don’t need to keep both around.

      • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 hours ago

        This wouldn’t appear like this when upgrading the system with pacman. pacman does not automatically remove orphaned dependencies during upgrades. You have to query for them and remove them explicitly as a separate operation afterwards. So in the OP what we’re seeing is the new versions of packages themselves getting smaller.

    • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Exactly. Same here. The fact that „linux“ isnt a product that has to have the shiny new thing after every update and has no deadlines to hold and no manager to keep happy makes it a fundamentally different thing which actually is very much in line with efficiency ideas, the idea of progress and evolution as a whole. At least thats how I view it.