macOS includes a GUI user land whereas Linux is just a kernel.
So Apple can build a whole user-controlled GUI workflow around memory exceptions, which Linux cannot.
Maybe what needs to happen is new Linux syscalls + signals for DEs to utilise for building memory exception UIs? But the problem then with that is you’re impacting the portability of those DEs. So some maintainers might still refuse to work with Linux to provide this.
That all said, I’m pretty sure KDE does provide GUI tools for when this kind of scenario arises.
I mentioned they aren't the only UNIX where this isn't a problem.
Also we cannot use the reasoning Linux means distributions, instead of using GNU/Linux for it, and other times Linux is just the kernel, depending on convenience.
> I mentioned they aren't the only UNIX where this isn't a problem.
You did. But without examples, it’s a meaningless throwaway.
Personally, I can’t say I’ve pushed many other UNIX desktops that far that they’ve OOMed. Except maybe OpenSolaris and FreeBSD, neither of which faired much better. But they’d also suffer from the same kind of DE development issues I described for Linux.
> Also we cannot use the reasoning Linux means distributions, instead of using GNU/Linux for it, and other times Linux is just the kernel, depending on convenience.
I’m not saying it for convenience. I’m saying it because it matters in this specific situation.
Surely you must understand that the reason Windows and macOS have arguably better GUI support for OOM is because the same company that owns the kernel also writes the frontend too? It’s hardly rocket science as a concept.
As I said in my previous comment, there are ways Linux (the kernel) could work with DEs to bridge that gap. But at present, they’re entirely separate concerns.
macOS includes a GUI user land whereas Linux is just a kernel.
So Apple can build a whole user-controlled GUI workflow around memory exceptions, which Linux cannot.
Maybe what needs to happen is new Linux syscalls + signals for DEs to utilise for building memory exception UIs? But the problem then with that is you’re impacting the portability of those DEs. So some maintainers might still refuse to work with Linux to provide this.
That all said, I’m pretty sure KDE does provide GUI tools for when this kind of scenario arises.
I mentioned they aren't the only UNIX where this isn't a problem.
Also we cannot use the reasoning Linux means distributions, instead of using GNU/Linux for it, and other times Linux is just the kernel, depending on convenience.
> I mentioned they aren't the only UNIX where this isn't a problem.
You did. But without examples, it’s a meaningless throwaway.
Personally, I can’t say I’ve pushed many other UNIX desktops that far that they’ve OOMed. Except maybe OpenSolaris and FreeBSD, neither of which faired much better. But they’d also suffer from the same kind of DE development issues I described for Linux.
> Also we cannot use the reasoning Linux means distributions, instead of using GNU/Linux for it, and other times Linux is just the kernel, depending on convenience.
I’m not saying it for convenience. I’m saying it because it matters in this specific situation.
Surely you must understand that the reason Windows and macOS have arguably better GUI support for OOM is because the same company that owns the kernel also writes the frontend too? It’s hardly rocket science as a concept.
As I said in my previous comment, there are ways Linux (the kernel) could work with DEs to bridge that gap. But at present, they’re entirely separate concerns.
2 replies →