Samba VS .NET Runtime

Samba

The TLDR is that you create the filesystem on Linux/Raspberry Pi. Then you "export" that file system via some software to remote computers. You can use Samba (https://www.samba.org/) to create CIFS shares which can be mounted by either Linux or Microsoft Windows devices. There are of course other software/protocols you can use to export the filesystems like NFS, iSCSI, CEPHFS, etc; but these are a bit more complicated than what a novice can deploy. I would start with Samba/CIFS and then branch out once you get more experienced.

You could try to use samba via cgo.

I think you want a CIFS/SMB client? A quick search turned up smbc, which looks like it does what you want. All three crates are based on libsmbclient, which is a C implementation from the Samba project.

Remember kids, there is always Samba.

> First, the article doesn't say that "Linux is not ready for the desktop" - or concern itself with this as an abstract question.

Well, it does, but in a sarcastic manner:

"Yeah, let's consider Linux an OS ready for the desktop :-)."

> Also, I find the "GNU/Linux is already ready for the desktop; I and others use it" argument tired. I've used GNU/Linux for the desktop in 1998, but it sure as hell wasn't ready then.

Conversely, that it doesn't work for certain people does not mean that "it is not ready", which the post does state (sarcastically) as I pointed out above.

> Many use cases aside...

I'm not sure how the browsing, docs and email is miserable, maybe you can expand on that. The video editing is indeed a bit limited from my experience too. However, I don't think "limited proprietary options" is a problem. The community largely and specifically avoids proprietary software. Proprietary incursions into the community are generally seen as a negative thing. And for the lack of codecs, software patents for the most part are to blame.

And then it just comes to my original statement; many things stated in the article are non-issues to most Linux users or just falsehoods:

- Neither Mozilla Firefox nor Google Chrome use video decoding and output acceleration in Linux.

Firefox does.

- NVIDIA Optimus technology is a pain

NVIDIA is a pain.

- You don't play games, do you?

I do.

- Linux still has very few native AAA games.

So "it's not ready" because it doesn't have AAA games? What a pitty.

- To be fair you can now run thousands of Windows games through DirectX to Vulkan/OpenGL translation (Wine, Proton, Steam for Linux) but this incurs translation costs and decreases performance sometimes significantly.

No, not 'significantly' for dxvk.

- Also, anti-cheat protection usually doesn't work in Linux.

For good reason. Blame the dev, and don't make it work on Linux.

- Microsoft Office is not available for Linux

Thankfull.

- LibreOffice often has major troubles properly opening, rendering or saving documents created in Microsoft Office.

And whose fault is this? Use ODT.

- Several crucial Windows applications are not available under Linux.

Thankfully. Also, 'crucial' is subjective.

- In 2022 there's still no alternative to Windows Network File Sharing.

It's available since 1992: https://www.samba.org/

- Linux doesn't have a reliably working hassle-free fast native (directly mountable via the kernel; FUSE doesn't cut it) MTP implementation.

I can transfer files to my phone just fine.

- Too many things in Linux require manual configuration using text files.

No.

etc.

I have a media server that runs ubuntu, and today I wanted to copy some files off of it from my windows laptop. But the samba shares weren't showing up in file explorer (but they showed up on fine on my macbook).

brew info samba samba: stable 4.16.0 (bottled) SMB/CIFS file, print, and login server for UNIX https://www.samba.org/ Not installed From: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/blob/HEAD/Formula/samba.rb License: GPL-3.0-or-later ==> Dependencies Build: [email protected] ✔ Required: gnutls ✘, krb5 ✔ ==> Caveats To avoid conflicting with macOS system binaries, some files were installed with non-standard name: - smbd: /usr/local/sbin/samba-dot-org-smbd - profiles: /usr/local/bin/samba-dot-org-profiles ==> Analytics install: 1,477 (30 days), 3,287 (90 days), 6,917 (365 days) install-on-request: 1,459 (30 days), 3,246 (90 days), 6,863 (365 days) build-error: 5 (30 days)

These can also be passed as arguments to `dotnet publish` if necessary.

Reference:

- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/5b4e770daa190ce69f402... (full list of recognized keys for IlcInstructionSet)

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...

CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.

DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591

Support zstd Content-Encoding:

We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.

There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.

Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620

https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet exists for source build that stitches together SDK, Roslyn, runtime and other dependencies. A lot of them can be built and used individually, which is what contributors usually do. For example, you can clone and build https://github.com/dotnet/runtime and use the produced artifacts to execute .NET assemblies or build .NET binaries.

Yeah, it kind of is. There are quite a few of experiments that are conducted to see if they show promise in the prototype form and then are taken further for proper integration if they do.

Unfortunately, object stack allocation was not one of them even though DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocation configuration knob exists today, enabling it makes zero impact as it almost never kicks in. By the end of the experiment[0], it was concluded that before investing effort in this kind of feature becomes profitable given how a lot of C# code is written, there are many other lower hanging fruits.

To contrast this, in continuation to green threads experiment, a runtime handled tasks experiment[1] which moves async state machine handling from IL emitted by Roslyn to special-cased methods and then handling purely in runtime code has been a massive success and is now being worked on to be integrated in one of the future version of .NET (hopefully 10?)

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...

Orderby Linq Code Reference