It's because linux is a toy OS. Specifically, it overcommits memory in the hope/assumption that it won't all be used at once, but doesn't have a way to gracefully degrade when applications collectively want to use more memory(+swap) than it actually has. You can turn off overcommit, but applications are designed with the overcommitting feature in mind, so your experience might not be as good as you were hoping for.
Making a massive swap space helps a little bit. It's better to just never let your actual memory usage go above 85% to 90%. It's fine to go above if you're trying to optimize a server with a specific set of processes to wring every last bit of efficiency out of it, but not for general desktop computing.
If it really bothers you OpenBSD (edit: thanks for the reminder TimTheTinker) and Illumos don't allow overcommit at all and Windows handles this situation much more gracefully, so WSL is an option too. If you don't mind Oracle (i do), solaris also doesn't allow overcommit.
You're right. I'm glad the very next sentence in my comment landed.
The problem with turning it off is that the system and applications have been architected assuming that it will be on, so things like fork/execing a memory heavy processes or allocating memory inside a cgroup (which still pretends overcommit is enabled and there's still no way to disable that assumption) that used to work fine might break with no good way to get them to work again. This comment (and siblings) have more specifics: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27794237#27795199
the system will kill whatever it damn well pleases. You can tune it with priorities to ask it to try to not kill that, and once it kills your sshd once, you'll probably configure it to exempt sshd from being OOM killed at all. That doesn't fix the memory pressure or hanging or stalling, but you'll at least be able to log into the box still instead of dragging out a serial cable.
Likewise, major technical and security incidents increasing 40% is a loss, and the amount of time employees spent firefighting them rising 70% is a loss.
Your issue with physics but not with math reminds me a little of Hume's law. The difference that has always made that difference "make sense" to me is that math rules, even the axiom we use, are entirely chosen by the people using them, but the rules of physics are only useful if they match/predict what happens in the real world. For math we get to pick the ones that happen to be useful at a given time for a given problem (my go-to example of "it's all made up and the points don't matter" is why 1 isn't considered prime). For physics we're constrained to pick what best describes the real world. It probably helped that nearly all the physics course I had in high school/university had lab components focused on experimentally validating those rules/using those rules to predict results.
I think what it boils down to is that in my experience physics education lacks a clear historical component about how the current state of the art is a gradual process of proposing new models and rejecting old ones and figuring out the gaps between reality and the model. Instead, it feels like a God-given set of equations (that lots of people consider "the truth" for some reason), that you apply to cookie-cutter problems you must learn by rote. Though I understand the practical concerns (but then let's call it "physics for engineering"), as far as I'm concerned, you couldn't treat physics in a worse way.
If you're feeling nice, randomize whose time remains stable (to keep things fair), keep the organizer's time stable, or pick the time that minimizes the number of participants who will have the meeting time change.
If you're feeling mean, randomize whose time remains stable (to make it hard to predict), move the meeting for the organizer, pick the time that maximizes the number of participants who will have the meeting time change, or split the difference and move everyone. Meeting was at 10 AM for Alice and 9 AM for Bob, but now it can be at either 11 AM for Alice and 9 AM for Bob or 10 AM for Alice and 8 AM for Bob? Now the meeting is at 10:30 AM for Alice and 8:30 AM for Bob.
Why do you think you didn't do similar when you were a student? We've seen this exact issue with other technology before: calculators for math; typewriters and then word processors for writing assignments; audio books for literacy. In those cases we've collectively realized there's a benefit in getting the manual skill and understanding how to use it before shortcutting things with the technology, even if most of the time you'll just end up using the technology. My best guess is that for most people in those classes who failed because of ai use, they don't care about the understanding (usually) required to get a good grade, they just care about the grade itself and the doors that opens for them.
It's because modern AI promises to relieve you of the tedium, leaving you to consider the important things like higher structure. It actually does deliver on this, but in contrast to older tools, it is unlimited in scope.
A calculator - let's expand this to maps, thesauruses, dictionaries, and other lookup tools - was used for a pretty narrow set of problems, and you had to transcribe the result to whatever context you needed.
An AI can be all the calculators together, and transport the output of one to the input of the next. You're meant to have the overview, but it's just so enticing to let it simply do that as well.
They mean using the AI to do the import things and the higher structure for them, not removing tedium. It's like using a calculator for math school/home-work designed to teach multiplication, which requires no transcription or putting into context. The tool isn't removing tedium. It's removing the very thing they're supposed to be learning.
And my question is, in the context of learning something, how in the world is having the AI do the thing you're supposed to be learning enticing unless you don't actually care about learning the thing
> Is that how you want to build a company or society on. Resentment?
I think this misunderstands their goals. They don't care how society/a company is built. All they care about is that they are the one building it and that they are at the top of the hierarchy.
Just like with the startups and tech companies they built, they see speed as a critical advantage so that they can be the first-mover and establish a moat. Long-term viability and health is a distant secondary or even tertiary concern. If the panopticon and some weirdly neofeudal technofacist society can be built faster than something more egalitarian, then that neofeudal technofacist society is - from their perspective - better and that is what they will bias towards and build.
It's because linux is a toy OS. Specifically, it overcommits memory in the hope/assumption that it won't all be used at once, but doesn't have a way to gracefully degrade when applications collectively want to use more memory(+swap) than it actually has. You can turn off overcommit, but applications are designed with the overcommitting feature in mind, so your experience might not be as good as you were hoping for.
Making a massive swap space helps a little bit. It's better to just never let your actual memory usage go above 85% to 90%. It's fine to go above if you're trying to optimize a server with a specific set of processes to wring every last bit of efficiency out of it, but not for general desktop computing.
If it really bothers you OpenBSD (edit: thanks for the reminder TimTheTinker) and Illumos don't allow overcommit at all and Windows handles this situation much more gracefully, so WSL is an option too. If you don't mind Oracle (i do), solaris also doesn't allow overcommit.
reply