Aloha XyScripters on Linux, I used 'strace' to locate the segfault issue and it isn't a problem in XyScript! I suggested using upx to reduce the binary size. DON'T!!!!! I ran into something never before seen in many years of using upx. Under SOME extreme conditions XyScript will segfault if packed with upx. When I unpacked it everything was totally fine. I don't know why this happens, of course, but the workaround is simple; don't pack it. Strike that idea from my writeup and accept apologies instead, if you would! Bob Newell Honolulu On Tue, Aug 11, 2026, at 08:53, Carl Distefano wrote: > Reply to note from Bob Newell <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Mon, 10 Aug > 2026 07:45:13 -1000 > > Bob, > > Thanks very much for recording your experience installing XyScript on > Arch Linux. It's encouraging to know that you were able to get it up > and running on a wide range of Linux boxes. > > A couple of comments/questions: > > You'll soon be able to open and edit 4,000 files simultaneously if you > like. In the next release, the tab panel will be capped at two lines > and will be scrollable. > > Re loading hundreds of megabytes: I think the user experience will vary > depending on available memory. On my Windows 11 machine with 64 GB of > RAM, I'm able to load and edit a 4 *Gigabyte* test file without > problems. XyScript may become unresponsive for a few seconds while the > file is loading, but navigation and editing are snappy after that. I > regularly read/edit big files, and one of my base criteria for XyScript > was to be able to edit files at least as large as 300 MB and without > resistance. > > One thing raised an eyebrow: You said that you got a segmentation fault > when trying to load hundreds of megabytes. Did XyScript actually emit a > segfault error message? I ask because, if a Rust program compiles, a > segfault should, theoretically, be impossible because of Rust's > memory-safe guaranty. A true segfault would warrant investigation. > > -- > Carl Distefano > cld@xxxxxxxxxx