Steven wrote:
>> Linux is bloated by anyone's measuring stick.
>
>Not by _my_ measuring stick.
>Linux can be reduced to a tiny kernel if that
>is your desire. The code is in your hands so
>you can do with it what you will. Just because
>some people choose to pile bloated eye-candy on
>the Linux foundation, doesn't mean Linux itself
>is bloated.
The question is what the person means with "Linux", refering to the kernel
you are correct - but then Windows 9x/Me isn't bloated either since if you
remove all the extra junk and only leave the kernel and CLI it gets rather
small (it actually fits on a floppy <g>).
I know I'm going to extreme here, but it's just to prove a point. When
people say that Windows is bloated they often refer to the entire OS/GUI
and programs they run (such as Microsoft Office). By the same way people
refer to "a graphical Linux distribution installed without changing any
settings" when they talk about Linux being bloated. Like it or not RedHat
and Mandrake are what most people see.
So IMHO everyone (ok, you've only been three) that have commented on this
have been correct. Both interpretations are correct "from a certain point
of view".
Linux as most see it is bloated, but Linux can be reduced without changing
it's abilities much, or at all, to a very small package. The diffrence lies
in the fact that you can change things in Linux (with a "real"
distrubution) while you can't do that in Windows. And there's atleast
information to read if you want to.
To me the diffrence between DOS and Linux is that Linux has everything in
it and you remove things to get what you want while DOS has nothing when
you start off and need to install the things you want yourself. Of course
there are other Linux distros (mostly the minidistros), but this is how
most work. The real question is which you thinks is better, but I think
we've had that here already and it didn't lead to anything.
//Bernie
