"Have you seen a piece of software that is small, efficient and easy to read and in each new version it become clumsy, slow and bloated?" Ubuntu. Worse eatch relese. (sp sp)
On 5/15/09, pmarin <pacog...@gmail.com> wrote: > From Bash and readline man page (bugs section): > "It's too big and too slow. > > I think this bug is the perfect definition of GNU/FSF style. > > Have you seen a piece of software that is small, efficient and easy to > read and in each new version it become clumsy, slow and bloated? > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Preben Randhol <rand...@pvv.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:29:11 +0200 >> Mate Nagy <mn...@port70.net> wrote: >> >>> > I cannot understand GNU software. ls or cat source in GNU is scary, >>> > glibc is even worse. The old UNIX utilities or Plan9 ones have a >>> > simplicity which GNU lacks. I don't have anything against the GPL >>> > license, but I prefer less restrictive licenses. And, of course, I >>> > don't like rms. >>> i don't know what's up with this newfangled popular hate for GNU >>> software. The GNU userland is a thousand times more comfortable and >>> usable than old unix, not least because some utils even have >>> >features< (imagine that), while the old unix tools were simplistic >>> >hackjobs. >>> >>> Minimalism is a good thing to consider while developing software, but >>> obsessing about it is no better than with anything else. I'm as >>> annoyed with huge monstrous software like OpenOffice or Gnome or even >>> Firefox as anyone, but wanting to take away the features of the CLI >>> userland that make it comfortable is mad. Would you use dash instead >>> of zsh as an everyday shell? >>> >>> At a risk of being boring, I'll say that the same argument can be >>> made about text editors: VIM is quite bloated and big, but it's >>> better than any small text editor; because text editing is one of >>> those typical tasks that cannot be comfortable without a million >>> features that are in no way related to each other. Even if someone >>> writes a really small, elegant, suckless editor core, it will be >>> unusable until: >>> - it gets encoding handling right (internal, file, terminal) >>> - word wrapping (disabled, enabled, soft, hard...) >>> - syntax highlighting and autoindent, for C, Python, Lisp... >>> - all possible tab behaviors (soft, hard, half,...) >>> - autocompletion, ctags integration >>> These are just the absolutely necessary basics, and if you implement >>> these, you already have a multi-ten-thousand line application. >>> Sucklessness goes through the window. >>> (Yes, there are people who make do with mcedit, but.. come on.) >>> >>> I say dwm (for example) is good because it's good, not because it's >>> suckless. The sucklessness is certainly part of its goodness, but not >>> all. If it was uncomfortable, would anyone use it? and it's still only >>> marginably usable with a multi-monitor configuration - proper >>> handling of this would require adding of this "bloat" everyone hates >>> so much. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Mate >>> PS. am not trolling :) >>> >> >> I couldn't agree with you more! >> >> >> -- >> Preben Randhol >> http://wee-free-lore.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> > >