Quite true, but the last time I installed FreeBSD or Plan9 on my laptop I could barely have the mousepad working...
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Benjamin Conner <tommydabo...@gmail.com>wrote: > "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/ > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >
