On Sunday 30 October 2005 17:38, Anders Johansson wrote: > > This goes off topic, but why is it bad thing to expect the system > > to have a HTML renderer in the year 2006 (earliest)? > > The bad thing isn't that it's there, the bad thing is that it's so tightly > integrated that it's impossible to get rid of if you want to replace it > with something else
That I agree on, but this has very little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand. > > > (yes, I put > > > quotes there) that one cannot install Windows without a graphical user > > > interface that uses at least 40 to 100MB of RAM, permanently, having a > > > sh*tload of DLLs and applications running in memory, including IE. > > > > The fact is, it's almost as impossible to do this with Linux as > > well or you end up breaking many, many things. Applications are > > the first to suffer. > > That simply isn't true. You break graphical programs. apache and mysql will > happily run on such a system Absolutely. Server and the desktop are two different things that should be dealt with differently. That's why I suggested having something in the area of 10-20 base system packages. This makes it possible. > > Setting up embedded stuff like ultra-lite firewall should be a > > thing to worry for the firewall builder, not every frigging end > > user. In the end, stripping Linux to bare bones has very little > > real use. > > If you set up a server, rule number of 1 is to only install that which is > necessary Yep. See above. > > That's a one thing. But having the working ABI will not get the > > RPM to install. > > Of course it will, if the requirements are set properly in the rpm. A > packager should only require what he requires, not irrelevant things Yes, but things pile up. Packages depend on packages depend on packages etc. Packager has very hard time to get these right. And speaking of Avg. Joe trying to install them.. > > As I said, ABI is the other thing. But making that truly stable for > > Linux is too much to ask right now. Just having the applications to > > install would be OK for now. > > Most ABIs actually are stable in Linux. It's only the kernel that keeps > breaking, but the user space programs rarely see that Kernel, C++ and very rapidly moving versions cause bugs among others. -- // Janne --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
