On Saturday 17 February 2007 06:21, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Feb 17 2007 06:11, Kai Ponte wrote: > >On Friday 16 February 2007 12:47, Dave Howorth wrote: > >> On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 08:25 -0800, Kai Ponte wrote: > > > ><snip> > > > >> There's obviously a problem with FOSS software that Windows doesn't > >> suffer from. > > > >Corporate bloat? > > > >What problem would that be, exactly? > > OpenOffice/Writer requiring like 80 MB and quite some time to load up. SMO > is on the boat with roughly 7 MB, and well, I don't > have any numbers for MSO (a lack of `pmap` on Windows), but given that > it starts up as fast on a 16 MB RAM Win98 machine as OOO does on a > multi-CPU opteron, I think that tells enough. > > (SMO = Softmaker Office > MSO = Microsoft Office)
Actually, I was referring to the corporate bloat in terms of slow moving monolithic application development streams that are caught up in massive amounts of red tape. Having been involved in some of the larger accounting systems implementations, I've seen the worst in IT. As for OOo, the bloat to which you're referring comes from pointy-haired managers like me who ask for more and more features. Features eventually end up as bloat. Just look at Firefox. It is/was faster because it doesn't have all the features of a full-fledged Mozilla/Seamonky. However, if you start packing on the extensions, you end up as bloated. In Firefox, I try to strike a happy balance between speed and extensions I want. OpenOffice pretty much works for me. Could we get along with vi or emacs as our editors? Yes. Do we want to? No. -- kai Free Compean and Ramos http://www.perfectreign.com/?q=node/46 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
