On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:55:59AM +0800, Andy Sy wrote: > > The same accusation has been hurled at mandrake packagers, but really the > > job of distro makers is to _INTEGRATE_ various open source technologies so > > that you have a more cohesive system (LDAP), and possibily more secure > > (KERBEROS). Any move to integrate different software together directly > > conflicts with minimalist preferences for atomic packages. But > > technology must advance, features must keep up with computing > > requirements, and like it or not software must be integrated to use common > > libraries in order to save on code size and maintenance efforts. > > A smile comes across my lips as I realize that you basically just > reiterated Microsoft's design philosophy and justifications here. > Not necessarily bad, but I remember that one of the cases for Linux was > that it did things in a more modular and presumably superior way.
> Linux distros adopting the same design philosophy as Windows. > Winona Ryder, a shoplifter. Reality bites. ;-) That is the job of a _VALUE ADDED RESELLER (VAR)_. Why deny them of their job? And it isn't only the design philosophy unique to Windows. It _IS_ prevalent in many businesses even _outside_ the IT sector (adding value-added services like integration, extra svc... Now this is reality). > > This issue goes to the very heart of those advocating integration vs. > > minimalism in software. Not a long time ago there were those that cried > > agony when the size of a 'Hello world' binary increased by more than 100% > > when using the GTK or Qt toolkits as opposed to coding one directly using > > the X api. True, there definitely is code bloat when using these > > toolkits, but tell me just how usable a 'Hello world' program is? > > Even in the Windows world, it still seems to matter to the designers of > Delphi, Java and .NET whose 'Hello world' executables are all in the under > 100K range. Helloworld for C# and Java are barely 10K in size iirc... of > course a lot of this has to do with today's very dynamic run-time > architectures. That 5K hello world requires the presence of a 30MB runtime. > Also, MSIL and JVM bytecodes are somewhat higher level than native x86. > Of course. Bytecode is supposed to be interpreted by another abstraction (the JVM), unlike binaries produced by, say, C or C++, which is already compact machine code. :-) -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
