On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:53:41 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> "Windows" is a product. You install it, or you don't install it. And
> that's about all there is to it.
> 
> "Linux" is a huge soup of different applications and programs written by
> hundreds of people over the course of several decades. There are so many
> features and options. There are a dozen different ways to accomplish
> every task. And every user-level program will use a different one of
> those subsystems, so you have to redundantly install and configure
> almost all of them.

Well, technically, "Linux" is the kernel.  GNU/Linux is the system, and a 
distribution is GNU/Linux + applications.

>> As a friend of mine who works for Microsoft said when I complained
>> about Windows 7's insane use of disk space for 'caching' OS install
>> files and the whole MSOCache, "What's the problem?  You can buy a 2 TB
>> drive for under a hundred bucks - what's 30 GB of space to cache these
>> install files?"
> 
> See, to some of us "a hundred bucks" is actually quite a lot of money.
> My current PC has 4 drives in it totalling less than 1 TB all together.
> If I was going to go to all the expensive of buying a terabyte of
> storage, it would be because I want to store a terabyte of *useful
> data*. Not just so that Windows will get out of bed. Sheesh...

Well, yes, and that was my point to my friend.  I don't have an extra 
hundred bucks kicking around right now because I'm currently seeking a 
job (yes, 5 months now I've been looking).

I've got a 2 TB external USB drive, but try running a Win7 VM over a USB2 
connection.  Performance is going to suck, pretty much guaranteed.  I 
also need more memory for this system.

>> If you want a simple editor, look at nano, vi, or joe.  Small
>> footprint, small dependency list.
> 
> Yeah, and really awkward to operate.

Convenience comes at a price, but nano isn't terribly awkward to 
operate.  No moreso than Edit on MS-DOS was, IIRC.  (I might be thinking 
of joe).

> Of course, it was just an example. It doesn't really matter which
> program you're talking about; if you have KDE and want to run a GNOME
> application (or vice versa), you're going to have to install two entire
> WMs, even though you only ever use one of them.

If you install a GNOME application, you're using the GNOME libraries (a 
key part of the window manager) and GTK+ widgets.

>>> or had my entire Windows installation completely cease functioning to
>>> the point where I have to reinstall.
>>
>> "Orchid XP v8" - you once said that the "v8" indicated how many times
>> you had reinstalled Windows XP.  So I call BS. ;)
> 
> I've never had software break my PC so badly that reinstalling was the
> only way to get it to work again. I've had /plenty/ of software refuse
> to uninstall cleanly, or install stuff I didn't want. Now and then I
> usually end up reinstalling Windows just to keep it tidy. But I've never
> been /forced/ to reinstall. It's always been something I decided to do
> voluntarily.

Same here with Linux.  In fact, upgrading my laptop to openSUSE 12.1 beta 
1 right now.  My choice, and I may take it back to 11.4 as I need it 
working on Tuesday-Friday next week.

>>> About the worst
>>> thing that can happen is that you need to install the .NET runtime.
>>> (Obviously, this problem is because .NET exists. If we could get rid
>>> of that, the problem would go away.)
>>
>> It seems you'd be happier with statically linked executables.
> 
> Well, that way you would only be downloading the libraries that the
> problem actually /uses/...

Well, no, you wouldn't be, because they'd be in the actual program.  But 
then you get into poor code reuse and duplication of shareable code, 
which eats up disk space.

Jim

Post a reply to this message