OSNews

It is an unarguable fact that hardware continues to improve at a torrid pace, and that minimum shipped hardware on systems, for example RAM, continue to increase. To argue that this should create an acceptance for inefficiency in software, that people should just expect the requirements for running software to increase drastically, is completely illogical. Good programmers like Steve Gibson, Robert Szeleney, the people at .theprodukkt, as well as others, prove that good programming practices result not just in excellent functionality and pleasing appearance, but do so without prohibitive performance hits.

It is also true that todays computer users expect more from their computing experience nowadays, than when the "P200" was the standard. More features and abilities added to a program, done well, and given the abilities of todays computers to number crunch should justifiably increase the footprint of software, but just barely compared to what we're seeing. ESPECIALLY should this be true of an OS, which is to be the middle-man between a user and the hardware. It is pure marketing hype and an attempt to keep technology sales up to suggest otherwise.

If everyone applied the same standard to software as they did to hardware there would be far more accountability for poorly written software, and security failures. If a machine, or a part on a machine breaks down people take it back on warranty, they not only complain, but expect something to be done about it. If software fails, or causes serious problems, unless it affects the hardware, there is much complaining but less action demanded, because we are indoctrinated to expect problems or bloat and inefficiency.

This article addresses a gradual trend that IS a problem, and not just for Linux, but for software in general.