Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Sep 2009 22:38 UTC, submitted by EvilWells
Debian and its clones Developer Frans Pop, author of debtree, posted an article showing the evolution in size of the GNOME desktop environment in recent Debian releases. The picture he paints isn't particularly pretty: the default GNOME install has increased drastically in size over the years.
Thread beginning with comment 382801
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by cjst
by bralkein on Tue 8th Sep 2009 15:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by cjst"
bralkein
Member since:
2006-12-20

You're not seriously suggesting that .NET & Java are toy technologies!? Perl and Python too are certainly widely used by many people to get real work done.

And you know what? Sometimes 3 gigs DOESN'T matter. You can sacrifice storage/dependency footprint for features, reliability, shorter development time or other things and sometimes that's the best choice to make.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by cjst
by cjst on Tue 8th Sep 2009 16:12 in reply to "RE: Comment by cjst"
cjst Member since:
2009-03-30

You're not seriously suggesting that .NET & Java are toy technologies!? Perl and Python too are certainly widely used by many people to get real work done.


There are four main reasons why this shit exists:

* For people who can't code to not feel left out.

* Increase "productivity" of corporations (i.e. do a bad job fast to make more $).

* For hardware vendors to make more $ because then you need to pay the hardware tax every year to run this shit at an acceptable speed.

* To lay off good programmers because they demand a better wage than some scripter.


And you know what? Sometimes 3 gigs DOESN'T matter.


Every single bit matters.


You can sacrifice storage/dependency footprint for features, reliability, shorter development time or other things and sometimes that's the best choice to make.


No it's never the better choice. You should hire more programmers to code and audit if you want shorter development times and higher reliability. It takes a certain amount of man hours to do a good job and you can't compress that losslessly.

Edited 2009-09-08 16:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by cjst
by bralkein on Tue 8th Sep 2009 17:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by cjst"
bralkein Member since:
2006-12-20

No it's never the better choice. You should hire more programmers to code and audit if you want shorter development times and higher reliability. It takes a certain amount of man hours to do a good job and you can't compress that losslessly.


No, you can't compress it losslessly. That's the whole point. So you can get things done quicker and to a higher quality, but at the cost of a bigger disk/dependency footprint and maybe a slightly slower runtime too (as long as it's fast enough for the user to be happy).

Writing good software is about understanding and satisfying the needs of the customer, and not bankrupting the customer in the process. If the customer doesn't need the software to run acceptably on a computer more than 5 years old, don't spend time and money focusing on providing that. Same goes for disk space. If you would focus on these things to the detriment of anything else, then you'll go out of business because competitors will undercut you by doing what the customer actually wants, instead of what your ego wants, and the competitor will probably do it cheaper to boot.

Even in Free Software land, the best projects focus on providing useful features and reliable software. The worst ones are perpetually crippled by the lead dev's bizarre obsession with some stupid minor facet of the software that nobody else cares about.

Reply Parent Score: 2