Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Sep 2009 22:38 UTC, submitted by EvilWells
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 382813
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-03-30
What you say is true. The only thing is, it shouldn't be that way because that's how inferior software become dominant. Think BeOS compared to Windows.
The behavior of competitors doing what you describe amounts to nothing other than swindling and some measures should be taken against that.
Besides, we do have time, there's still a few years left before planet earth is inhabitable 
Edited 2009-09-08 17:52 UTC
Member since:2008-07-15
What you say is true. The only thing is, it shouldn't be that way because that's how inferior software become dominant. Think BeOS compared to Windows.
The behavior of competitors doing what you describe amounts to nothing other than swindling and some measures should be taken against that.
The behavior of competitors doing what you describe amounts to nothing other than swindling and some measures should be taken against that.
That's called "competition" and it's far from swindling. If you don't do what the customer wants and another company does, charges a fortune for it, but the customer believes it's worth it, then it's not swindling. The customer willingly paid for service rendered by them that you did not provide. That's called competition, and it's one of the things that keeps the market going. Next time, if you don't want to get undercut, do what the customer asks.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-12-20
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.