[Flame Bait] - Linux as bloatware - Let this tread die

[John Wendel]

jdow wrote:
> From: "Gene Heskett" <gene.heskett at verizon.net>
> 
>> On Monday 10 April 2006 00:05, John Wendel wrote:
>>
>>> Food for thought,
>>>
>>> http://news.com.com/Negroponte+Slimmer+Linux+needed+for+100+laptop/210
>>> 0-7346_3-6057456.html?tag=nefd.lede
>>>
>>> * BOSTON--The One Laptop Per Child organization will use Linux on its
>>> inexpensive machines, but the operating system suffers the same code
>>> bloat as Windows, the project's leader said Tuesday.*
>>>
>>> "People aren't thinking about small, fast, thin systems," said
>>> Nicholas Negroponte, chairman of the One Laptop Per Child
>>> <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flaptop.org%2F&siteId=3&o
>>> Id=2100-7346-6057456&ontId=1001&lop=nl.ex> nonprofit association, in a
>>> speech at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo
>>> <http://news.com.com/LinuxWorld+not+just+for+Linux+fans+anymore/2009-
>>> 7346_3-6056446.html?tag=nl> here. "Suddenly it's like a very fat
>>> person (who) uses most of the energy to move the fat. And Linux is no
>>> exception. Linux has gotten fat, too."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> John
>>
>>
>> Well, he could put cp-m on them I suppose, or freedos maybe...
>> Talk about setting the 3rd world back to the stone age.
> 
> 
> Seems to me that "what we want to do with a computer" is what has
> bloated. If you look at it dispassionately the web has gotten horridly
> bloated with HTML email where regular email will do, web pages with a
> lot of pictures where lynx will do, and so on and so forth. Linux, the
> operating system, can be trimmed down remarkably small if you remove
> the cruft that targets it to an incredible variety of machines.
> 
> If all the $100 machines are the same, CPU, Graphics, IO, and all, then
> the kernel only needs to address that small microchosm of options. It
> shrinks. Do we put in IPV4, IPV6, or both? That choice could shrink the
> footprint. Follow that tree with each configuration option. Then optimize
> for size.
> 
> Carry the same process through for other issues like word processors. Do
> we need all of OpenOffice to make the computers third world useful? Might
> <shudder> emacs perform the job all by itself? It probably would. But the
> demand is for the bloat. And the egoboost that pays for the Open Source
> development comes from feeding that demand for bloat.
> 
> Linux is as bloated as we've all "demanded". Now, is that really "bloat"
> or is the increased foot print really adding value? That's for each person
> to decide for her own needs. I consider Open Office to be incredible bloat.
> But "cc" is still feature starved, perhaps. Others might think of this the
> exact other way around.
> 
> Oh, isn't that the definition of a bandwidth wasting religious war? Oh
> nuts - another source of noise that's going to last weeks.
> 
> {^_^}
> 

OK everyone, Ms. Dow has spoken - no more followup posts <grin>!

I don't regret starting this thread because all the followups have 
been intelligent and informative (like 99% of the posts on this list).

Thanks to you all!

John