Re: bloatware

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Jim Howard wrote:

>Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:26:21 +0000
>From: Jim Howard <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>Subject: [forum] bloatware
>
>This point kind of got lost in the IP scuffle.
>
>There are many definitions of bloatware.  For some it is installation add-ons
>and data files.  For me it is sheer text segment program code.  The other
>forms are easy to trim, but code is hard to rework to make more efficient.
>
>"Why is this a problem?  Don't people need lots of features?"

Anyone who claims X is bloatware simply has no idea what they are 
talking about.  People who scream the loudest also tend to be 
those who have never used oprofile and similar tools to actually 
*measure* real runtime metrics.  They also are the ones who tend 
to complain that X doesn't have more features such as 
translucency, etc.

Adding more features while also making the runtime memory usage 
of the X server smaller are rather mutually exclusive goals.  For 
those who require a minimalist X server, there is kdrive.

I wont bother going into details about the X server *not* 
actually using much memory at all, and the fact that most people 
claim X is huge and bloated by basing their assessment on the 
broken and misleading output of programs like top and ps though.


-- 
Mike A. Harris