On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM, pk <pete...@coolmail.se> wrote: > On 2011-09-08 05:23, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > >> Yeah, first time I installed Linux, it required 512 Mb (if I installed >> X), and 16 Mb of memmory. Change happens. I welcome it happily, >> because that's how we progress and get even better stuff. > > Change is sometimes good, sometimes bad. Something that used to work > (and still works on other *nix:es) but doesn't because someone doesn't > think it should work that way is... well, what can I say? This is a > regression, there's no other way to put it.
The world is never black or white. Under several definitions, *nothing* has stopped working. You just need to do extra stuff to keep it working. > Also, you say you welcome change... If you could have all of todays > functionality in a GNU/Linux OS in 512MB/16MB, wouldn't that be much > better than needing several GB (in both hard drive space and memory)? > You could put all that space (hard drive/mem) to good use instead... Or > are you one of those that thinks change is good just for the sake of... > change? No, I understand that today's functionality in Linux requires more hard drive space, more memory and faster CPU's. I don't like change for change's sake, my whole point is that the benefits we get from following upstream overweights the problems. (Of course, again, is not black and white: the kernel devs, I trust almost withouth doubt. GNOME devs I trust less. An unknown hacker with a new project I trust almost nothing.) Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
