And my point was, it may be a detriment when all that un-needed power and functionality costs you more in gas or pollutes the environment more or whatever, but in the world of software, none of that applies, so stop trying to apply the argument/analogy to the software world. It doesn't make near as much sense.
Bryan On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 19:03, Daniel Crookston wrote: > And here's this one... > > My point was that SUVs have way more power and functionality than you'd > ever use between your home and the grocery store or the soccer field. > > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Bryan Murdock wrote: > > > I would buy this if the supposed economy car of Windows was cheaper and > > Linux was spilling more toxic fumes into the atmosphere, but I'm afraid > > that isn't true. Hmm, in fact it's quite the opposite in both cases > > (ok, maybe windows doesn't really produce toxic fumes). I don't > > understand these "it's too bloated" arguments against any software. So > > what? What's the trade off? Software doesn't produce any toxic waste, > > noxious gasses, or anything like that. Greenpeace isn't going to knock > > at your door because of a large memory footprint, or unused features. > > What's the big deal? I guess that's why I'm an emacs lover when others > > aren't. > > > > Bryan > > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
