Re: [dev] Linux distros that don't suck too too much

From: Charlie Kester <corky1951_AT_comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:09:40 -0700

On Thu 12 May 2016 at 08:45:43 PDT hiro wrote:
>> Package systems are both a symptom and a cause of bloat. They only
>> exist because most software, along with its metastasizing dependencies,
>> is a pain in the ass to compile.
>
>Actually compiling software the right way, without many dependencies
>is quite an art these days, so yes, i want to share the results of my
>buiding process with others. Many shitty software I'm required to use
>doesn't suddenly get less complex just because you like suckless
>software.
>
>> The correct solution isn't hiding those problems with a package
>> manager, but to avoid those dependencies and the bloat in
>> individual programs by following suckless principles in the first place.
>
>Yes, it's too late for that, shitty software already exists and I have
>to use it. Now.

Sucks to be you. ;)

Look, I understand that compromises are often forced upon us. For
example, I'm on Comcast not because I like it but because, despite its
shittiness, it's better than any of the other choices available in my
area. And I only use its email server because it's part of the deal.

But when I'm spec'ing an *ideal* distro, in order to evaluate existing
ones, I don't start with the compromises, I start with what I consider
the ideal.


>
>> The ideal distro could get by with a ports system like in the BSDs or
>> Gentoo. (Which isn't to say those existing systems couldn't be
>> improved.)
>
>Now you're suddenly saying packages are ok?

No, I stand by my original assertion that packages are a bandaid
covering problems which have a better solution.
Received on Thu May 12 2016 - 19:09:40 CEST