being fixed almost weekly without denying mistakes shows which software is better.
1- closed company, group, colony, whatever.
2- nobody can predict others requirements better than themselves.
3- your imaginations about modularity is wrong. each program works exactly the way which dependencies are designed otherwise it going to be statically or self contained dynamically linked. devs and maintainers are responsible for syncing their products with dependencies and users won't push forward blindly.
what if i don't want the bloats of bsd 👉operating system👈 but i want a modular kernel to be able to compile it based on requirements of the context and put other hand picked uncentralized modules on top of it and modify stuffs? what if i don't like the design of some parts of this operating system? will they obey my requested rules? i won't accept monolithic systems anymore.
0 - you're not considering many aspects of software 1 - it's not closed, in fact (as I mentioned before) there are other companies and users contributing to the software 2 - ok so what if people didn't have time or will to choose all the software and build a Linux distro from scratch? 3 - bloats? Tell me where are the bloats. I guess you consider bloat everything that doesn't follow the suckless philosophy. And I guess that every time your requirements or context change, you change all your OS because it must completely follow your purposes and cannot exceed of a byte. Also, following your way of thinking, you may not like some parts of the Linux kernel, what will you do then? Change it and recompile it all and also compile again all the software and libraries which were written upon of it? There is a thing called "general purpose" made for being able to adapt to any situation and use case. This necessarily implies some more things but it's not bloat as one day you may find it useful. Anyway I noticed we have different ways of thinking and different preferences so I guess we should stop it here to avoid time wasting.
Обсуждают сегодня