[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Pollution and HW trends, was:Bloatware and the 80/20 Myth


First of all thanks to everybody for sharing their thoughts on this,
especially Bill Crawford. I'm answering just today because I was sick.

Summarizing (so to speak: sorry if it's longer than I wanted):

1) I was referring only to humanly noticeable bloat, and agree that
   for most users it's the only that should matter: not if it takes
   12 vs 11.75 MB of RAM, but if it takes 50 vs 5 second to start (on
   the same old machine, obviously)

2) I'm glad to see that, regardless of enthusiastic reviews here and
   there, many beside me *do* see their favourite programs starting
   slower and slower. There *is* a problem, isn't it?

3) Even more glad to see that somebody else pointed out first that
   "can' run it or don't need it? Don't upgrade" is just not feasible
   in real life. If you want to fix bugs and security holes, you have
   no choices.

4) POLLUTION: energy saving fixes the problem only *during* the life
   of the device. At the end of the life cycle, *all* electronics, not
just PCs, should be dumped separately and recicled just as we do with
paper, aluminum, glass. Of course, the real solution with any
pollution problem is *not* recycling, but consume less, i.e. in our
context, use a PC until it physically falls apart, or we *really* need
to do something more than it can handle. Repeat at leisure,
substituting the proper reasons,  for schools
and third world countries.

Consumer-wise, we should maybe start to send different messages to the
industry. Myself, I'm looking for the most efficient way to tell the
generic HDD maker:

"listen, you moron! *Not* everybody in the world collects tons of MP3
and movies. I *don't* want a 60 G HDD for what a 30 G costed
yesterday. I want a *3* (yes, three) GB disk, because it's enough, but
I want it damn fast, extremely silent, with no cooling needs whatsoever, and
dissipating less energy than a led. Oh, and dirty cheap, of course..."


NOTE:	For an enlightening note on what kind of dirty puppy is
	sitting below your desk, read:


	(I'm interested in similar stories. Email the URLs privately,

5) Again on proper coding techniques and packetization. Bill said:

>  That's not entirely true; if the application is well written, then you
> just don't ever page in the code for the 80% of functions you don't use
> and so the memory should be saved.  How well this works in practice, of
> course, is open to question.
True. The problem is that on older machines, the 80% you'll never use
*in RAM* won't ever fit in older hard disks, so you won't install it
at all, if it's only one huge package or collection of them.
 Let's face it, KDE and Gnome are
highly modular, code-reuse, common-framework, yadda-yadda... only if
you install all the pieces. I agree that my original Ghostscript
example was not the best, but try to set up an internet kiosk with
only the last version of Konqueror or Galeon on a P90 with 100/200
Megs of disk space....

It will fit and run just fine on that "obsolete" HW, but only after you
have recompiled everything and your b**t twice, swearing like a drunken
sailor in the process.

6) Last but not least:
> > Conclusion: start saying to everybody claiming that "HW is cheap, so
> >  bloatware is harmless" "OK, if it's so cheap  *YOU* go and buy me a new
> > PC"
>  Good idea!  *grin*

Thanks! Shall we start a WWW campaign for this? A logo, anybody :-))) ?

	Thanks for your time,

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]