Mark Haney wrote: > > Bollocks. I am quite aware of the differences between the two distros. > Do not insult my intelligence. The point I'm making is that some > dependencies seem unnecessary. (Again, I'm unable to come up with a > specific example at the moment, since I'm at work, but I'm sure there > will be a post shortly that says 'why do I need this to install this?') > > Adding all those dozens upon dozens of dependencies in just result in > bloated binaries and lowered performance because of that. Surely, NOT > including the 'kitchensink' dependency will cut down on the size of > binaries. Not to mention lowering the bloat on a system. > I am not following your argument. How does having dependencies result in a bigger binary? I would think it would result in just the opposite - small binaries that link with other programs/libraries like building blocks. Other programs can share some of the same blocks, so you do not have to duplicate them in more then one binary. You also have GUI programs that are front ends to CLI programs. So you naturally need the program(s) that they are front ends for when you are installing the GUI. If anything, Linux is moving away from the collection of small programs that preform one function well, and can be linked to other programs to perform a specific task... Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Description: OpenPGP digital signature