Re: [buildd] Etch?
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:50:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > Excluding resource-hogging libraries and applications isn't going to
> > do anything, at all, to change that, while it *will* increase the
> > chance that people will look at it and say "This it not of any use to
> > me, since foo is not available".
>
> Do people choose a Quadra 840 because they can run Evolution, or do they
> choose it because they love (Apple|Amiga), and understand the
> computational limitations of their systems?
Probably all of the above depending on who you ask and which package you
nominate.
Is porting to m68k in general a good idea? I think the coldfire market
best answers that question.
Is running Evolution on quadra a good idea? If portability of Evolution
code or bloat matters, then yes. If the quadra architecture can teach me
something, then yes.
What better emipirical way to test the justification of bloat is there?
The results are useful, and only open source makes it possible.
Granted that most users don't care to count wasted cycles, nuclear power
plants, hydro dams etc. But my 366 MHz celeron work laptop runs openbox,
and no desktop manager to speak of. It does what I need it to do and does
so much more efficiently than a new system.
Our throw-away western cultures don't care about disposable machines. I
do. I recently acquired a 1998 model 333 MHz Beige G3. I put RAM and
firewire/USB and radeon cards in it and it runs everything from OS 8
through to the latest OS X just fine. A requirement for a single app can
make snappy performance irrelevant.
Give away source code and people will surprise you with unexpected and
useful things they do with it. The m68k port makes the source more
valuable in that respect.
-f
Reply to: