Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 04:23:42 +0000
Subject: Re: (Excessive?) Complexity
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
References: <vkjmdg$30kff$1@dont-email.me> <CaidP.24348$DPp5.20979@fx01.iad>
 <3002e7b9-095e-c292-1202-b151f7776587@example.net>
 <ltmbcmFjcgpU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ba6263f8-1e7f-5eb1-ae06-757f2ed7a018@example.net>
 <lto9qbFso18U3@mid.individual.net>
 <slrnvnegk1.2cl6d.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com>
 <8b262a1f-507f-ef10-e4d3-a981dca5b7d1@example.net>
 <vl8jdq$3st6d$1@dont-email.me> <vl8jul$3sqfa$4@dont-email.me>
 <vl8otk$3splv$3@dont-email.me> <vl8qm7$3u6t2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vl93dl$3vkun$1@dont-email.me> <vl9449$3vo6h$3@dont-email.me>
 <vl9aov$pp7$1@dont-email.me> <vla4hr$5n4v$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlblqj$harb$1@dont-email.me> <lttopaFoh2cU8@mid.individual.net>
 <vle8uk$12sii$2@dont-email.me>
 <c686fb74-4fac-0809-7005-417c76ee0e3b@example.net>
 <nbReP.633803$oR74.271654@fx16.iad> <NnVeP.44028$vfee.11890@fx45.iad>
 <vo6ubb$3ue2q$2@dont-email.me>
 <RhOdnY5Kb8vulDr6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <slrnvqfa8s.27rvm.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> <vo8bem$69pr$4@dont-email.me>
From: "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net>
Organization: WokieSux
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:23:44 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <vo8bem$69pr$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <eSadna_s0t5TsDX6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 59
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.101.150.97
X-Trace: sv3-uEcQxVdORtIulAQ9axeixLBLAO25mb25lbJe5dNQlHjjB4hbYQbaBZZQEgkKX5z4HhXlUqgyv4nXKk0!hTp65pTY97WW8Ad7jxNNz0ViKo9R8WW/NL6p+DSvuzbTSaVutI39I0cIXYN5K3N2mCefWBEskfmI!zBjQO2XQV8DWVv0SmZ25
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4947

On 2/8/25 2:31 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 08/02/2025 18:57, Lars Poulsen wrote:
>> On 2025-02-08, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>>     Anyway, of late, software "improvements" have
>>>     too often been the exact opposite. What alien
>>>     universe do these 'improvers' COME from ???
>>>
>>>     IMHO, a lot of this is just "busy work" from
>>>     people looking for something to do. Their
>>>     idea of "better" means "better for ME - and
>>>     screw YOU". It's not better for the average,
>>>     or even professional, user.
>>>
>>>     Maybe we need a new branch ... Linux-2004 ...
>>>     with all the good stuff and none of these
>>>     "improvements" ??? Linux and related was
>>>     damned good from the start, SOLID by 2004.
>>>
>>>     It worked. It was kinda simple. You COULD
>>>     figure it out without committing suicide.
>>>     NOW, it just seems to be becoming an
>>>     incomprehensible ever-mutating MESS - Winders
>>>     by another name.
>>
>> Much of the complexity that you do not approve of, seems to me to be
>> related to Linux's ambition to produce code that works on everything
>> from an embedded IoT device to a high-performance laptop to a clustered
>> datacenter rack from a single set of source files.
>>
>> Back "in the Golden Age", the spectrum of systems that the code was
>> expected to support was much narrower; that would tend to make the code
>> much simpler and more readable.
> 
> Nah. Its the stupidity not of using an oriented *approach* to design 
> code, but of putting it into the frickin language and making everyone 
> use it.

   Well, I kind-of understand his issue. The problem these
   days is SO-MANY-PLATFORMS. Developers, and esp their
   pointy-haired bosses, want a one-fits-all application.
   Alas this results in INSANE, un-debuggable, complexity.

   Aiming for more narrow platforms is probably the better
   way. The 90% required/functional code can be preserved,
   but all the crap required to suit *a* platform can be
   largely unique. Seems less-efficient, but is more solid.

   But who cares about 'solid' these days ? Make something
   arty and flashy, get the users cash - then ignore all
   their complaints. It's a Business Model .....

   Remember the "bad old days" when we had Atari, Apple,
   Commodore, Tandy, TRS-80, ROM systems, CP/M, DOS ?
   It was just not feasible to write an "everything"
   application. A lot had to be customized to the
   particular platform. This made for a number of
   smaller, tuned, applications which WERE debuggable
   and comprehensible. Today really isn't SO different,
   but tends to be disguised - resulting in bloatware.