> led to the great compiler we have today. The same
> would hold for any large project (the kernel, firefox, etc.)
And... are you happy with the quality of the huge $h1t which
is Firefox? Because I am not.
As for the Linux kernel, they pushed in all kind of crap.
Back in 1996, I was running Linux with X in only 8 Megs of RAM!
Now, I doubt I could even boot with such a memory...
Linux is not like Jesus. Linux is not "good", nor "great".
It's only "much less worse" than Windows, and marginally
better than the BSDs.
Of course, it's open source and so on. But it's a huge crap
like everything that's software nowadays.
> I fail to see why tens of micro repos are easier
> to maintain consistent than a large one.
They're not. But at least you don't have to make people
get along.
> > 7,600 packages is really too much for a couple of
> people to
> > maintain. Unless it's scaled *down*...
>
> ...or scale the maintainers up.
Still, 7,600 is unmaintainable. For their ~20k packages,
both Debian and Ubuntu use dozens and dozens of packages.
(And I won't mention the quality of Ubuntu's packages.)
As for TUV, they decided they can only support ~2.5k packages,
regardless of the fact that they're the #1 Linux company.
I maintain that RF is way too large to be properly maintainable.
Cheers,
R-F
__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.