Good tip. Also, there are options that can be built from source (e.g., BSD) so that all that cruft is not installed by default. IME, 8 GB SD cards are not needed; 1 GB and smaller can suffice.
Maybe you have a very poor understanding of your systems, or you have given up trying to understand them.
Or maybe you think that because any attempts at understanding systems are in your opinion "difficult", other users should "give up" and leave everything to some company like Microsoft.
Or maybe there is some other explanation. I don't know.
I am not sure why it matters to you how someone else chooses to use their own hardware, or what software they choose to use.
Not sure I really want to know. But I think you are wasting your time.
Your systems are larger and more complicated than they have to be. You have admitted it. You also admit your systems are full of flaws, and it does not sound like you are expending any effort to find and fix them.
Now you are telling me the size of your monitors. Who cares?
If you see all software as "large" and "complex", then that is how you see it. So what? What does this have to do with anything?
I started these threads because Microsoft ran an article in the NYT about greater "security". But it's still closed source. Microsoft does not let users unconditionally review nor trim the size of the code.
If you think Windows is the best option for you, then go right ahead and keep using it to the exclusion of anything else. I'm not trying to persuade you to do anything. Do whatever you want. I wish you all the best.
But spare me the comments. I do not follow your reasoning, or whatever point you are trying to make, and I'm not interested.
I do not use Linux on a day to day basis as I said multiple times in these threads, nor do I consider the popular Linux distributions as a good example of small(er) software. They keep getting larger.
Some have said the larger Linux distributions aim to be a "replacement" for Windows. I would tend to agree. I have little interest in Windows nor the "desktop" metaphor.
But, at least with an open source kernel such as Linux (aside from the binary blobs), unlike closed source Microsoft Windows kernel, a user can reduce the size.
One can also use an initrd with her own small(er) programs or a mutli-call binary instead of a GNU userland put together by a third party organization.
I have never compiled my own reduced size Windows kernel or any other part of Windows given that it is a _closed source kernel_. The idea that I am even having to state seems ridiculous. Most everyone reading this forum knows this. This whole "discussion" is surreal.
Funny that you use the word "wasteful". That is exactly how I view large(r) software. It wastes valuable resources that, on my systems, are in limited and often short supply.
The reason I mentioned what I prefer was to disclose bias. Certainly everyone has one.
The reason I mentioned what I use was only to provide example, to illustrate that such small(er) software exists. Again, the idea I even have to state this, to someone on this forum, seems surreal.
There are alternatives to Windows and to Linux distributions, at least in my case. I know for fact I am not the only one using small(er) software, but I am not comfortable speaking for others. What software they choose to use is their business, not mine.
Any program that is constantly being updated and/or re-released is, for me, the one I'm more wary about trusting.
As an example, look at djb's software. After a period in the beginning, you do not see the constant releases and updates.
To me, trustworthy software is software that is "correct", if that is even attainable.
Ideally, if the author is truly careful, it should be close to "correct" when it initially released.
Numerous releases and updates year after year to me suggests the software was not very close to correct when the author decided it was time to release. Or that the author is pandering to feature requests.
As with the parent comment, this is only an opinion.
NaCl and CurveCP have not been updated in years. But I feel it's more trustworthy than TLS.
"The greater the code size the greater the probability of bugs."
Right. I think we are done here.
Microsoft Windows is larger than any OS I know of, and only keeps growing.
To answer your question, I am using a text only browser that's based on the links project, with my own minor modifications.
I still have no idea why you and the other commenter are asking. It seems quite clear neither of you have any legitimate interest in such programs. Otherwise you would not be challenging my statement of such a simple fact as the quoted sentence above, as it applies to Microsoft.
I strongly disagree that "small" programs are not useful. As I have previously stated, I use them every day. I use programs such as sed and netcat to interact with the www even more than I use a browser.
Software that is "smaller" than Microsoft Windows.
It exists.
I prefer such "smaller" software and use it every day.
For me, it is "practically useful". I regularly see others stating it is useful for them, too.
Have no idea what "secure" means in the abstract, but maybe smaller software and the way it is used can be "more secure" (or less secure) than Windows.
"Fully understand" is a very high watermark to reach with any system. But given the choice between a larger system that is opaque and one that is smaller and open source I believe I can (partially) understand the smaller one better.
As a user, I don't. It's closed source. That's the point. What users have is only circumstantial evidence. And then there is the marketing and PR, such as the NYT article.
One of original two comments was "What would we find?" There is nothing to suggest I have read the source code.
Unless and until Windows becomes an open source project, such as the ones that are routinely discussed in this forum, where users can remove code they do not want, then no amount of "updates" or PR by Redmond is going "fix" Windows to my satisfaction. As I said, I am not expecting that to happen, ever.
There is a comment in these threads from a former Microsoft employee that confirms my suspicions about poor quality control. Are you still in disbelief?
As for your aside, I agree. There's legacy code in both. But I suspect it is far less code overall. And, in my opinion, it's in some cases higher quality than what I am getting with Windows (there are certainly exceptions: Dave Cutter's work on the NT kernel being one). Of course, I do not have the Windows source code so I can only speculate what is in there.
More importantly, the size of the software is much smaller and I can modify and recompile it.
I can see to some extent what has been added and changed over the years. I can continue to learn from the source and the people who wrote it, instead of from a marketing department.
Living in a tty is "the exact same thing" as using Windows?
Is that an example of "comparing like to like"?
I am in VGA textmode. I am not using a graphic layer.
The amount of code to implement the tty, which is available to me to read, edit, compile and redistribute, is, I speculate, much smaller and less complex than the amount of code and complexity used to implement the Windows GUI.
A comment in response to a NYT "article" (=PR piece) on Microsoft's approach to "security" where the comment points out that Windows is an extremely large program with layers upon layers of historical cruft and that it remains closed source. Additionally I suggested Windows is the easiest target for finding security flaws. It is a very large attack surface.
Is this really controversial?
For better or worse, I am responding to these comments no matter how nonsensical they are.
The best comments have actually come from Microsoft employees, past or present.
I agree. Which is why I do not understand how anyone can claim Windows is not "closed source" in the sense of the opposite of "open source", as that term is commonly understood in this forum. Maybe they were being sarcastic?