How is GNU software worse

if it has more features? It's not like the old features go away.

Because it's a clusterfuck of complexity. Such as 4k+ LOCs to write a fucking "ls" command.

The GNU folk is simply batshit insane. They've completely missed the point of C, UNIX, programming and maybe life itself. They masturbate with maintaining ports of "ls" for 18-bit architectures or pre-standard compilers no one gives a fuck about anymore.

More features do not mean better usage, better user experience, more productivity. Specially when the word "feature" is used, which almost imply some degree of uselessness. Software must have "functionality". It must serve a purpose, a single one if possible, without adornments. GNU software is so substandard that they create new software to assess the problems other pieces of software they write create.

Look at >>8, a single `cat` allocating 40KB in the motherfucking heap. What the fuck?

This is why no one wants to maintain GNU software. There's no single reason a sane person would dedicate his time to decypher thousands of lines of batshit ill-indented insanery in order to make a fucking directory listing, or file copy, or whatever.

>>11
They aren't ``missing the point'' of C and UNIX any more than Microsoft are--they just choose to do something different entirely. They aren't going for ``the UNIX philosophy'' or lean code or tradition, they're going for large feature sets and wide market share with software that works on today's computers. I even emailed Stallman about this and he said he isn't big on the UNIX philosophy, he's fine with extensions (why wouldn't he be? GNU-only options encourage you to use GNU), and that the Emacs icon was once an overflowing kitchen sink ``for a reason''.

Complaining about GNU not meeting a philosophy it simply isn't trying to meet is dumb. UNIX isn't the measuring stick all operating systems are set by. GNU's Not Unix.