How is GNU software worse

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

>>19
Absolutely agreed, specially with the "that's what C was originally about" part.

>>25
What "anything else"?

>>27
The Linux kernel has sendfile(). It is possible to implement cat with a dozen machine instructions and no userspace buffer at all. Given the enormous source code size of any piece of GNU software, I'd think they would have at least put a couple of #ifdefs and call sendfile() when building for a Linux target.

31 separate allocations is truly an indicator of awful coding, anyway. Altough it might be due to some libc initialization code, it's just not an excuse. That's actually the main point of my rant. GNU software is just bad C and bad UNIX. Simply that. Whether Stallman or whoever thinks it's better, it does not matter.

>>41
31 separate allocations is truly an indicator of awful coding
You're an idiot.

>>1
Why do you even imply it's not worst of the worst and it would be insane to imply anything else???????????????

>>40
If you respect your privacy and freedom, there are better choices. e.g. OpenBSD, which has ``paranoid by default'' technology.

>>40
People who are ignorant enough to have never heard of BSD.

>>44
How many people audit its security vs how many people audit, say, Debian's security?

>>46
One Theo amounts for all the GNU/Leenooks crowd, and much more.

>>46
OpenBSD: about 8 people per million lines of code.
Debian: about 0.2 people per million lines of code.

>>48
Debian: 30000 packages.
OpenBSD: 32.5 packages.

>>49
In the base system? Really? I knew debian was bloated, but I didn't know it was that bloated.

>>50
Doesn't say much unless you know how large the packages are, and what they do. Lots of Debian packages don't do much more than dump things in your /etc for debconf to use. I wouldn't expect *BSD to have anything like that.

Probably the oddest thing about Debian is that the base system has a full blown MTA in it (exim4). Most desktop users don't even know it's there.