3 ms·

You probably cannot add 1+1, that person meant the 90's style desktop means there is no unnecessary cruft in it, therefore it won't try to amaze the user with e

You probably cannot add 1+1, that person meant the 90's style desktop means there is no unnecessary cruft in it, therefore it won't try to amaze the user with eyecandy, so operations will happen instantly. And less code means less chance for bugs.

anthk 5y ago
> And less code means less chance for bugs. The OpenBSD bug on Xenocara which allowed root needed more code, not less. So this is the case with pledge(4) and unveil(4), you need (a little) more code in onder to sandbox setuff properly. NT4 was much more complex than W98SE, yet NT4/w2k was much better on multitasking (by a huge margin). I've seen w98se crawl even with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM with just 3 IE windows open back in the day, while 2k flied.
- somewhatbetter 5y ago
  >The OpenBSD bug on Xenocara which allowed root needed more code, not less. X was considered and still is a "hack". >So this is the case with pledge(4) and unveil(4), you need (a little) more code in onder to sandbox setuff properly. You don't write a graphical subsystem and then tries to sandbox it. Sadly nix advocates won't ever understand this logic. >NT4 was much more complex than W98SE, yet NT4/w2k was much better on multitasking (by a huge margin). I've seen w98se crawl even with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM with just 3 IE windows open back in the day, while 2k flied. Let me compare apples with pears, i mean two different approach for OS development which have almost nothing common except the w32 stuff, and let me conclude the newer is better. I don't really see your point.
  - anthk 5y ago
    I woudn't say "newer" is better, but sometimes you need a bigger and more complex codebase to get more performance, stability and security.
    - somewhatbetter 5y ago
      And bugs.