From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat
===================================

New computers are more efficient than old ones; therefore we need
to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old
computers, to make sure that those old computer become obsolete and
people stop using them.

This one is often used by environmentalists, and it is wrong in so
many obvious ways.

* New computers generally consume more power than old ones. Of x86
CPUs anything older than Pentium II uses only a single-digit amount
of watts.

* Bloated code causes also new computers to use more electricity than
would otherwise be required for the task.

* Most importantly, when we create non-bloated computer programs, we
are not necessarily targeting old CPUs--we are targeting old
instruction sets. The patents of those old instruction sets are
already expired and CPUs that use them can be freely produced by
anyone. They are also widely supported by compilers and other
existing software. Making software that works on old and/or
patent-free instruction sets is necessary to preserve our digital
freedoms.

* If those old computers end up not being used, they are thrown to
landfills, causing more environmental damage that way.

Everything new is always more secure than the old; therefore we
need to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old
computers, to force people to use new computers that are so much
more secure than the old ones.

This one is often used by corporate security experts.

* Everything new is not always more secure. In fact the opposite is
often true--mindlessly changing stuff just for the sake of novelty
creates an infrastructure that will never become properly
battle-tested. Typically the pieces of software that are assumed to
be the most secure programs in existence have been around for a
long time, and their current form is the result of decades of
small, incremental and carefully thought changes to their codebase.

* Because general purpose computers are Turing-complete, there is not
a single reason why an old computer would be somehow less secure
than a new one. Encryption is mathematics, and the exact same
encryption can be performed on any two machines with the same
levels of Turing-powerfulness. If anything, new computers are
actually often less Turing-powerful than the old ones, thanks to
various firmware- and hardware-level restrictions (firmware
signing, UEFI Secure Boot etc.) that have been implemented to them
because Microsoft has demanded the hardware manufacturers to do so.

* What corporate security experts usually mean with "old computers"
is actually "old operating systems" (or more specifically "old
versions of Windows"), because they somehow associate the
individual computers with the operating system that was originally
installed to them in the factory. But the operating system is not
an integrated part of the computer itself--instead it is just a
bootable program that can be easily changed.

Monitors nowadays use less power than the CRTs of old; therefore,
to save power, we must make bloated user interfaces that don't work
with small resolutions.

This one is often used by HD/4K/8K enthusiasts.

* Old CRTs don't really use that much power at all--a typical 15"
color CRT uses less than most lightbulbs. Monochrome CRTs are even
less power hungry, usually consuming something between 15 to
30 watts of power. The CRT itself doesn't actually usually use much
power. The neck of the CRT, where the electron gun resides, is
where most of the CRT's power is spent. Corporate propaganda often
states a very commonly heard lie that CRTs consume hundreds of
watts of power, but that's not physically possible--the neck of the
CRT would melt if that was true. Although there are exceptions to
the rule, most CRT displays are actually quite power efficient for
a self-illuminating display technology.

* With "modern" flat panel displays, especially OLEDs, the power
consumption grows in an almost linear fashion with the area of the
display. This means that we can actually save more power by
creating scalable user interfaces that also work well on smaller
display resolutions.

From: <http://sininenankka.dy.fi/leetos/swbloat.php>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 16:13:36 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:

Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat

A lot of the arguments seem to be handwaving, doctrinaire stuff.

For comparison, here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbv9L-WIu0s> is
an actual analysis of working code, to see how the “bloat” creeps in
over time, and what it is actually achieving.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

Ben Collver wrote:

Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat

A lot of the arguments seem to be handwaving, doctrinaire stuff.

None of the claimed positions actually cite any real, specific people
who hold them. The author appears to be arguing with people who exist
only inside their own head.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

Ben Collver wrote:

Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat

A lot of the arguments seem to be handwaving, doctrinaire stuff.

None of the claimed positions actually cite any real, specific people
who hold them. The author appears to be arguing with people who exist
only inside their own head.

At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:

From the LKML:
"On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:16:26AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025, Borislav Petkov wrote:

I don't have your old rust and maybe you should simply throw it
in the garbage - that thing is probably not worth the
electricity it uses to power up... :-)

C'mon, these are good room heaters with nice extra side effects. ;)

Maybe we should intentionally prevent booting Linux on such machines and make
this our community's contribution in the fight against global warming!

:-P
"
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> writes:

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

Ben Collver wrote:

Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat

A lot of the arguments seem to be handwaving, doctrinaire stuff.

None of the claimed positions actually cite any real, specific people
who hold them. The author appears to be arguing with people who exist
only inside their own head.

At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:

From the LKML:
"On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:16:26AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025, Borislav Petkov wrote:

I don't have your old rust and maybe you should simply throw it
in the garbage - that thing is probably not worth the
electricity it uses to power up... :-)

C'mon, these are good room heaters with nice extra side effects. ;)

Maybe we should intentionally prevent booting Linux on such machines
and make this our community's contribution in the fight against
global warming!

:-P
"

There is no statement about making anything more ‘bloated’ in that
quote.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-22, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:

Regarding power usage it's fairly simple:

Older computers had smaller wattage power supplies, and the typical
usage pattern was to power down when you weren't using it.

UPS battery backup power can be educational. I seem to recall that
the CRTs would drain the batteries faster than the LCDs did, which
contradicts one of the arguments in the original article.

On the other hand, power usage is only the tip of the iceberg in terms
of ecological footprint. I have no idea about the comparative cost of manufacture, nor the comparative load of toxic materials. Considering
these factors it would make sense to extend the service life.

-Ben
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> writes:

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

None of the claimed positions actually cite any real, specific people
who hold them. The author appears to be arguing with people who exist
only inside their own head.

At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:

From the LKML:
"On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:16:26AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025, Borislav Petkov wrote:

I don't have your old rust and maybe you should simply throw it
in the garbage - that thing is probably not worth the
electricity it uses to power up... :-)

C'mon, these are good room heaters with nice extra side effects. ;)

Maybe we should intentionally prevent booting Linux on such machines
and make this our community's contribution in the fight against
global warming!

:-P
"

There is no statement about making anything more 'bloated' in that
quote.

I read the statements about bloat in the article assuming a good
dose of hyperbole. I doubt the author really thinks programmers are
setting out to make new programs bloated _just_ so they can't run
on old computers, but they don't consider it an issue (or even say
it's an advantage) when such software won't run on them.

Anyway today I tried out booting their lEEt/OS from a floppy on
this Pentium 1 PC I'm posting from and it's impressive work.
Although trying to run one (ambitious) MSDOS program under their
"ST-DOS" did cause a reboot and the CDROM driver wouldn't load
after that, as one-man hobby OSs go that's much less trouble than I
expect. No FAT32 support though.

http://sininenankka.dy.fi/leetos/
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

On 2025-12-22, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

At least so far as the first argument goes, it definitely reflects
the attitude of some Linux kernel developers:

Regarding power usage it's fairly simple:

Older computers had smaller wattage power supplies, and the typical
usage pattern was to power down when you weren't using it.

Some faster modern processors designed for portable or embedded use
are very energy efficient too, but people won't use them because
they say even they're too slow. Even the Raspberry Pis have become
so power hungry that a cooling fan is strongly recommended for the
newer models (besides Zero and Pico). It's all very silly IMHO.

UPS battery backup power can be educational. I seem to recall that
the CRTs would drain the batteries faster than the LCDs did, which contradicts one of the arguments in the original article.

Comparing wattage ratings on TVs I've noticed the trend has been
that while there are savings in watts/display-area with new LCD/LED
tech, they tend to be offset by people choosing to increase the
display area, for equal or greater power consumption overall. If
software forces the increase in display area by designing user
interfaces that don't work on smaller displays, he might have a
point about the same issue with computer monitors. Mind you I can
still find/use software that works fine on small displays, so I
don't agree that users have no choice about that.

On the other hand, power usage is only the tip of the iceberg in terms
of ecological footprint. I have no idea about the comparative cost of manufacture, nor the comparative load of toxic materials. Considering
these factors it would make sense to extend the service life.

Well I'm coming to you from behind a CRT right now!
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote at 16:13 this Sunday (GMT):

Fallacies Advocating Software Bloat
===================================

New computers are more efficient than old ones; therefore we need
to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old
computers, to make sure that those old computer become obsolete and
people stop using them.

This one is often used by environmentalists, and it is wrong in so
many obvious ways.

* New computers generally consume more power than old ones. Of x86
CPUs anything older than Pentium II uses only a single-digit amount
of watts.

* Bloated code causes also new computers to use more electricity than
would otherwise be required for the task.

* Most importantly, when we create non-bloated computer programs, we
are not necessarily targeting old CPUs--we are targeting old
instruction sets. The patents of those old instruction sets are
already expired and CPUs that use them can be freely produced by
anyone. They are also widely supported by compilers and other
existing software. Making software that works on old and/or
patent-free instruction sets is necessary to preserve our digital
freedoms.

* If those old computers end up not being used, they are thrown to
landfills, causing more environmental damage that way.

Everything new is always more secure than the old; therefore we
need to make all software so bloated that it does not run on old
computers, to force people to use new computers that are so much
more secure than the old ones.

This one is often used by corporate security experts.

* Everything new is not always more secure. In fact the opposite is
often true--mindlessly changing stuff just for the sake of novelty
creates an infrastructure that will never become properly
battle-tested. Typically the pieces of software that are assumed to
be the most secure programs in existence have been around for a
long time, and their current form is the result of decades of
small, incremental and carefully thought changes to their codebase.

Don't forget how the forced AI usage introduces so many security issues

* Because general purpose computers are Turing-complete, there is not
a single reason why an old computer would be somehow less secure
than a new one. Encryption is mathematics, and the exact same
encryption can be performed on any two machines with the same
levels of Turing-powerfulness. If anything, new computers are
actually often less Turing-powerful than the old ones, thanks to
various firmware- and hardware-level restrictions (firmware
signing, UEFI Secure Boot etc.) that have been implemented to them
because Microsoft has demanded the hardware manufacturers to do so.

Old computers might run it a bit slower, but yeah

* What corporate security experts usually mean with "old computers"
is actually "old operating systems" (or more specifically "old
versions of Windows"), because they somehow associate the
individual computers with the operating system that was originally
installed to them in the factory. But the operating system is not
an integrated part of the computer itself--instead it is just a
bootable program that can be easily changed.

Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer, and
also the whole making the next versions of Windows so "advanced" and "futuristic" that you simply MUST buy a new computer and the old one
just can't POSSIBLY run it

Monitors nowadays use less power than the CRTs of old; therefore,
to save power, we must make bloated user interfaces that don't work
with small resolutions.

This one is often used by HD/4K/8K enthusiasts.

* Old CRTs don't really use that much power at all--a typical 15"
color CRT uses less than most lightbulbs. Monochrome CRTs are even
less power hungry, usually consuming something between 15 to
30 watts of power. The CRT itself doesn't actually usually use much
power. The neck of the CRT, where the electron gun resides, is
where most of the CRT's power is spent. Corporate propaganda often
states a very commonly heard lie that CRTs consume hundreds of
watts of power, but that's not physically possible--the neck of the
CRT would melt if that was true. Although there are exceptions to
the rule, most CRT displays are actually quite power efficient for
a self-illuminating display technology.

* With "modern" flat panel displays, especially OLEDs, the power
consumption grows in an almost linear fashion with the area of the
display. This means that we can actually save more power by
creating scalable user interfaces that also work well on smaller
display resolutions.

From: <http://sininenankka.dy.fi/leetos/swbloat.php>

CRTs arguably are a bit harder to read and I personally hate the noise
it makes, but yeah. Also, there are plenty of small LCD monitors that
people might want/need to use that could benefit, and also in general
having more compact UI means you can put more windows on your screen
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

candycanearter07 wrote:

Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer

Not quite _every_ computer.
--
^�^. Sn!pe My pet rock Gordon just is.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:

candycanearter07 wrote:

Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer

Not quite _every_ computer.

Not even every x86 PC.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 16:00:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer ...

Literally no. Android devices, for example (unlike Apple ones) are
actual computers. And none of them run Windows.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:

candycanearter07 wrote:

Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer

Not quite _every_ computer.

Not even every x86 PC.

I believe I've seen Windows 2000 running on a DEC Alpha.
I've also used a 68K machine running Microsoft Xenix.

Imagine what could have been!!

--
Sent from my Personal DECstation 5000/25
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote at 16:19 this Tuesday (GMT):

candycanearter07 wrote:

Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer

Not quite _every_ computer.

Enough that most people don't know there IS an alternative (or that the
only two choices are Windows and MacOS)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 14:10:03 -0000 (UTC)
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote at 16:19 this Tuesday (GMT):

candycanearter07 wrote:

Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer

Not quite _every_ computer.

Enough that most people don't know there IS an alternative (or that the
only two choices are Windows and MacOS)

Wot no Plan 9?
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote at 16:19 this Tuesday (GMT):

candycanearter07 wrote:

Blame Microsoft for putting Windows on literally every computer

Not quite _every_ computer.

Enough that most people don't know there IS an alternative (or that the only two choices are Windows and MacOS)

Wot no Plan 9?

From Outer Space!
--
^�^. Sn!pe My pet rock Gordon just is.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 06:53:30 -0000 (UTC), Mechanicjay wrote:

I believe I've seen Windows 2000 running on a DEC Alpha.

All the non-x86 ports of Windows NT have failed.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:57:03 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

Wot no Plan 9?

What exactly does Plan9 get you?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:57:03 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

Wot no Plan 9?

What exactly does Plan9 get you?

ChatGPT says:
--------
Plan 9 from Outer Space is a 1959 American science-fiction film directed
by Ed Wood. It's infamous for its low budget, wooden acting, continuity
errors, and bizarre plot. The story involves aliens attempting to stop
humans from creating a doomsday weapon by resurrecting the dead.

It's often cited as one of the "worst films ever made," yet it gained
cult status for its unintentional humor and earnest, if chaotic,
execution.
--
^�^. Sn!pe My pet rock Gordon just is.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:57:03 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

Wot no Plan 9?

What exactly does Plan9 get you?

The ability to have as much stuff as possible running outside the kernel
ring. The more stuff you can kick out of the kernel, the less stuff there
is which can cause catastrophic failure when things go wrong.

OSX started out adapting some of the Plan9 philosophy but it mostly turned
into bloat and the current OSX kernel looks nothing like a classic microkernel.

There are also some distributed processing features built into Plan9. To
be honest I don't think those are really of much benefit in the modern environment but they are pretty ingenious.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:44:02 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 19:02:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

What exactly does Plan9 get you?

The ability to have as much stuff as possible running outside the
kernel ring. The more stuff you can kick out of the kernel, the less
stuff there is which can cause catastrophic failure when things go
wrong.

Ah, the hoary old microkernel refrain. You’d think, after something
like four decades of repeating the same tired old claims without being
able to back them up, the microkernel fans would have given up by now.

OSX started out adapting some of the Plan9 philosophy but it mostly
turned into bloat and the current OSX kernel looks nothing like a
classic microkernel.

Gee, I wonder why they succumbed to real-world evidence in that way ...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:44:02 -0500 (EST)
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:57:03 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

Wot no Plan 9?

What exactly does Plan9 get you?

The ability to have as much stuff as possible running outside the kernel ring. The more stuff you can kick out of the kernel, the less stuff there
is which can cause catastrophic failure when things go wrong.

OSX started out adapting some of the Plan9 philosophy but it mostly turned into bloat and the current OSX kernel looks nothing like a classic microkernel.

There are also some distributed processing features built into Plan9. To
be honest I don't think those are really of much benefit in the modern environment but they are pretty ingenious.
--scott

Some of the ideas in plan9 are useful. However, the plan9 project fails to provide a coherent and intutive GUI, editor, web browser, and file browser that are ready to use out of the box. It is too arcane for mere mortals to even try to use.

Having great ideas does no good when one must have a compsci PhD as a bar to entry.

As with Linux and Linux distros, the project is more about promoting the project than providing something for people to improve their work flow.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2