From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:01:26 +0100
From: Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57@fastmail.fm>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <20110717180126.68cedb1c@lahti.ethans.dre.am>
In-Reply-To: <e7221390e41876cb79215f3fbcc9725d@ladd.quanstro.net>
References: <20110715151535.GA2405@polynum.com>
	<20110716180627.GA29488@polynum.com>
	<b710c08f41ab0222cee59359858d3657@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<201107162256.53336.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
	<20110717110827.1ab754d1@lahti.ethans.dre.am>
	<e7221390e41876cb79215f3fbcc9725d@ladd.quanstro.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] NUMA
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 03a40f1e-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:50:50 -0400
erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:

> why do you think the size or complexity of the code has anything
> to do with it?

Good question. I'm not sure I an give a good answer. I do think systems get less flexible as they get more complex. I suppose that isn't provable or always true, but it's empirically "proven" true in my Linux desktop use. As bad as old X11 was, I have repeatedly seen relatively simple ways of solving problems cut off by desktop "solutions" containing implementation details I could never see any use for at all.