define: bloat >really makes you think

good thread op

File: join.jpg (148KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1280x720px

>>60631665
bloat:
things that you don't need that are included in something that you need

Windows Ten

Windows 10

File: 848.png (205KB, 659x525px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 659x525px

>>60631665
>define: bloat
try define: bloatware

>>60631665
you can thank me for bumping your stupid troll thread OP, otherwise this brilliant idea would've perished into the legendary archives

>>60631665
excessive amounts of unnecessary features
unnecessarily excessively long, verbose, and/or repetitive code
poor memory, cpu, and/or gpu performance
needlessly uncompressed, lossless binary data
bundled installers
windows
ubuntu unity
java

>>60633713
>poor performance
Not true. Actually, most of bloatware has better performance. Compare GCC and Clang with tcc.

>>60633788
Or glibc with dietlibc.

Anything I don't like

>>60631665
Instructions which exist but do not positively change my specific use case upon being run.
Who cares though. I've got a 120gb SSD so as long as it isn't running when I don't want it too, it's fine.

#include <bloat.h>

>>60631665
For on the surface simple programs, bloat has always been when tries to cut the grass in your lawn using a nail clipper. Sure, your CPU has the power of what is equivalently 100,000 people and a relatively small lawn, so you can do it. But why the fuck would you?

And for surface level things, it's been when a program begins to take on more and more features that are often either unnecessary or unrelated to the original aim of the program. (A music program that adds in support for video, a fan control program that adds in CPU overclocking, etc etc)

inb4 someone replies "Systemd"