Slashdot Mirror


Name Your Favorite Bloat-Free Software

An anonymous reader writes "I prefer software that takes as little hard drive space and RAM as possible. I can't stand bloated software like iTunes, as compared to Foobar or classic Winamp; or Windows Media Player, as compared to VLC or Media Player Classic. What are some of your favorite applications which are a little less bloated?"

1,296 comments

  1. Oh! by c0l0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that one's easy! `ed`. It's the standard editor for a reason, after all.

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
    1. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I like copy con, myself.

    2. Re:Oh! by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      ed is a bloated mess! It's 47K for god's sake! I use cat for all of my text editing needs. At a lean 19k, it's far more efficient than ed. Hell, if you're comfortable with that much bloat, you might as well just use emacs. At least then you get an operating system included.

      As for general favorite bloat-free software, I'd have to go with /usr/bin/yes. Often I find myself needing something to tell me I'm correct about a tough decision, or to provide me motivation to do something, or just for some general personal validation. For that and more, I trust yes. Sure, some people would use more unsure methods such as researching problems, talking to themselves in a mirror, or taking action to better themselves. I'm not much of a gambler though, and I don't like to sweat. So, I use yes. Yes always gives me the answer I need, as many times as I need to hear it. Yes is the perfect solution to life's problems. Take for example the following conversation with yes:

      Should I buy that new sports car I've had my eye on? y
      Am I really a good person, even after all those felonies? y
      Should I have another beer? y
      Am I sober enough to drive? y
      Do you love me? y
      Oh yes, you little scamp, I love you too! y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      ^C

    3. Re:Oh! by baryon351 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I prefer software that takes as little hard drive space and RAM as possible

      I'll have to go out on a limb and say I dropped expectations of absolutely minimal HD and RAM space for EVERY app I use, after continually coming up against programs that would go all out in being light in resource use, but couldn't do their job because of it.

      Some are just what the original poster ordered - vim is certainly one of the good cases, it's powerful and manages a light footprint, and there are plenty of other tools that do phenomenal work whether it's running on eight xeons, or a single low-end 386.

      One of the opposite cases is some forms of image work when comparing apps like Gimp and Photoshop. In some areas, Gimp is WAY lighter on resource use. I'd perform work on 250MB image, and gimp would use little more RAM than that, no matter how it was configured for RAM use. This would normally be seen as a really good thing for Gimp.

      What of Photoshop? It wanted 2GB of RAM to work at maximum speed. That might sound like serious bloat on photoshop's part, but when working on large images it meant two orders of magnitude difference in speed. Yes, where Gimp will use a mere 280MB on a 4GB system, and take 15-16 minutes to perform one filter over an image, Photoshop would chew through 2GB and take about 20 seconds doing the exact same thing.

      (That doesn't mean PS was incapable when stuck with ONLY 256MB RAM. Then it'd bog down just like Gimp)

      What I want are apps that use the resources I provide them *wisely*. There's more to that than just being totally frugal. Seen too many people running big-RAM systems and being proud of having their OS use just a hundred or two MB out of gigs. Why? Resources are free once they're installed, may as well use them when they genuinely can help you work.

    4. Re:Oh! by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the joke ?

      I use ed at least once a week, if not more.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:Oh! by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Now that one's easy! `ed`

      Real men use echo as their text editor. Its builtin to the shell, so no overhead of a fork and whatnot.

      With respect to bloat-free software, who cares?

      I go for features and utility first, and then will ditch it if the resources used outweigh the features and utility. I mean if bloat-free is the goal, then I guess you have to start with a bloat-free OS like free DOS, and gradually build from there, right?

      Take bittorent apps. I tried most all that work on Linux and OS X. Azureus came recommended, and sure the GUI was cute and all of the features, but its bloated and the features are simply unnecessary (I'm just downloading files, what features are needed???), so I always come back to Bittornado. With Bittornado I can background the downloads on a remote machine and be done with it. I have a script called bt and I feed it the URL and it "does the right thing (TM)".

      Sometimes, I use multiple apps, depending on the need. At home, I primarily use Safari as a web browser (OS X). But I also use wget, mozilla, lynx, and camino. I don't know, nor care the whole rank ordering of bloatness here. Nor do I care. Regardless of how bloated the GUI web browsers are, none of them can emulate a wget -r -np http://some.site.com/location. At work, I use Firefox mostly for webbrowsing (Linux). But I still use lynx and wget as well.

      So, my point is the right tool for the job. Bloat is not an issue until it is an issue. Bloat will always be the last thing I consider for choosing and app, not the first.

    6. Re:Oh! by DMoylan · · Score: 1

      when working on a windows or one of the few dos systems still about i use ted 1.1 quite a bit.

      ted.com is 2988 bytes in size.

      it's limited to 64k text files. but by golly it's a great little editor written in the 80s

      TED 1.1 (c) 1988 Ziff Communications Co.
      PC Magazine Tom Kihlken

    7. Re:Oh! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know, EMACS stands for 8 megs and constantly swapping. Eight Freaking Megs!!!! No editor should be that large. I mean my god what does it do? Check email?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    8. Re:Oh! by alienmole · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It seems a bit strange to call someone a clueless dweeb just because they've chosen to award some karma to someone who posted something funny. But I'll be charitable and assume you were attempting some sort of weird ironic criticism of that quirk of the moderation system, rather than being a clueless dweeb yourself.

    9. Re:Oh! by zlogic · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I typed

      /usr/bin/yes > Desktop/yes.txt
      just to see how many times it would say "y". And opened the file in Gedit while it was still being written. The result? My dual-core PC with 1 gig of RAM ran so slow that the cursor stopped moving (well actually it moved, but only after a 20-second pause). A great way to DoS a server remotely!
    10. Re:Oh! by fm6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pity Homer Simpson didn't know about yes.

    11. Re:Oh! by dknj · · Score: 5, Funny

      8 megs for an operating system is pretty small...

    12. Re:Oh! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Informative

      When I'm using Windows, here's my selection:

      Utilities:
      7-Zip (Compression/Decompression)
      Editpad (Tabbed Notepad replacement)
      SequoiaView (Creates square treemaps of file system)

      Multimedia:
      VLC (Plays Anything)
      Exact Audio Copy (Perfect CD Ripping)
      LAME (High Quality MP3 Compression)
      Audacity (Record off Line Inputs or Loopback)

      Internet:
      uTorrent (Bittorrent)
      Firefox with FireFTP (Browswer, FTP)
      Thunderbird with WebMail (Email Client)
      TortiseSVN (Windows Shell Integration for Subversion)
      Putty (Telnet/SSH)

      Games:
      OpenArena (Open source extension of Quake 3 codebase)
      Battle of Wesnoth (Open source strategic fantasy game)

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    13. Re:Oh! by sidb · · Score: 1

      Your /bin/cat is 19K? I can't understand how you put up with such ginormous bloatware! Mine's a svelte 14k (ppc-osx).

    14. Re:Oh! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I use cat for all of my text editing needs.

      Freakin' wastrel! That's why they made ">". Not vim. Not ed. Not cat. ">".

      $ > eln.txt
      Hi, I like swap!
      ^D

      "cat". Hrmph.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    15. Re:Oh! by dknj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A great way to DoS a server remotely!

      doubt it. ever heard of ulimit? any self-respecting unix admin worth salt would limit resources to unprivileged users/applications on their production servers.

    16. Re:Oh! by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      Why yes, it actually does. http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/tour/

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    17. Re:Oh! by tshak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, where Gimp will use a mere 280MB on a 4GB system, and take 15-16 minutes to perform one filter over an image, Photoshop would chew through 2GB and take about 20 seconds doing the exact same thing.


      The simple point you're making: Hardware is for us to USE, not "NOT USE". Sure, we don't want our applications to be completely wasteful. But if software developers can focus more on useful features and code with less bugs, I'd rather they do that than save a few megs of RAM.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    18. Re:Oh! by idontgno · · Score: 1

      8 megs for an operating system is pretty small

      Well, classic AmigaDOS did well with only 512K
      Although it did lack meta-x-psychoanalyze-pinhead.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    19. Re:Oh! by sprag · · Score: 1

      Piffle. Mine is only 6K. Viva 2.11BSD!

    20. Re:Oh! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      6809 Flex is 6k. 8k if you want to count the disk and other I/O buffer spaces. 6k is downright reasonable. :-)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    21. Re:Oh! by vonsneerderhooten · · Score: 3, Funny

      All of this editor zealotry is too much for me.

      I'll settle it once and for all.

      Notepad is best.
      /ducks

    22. Re:Oh! by AlienQueen · · Score: 0

      That's not a real program, rather a formatted-text file, but my favourite bloat-free, efficient man page is the "chicks" man page : $ man chicks There are no man pages for chicks

    23. Re:Oh! by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 5, Informative

      Other nice un-bloated Windows utilities I'll add:

      V, the file viewer
      Foxit Reader for viewing PDFs
      Crimson Editor for text files, though I more often use emacs.

    24. Re:Oh! by ironhard · · Score: 1

      I 've been using Total Commander for 10 years now. It is about 2mb download and it is the best file manager ever. It even works thru wine. You can pause while copying files, even thru an FTP connection. Efficiency is key.

    25. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pfft. I'm waiting for Apple to release iYes. Who cares that yes is tiny and does its job well? It still needs to be simplified as only Apple can. Hopefully they can add some magic playlists in there as well, and maybe throw in a little DRM for good measure.

      My machine is quad core and has 1.5TB of disk and 4GB of RAM so I think it can be safely assumed that everyone else does too...and that every application should assume it can have all of it. I mean, it's time to take these command-line utils into the modern age.

      I'm also looking for the iTrue replacement for /bin/true, as it desperately needs a GUI. And by God the fucker better be set to load into memory at start-up because I don't want to have to wait for truth.

    26. Re:Oh! by metlin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speaking of editors, I love Notepad2 on Windows. Lightweight, small memory footprint and extremely well written. Not to mention useful!

      And of course, anyone who's had to edit over a slow and bad connection (on *nix) would love pico/nano.

      Then, back to Windows, there is Irfanview on Windows, which is a fantastic piece of image viewing software. Quite useful.

      Finally, I love Safesex by Nullsoft. Other favorites include Winamp (in its traditional UI without the bloatware) and Opera.

    27. Re:Oh! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      uTorrent is pretty nice, yeah. I wish more developers would follow its example (I'm looking at you, bloatware piece of shit Azureus).

      Guild Wars is probably the "cleanest" game I've seen. It only has one executable, one data file and one temporary file. It also works quite smoothly.

    28. Re:Oh! by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      Mac OS 1.1 used to run on 1 side of a low density 3.5" floppy. The footprint in RAM of the Finder was 16K. The whole original Mac (lisa) ran on 128K of RAM...

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    29. Re:Oh! by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Your > trick doesn't work for me, using bash on Red Hat. It just creates an empty file and exits immediately. Am I missing something?

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    30. Re:Oh! by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Photoshop's memory requirements are probably 95% based on the content, not the application. So bloat doesn't apply to it as much. However, I still think Photoshop is bloated because it takes too long to load. That's a metric whenever I get a new computer: How fast does Photoshop load? It always starts out to be a few seconds, but then I upgrade to the latest version and 3 years later it's at 30 seconds and I realize I need a new computer. Then I realize Photoshop 5 has 95% of the features as Photoshop CS2 but loads much faster, and I begin to wonder what happened.

    31. Re:Oh! by dannannan · · Score: 1

      ">"

      You think you aren't using a program to write that file? Instead of cat you're just using your shell, which is probably several hundred KB.

      DDL

    32. Re:Oh! by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Any program that includes more functionality than this: http://www.frontiernet.net/~fys/reboot.htm is just a waste of your time.....and even this version is bloated because it "plays nice" and tries to work on multiple platforms.

      Layne

    33. Re:Oh! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      You think you aren't using a program to write that file? Instead of cat you're just using your shell, which is probably several hundred KB.

      Is loading a 18KB slab of bloated code on top of that going to make it take less memory somehow? Repeat after me! ">"! Not cat, >!

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    34. Re:Oh! by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Guild Wars will also run on lots of hardware, and looks pretty good for it.

      A friend of mine runs it on a Geforce 4, 1024x768, medium settings, on a 1533 MHz Athlon XP with 512 MB RAM. Try that with any other modern game.

    35. Re:Oh! by jpswensen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You think ed is bloated? /usr/bin/yes takes a whopping 34K on OSX. What in the name of all that is good and right in this world is Steve Jobs doing with my CPU cycles inside of /usr/bin/yes? On my old DOS box I probably could have done this in a few lines of assembly.

    36. Re:Oh! by catbutt · · Score: 1

      I never understood why photoshop has to load all its plug ins at start up, even ones I never use. Can't it defer that till I need them? Or better yet, keep track of which ones I tend to use, and only load those at start up.

    37. Re:Oh! by ecloud · · Score: 1

      You can do everything you need with dd.

    38. Re:Oh! by Khazunga · · Score: 1

      And of course, anyone who's had to edit over a slow and bad connection (on *nix) would love pico/nano [wikipedia.org].
      You don't know what a slow bad connection is until you type:
      :34
      $a;<ESC>:x
      and go out for coffee while the editor executes.

      And now, step off my lawn, you pico loving youngsters!

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    39. Re:Oh! by ecloud · · Score: 1

      If the app does something useful with extra memory but still can scale down, it's a good example. But there is a lot of software that just seems to require way too many resources, and will not run without them, to get very simple tasks done.

    40. Re:Oh! by urbanriot · · Score: 0, Troll
      Your comment is ignorant and uninformed. Azureus is an extremely well programmed and efficient application, with considerably more advanced features (that might be over the average users head) than uTorrent. It's network programming has been very clean over the years while uTorrent has suffered through various network and CPU saturation issues. Regarding this "bloat" you speak of, you might be referring to the additional overhead of using a JRE, which is required for portability - in case you didn't know, Azureus works on practically any operating system, or at least those that have a JRE. This overhead can also be lowered from the default 64MB heap. If you really do have examples of "bloat", please cite the appropriate .java file.

      uTorrent is pretty nice, yeah. I wish more developers would follow its example (I'm looking at you, bloatware piece of shit Azureus).
    41. Re:Oh! by Intron · · Score: 1

      ls -l `which cat`
      -r-xr-xr-x 1 bin bin 10842 Jul 15 2006 /usr/bin/cat
      uname -s
      AIX
      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    42. Re:Oh! by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      How big is Notepad?

    43. Re:Oh! by mcpkaaos · · Score: 4, Funny

      While I agree that Notepad is a powerful editor, I feel that Wordpad's ability to underline text on the same line edges it out for the extreme programmer. Plus, you can write your release notes in Wingdings.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    44. Re:Oh! by fm6 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      So the particular mod awarded doesn't matter? Then let's just eliminate the fine distinctions and say "up" or "down".

      But really, if I say, "Sani-Flush makes an excellent dentifrice" and someone who doesn't know what Sani-Flush is mods me up as "Informative", you'd have to admit that they're pretty clueless. Though maybe not as clueless as the person who's never heard the song and mods me down as "flamebait"!

    45. Re:Oh! by rhinchcl · · Score: 1

      I've been liking portable apps a lot. its versions of Open Office, Pidgin(gaim), Thunderbird, Firefox, pretty much any app and it all runs on a flash drive. http://portableapps.com/

    46. Re:Oh! by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      What I want are apps that use the resources I provide them *wisely*. There's more to that than just being totally frugal. Seen too many people running big-RAM systems and being proud of having their OS use just a hundred or two MB out of gigs. Why? Resources are free once they're installed, may as well use them when they genuinely can help you work. Well there's a difference between running one app and running many. When I'm using Eclipse or Firefox I don't mind much if either is using all my resources, as long as it's going fast. The problem comes when I want to load up another app, or if I want to run both at the same time. What a moment ago was a good tradeoff that made things faster suddenly slows everything to a crawl as things are written to the hard disk.

      And if you're talking about Photoshop or something where memory is vital then you can't really consider that bloat; if you need lots of resources you need lots of resources. But if Adobe Reader is using 100 of your 512MB of RAM, iTunes is using 100, Eclipse is using 100, Firefox is using 100, and they all just want more and more, it makes switching from one to the other very slow, and for no good reason.

      However we are going to see flash based storage become more common, especially for storing the OS, application data, and swap, and that will make switching between apps that are using lots of memory much quicker because there will be much lower seek times. That could be quite a good way to compromise between single-task speed and multi-tasking, but we'll see.
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    47. Re:Oh! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead of utilities, I'll list some media production apps:

      Steinberg Wavelab (audio editor)
      Reaper (DAW)
      DVDFab Platinum

      I'm not a programmer, so I can't testify to the efficiency of the code or anything, but I use every single one of the features of the above programs. By that measure, it makes them the opposite of bloatware.

      Here's one that I just downloaded today, after being prompted by an earlier Slashdot article:

      Opera 9.5 (I've been using it for less than an hour and it's already my favorite browser). Maybe there's some bloat somewhere in Opera. Maybe there are some of you fiber-eaters who believe that being able to render javascript automatically makes it bloatware. But this bitch is FAST and it seemed to install in the time it took me to click the FINISH button.

      And finally, my favorite, slick tool for breaching the walls of the Corrupt Castle of the Copyright Cabal...uTorrent! It's more than just a torrent download manager, it's a weapon for fighting fascism!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    48. Re:Oh! by Borealis · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's huge! Nobody should ever need more than 640k.

      --
      Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
    49. Re:Oh! by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      I used to use notepad quite a bit for that stuff but I recently switched to PSPad... I have no idea how much space or resources it actually uses but it doesn't seem to be any heftier than notepad or word pad. The nice part is it will color highlight all your code, provide line numbering and allow you to have multiple files open in tabs along with all sorts of other handy stuff for writing code.

      I still use notepad for quite a bit but if if I'm working with html/php/javascript etc. I'll use PSPad.

    50. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's because much of the stuff behind the Mac OS was in ROM on the old machines.

    51. Re:Oh! by sgant · · Score: 1

      You're correct in all that regard....but bottom line is when running Azureus on my system, it bogs it down. I don't know why, don't know what .java file it is and I wouldn't begin to know where to look. But uTorrent hardly takes up any resources at all and is quite powerful....on Windows anyway because it hasn't been ported (yet) to other platforms.

      So all your points are valid about it being portable and feature rich and all that...but doesn't quite fit the criteria of this whole thread while using it. It feels and acts bloated compared to uTorrent. If it feels bloated to the average computer user (me), then it IS bloated. I want something that loads in a second, hardly takes up any RAM or CPU power and just runs. Then when I quit it it's gone. Azureus doesn't do any of those things, at least for me.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    52. Re:Oh! by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      your application line up looks remarkably similar to my own. Some Differences: -I use WinRAR instead of 7zip... I've never used 7zip but Winrar gives me customizable right click commands that I can use to compress and decompress files in rar or zip format as if the function was built into windows. Opening up WinRar complete is a little bloated but the shell integration is quite nice -I use PSPad instead of editpad... it has tabbed file viewing as well but it's catered towards code as it has a colored highlighter, line numbers and a whole slew of other functions. Overall it's quite lite too. everything else you've got listed I use myself too, with the exception of thunderbird and putty simply because I don't need an email editor (I just use gmail) or telnet/ssh

    53. Re:Oh! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I'll settle it once and for all.

      Notepad is best.
      /ducks No need to fear; we're mostly sympathetic to the plight of the mentally ill.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    54. Re:Oh! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      At least in XP, it's 68k.

      Larger than I thought it was going to be.

      Still, making a program work in widows takes some space.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    55. Re:Oh! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Does it say something about Emacs that I would (genuinely) have been more surprised if there *wasn't* an email client available for it?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    56. Re:Oh! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      The main reason why I have now designated Azureus as bloatware is the inclusion of Vuze.

      And by the way, I'm not talking about programming or CPU saturation issues, I'm talking about the general feel of the program, what dependencies it has and how smoothly it appears to run. Azureus definitely feels bloated, while uTorrent does not (the fact that it's just one small .exe also helps with that).

    57. Re:Oh! by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      If you had told me at the end of the nineties that Wavelab, of all audio software, would some day appear in a list of bloat-free, lean software... I'd be envious because obviously you got the better e's that night.

    58. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What shell is that supposed to work in?
      Not bash. Not tcsh. So presumably that also rules out sh/ksh and csh.

    59. Re:Oh! by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      I prefer Notepad2. It's nice and small, and does syntax highlighting a bunch of languages. I mostly use it when writing HTML, but I sometimes open C++ files in just because it does that thing where you click on one bracket and it highlights the other.

    60. Re:Oh! by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      I use and like Azureus, and I totally agree that they follow good programming practices, but have you seen this "Vuze" shit they put out in the new version 3.0? They're trying to be all content-portally and changed the default, intuitive Azureus view.

      http://www.vuze.com/Screenshots.html

      Not that it isn't a smart idea to try to steal some of YouTube's pie... but it definitely isn't a "simple" bittorrent client anymore.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    61. Re:Oh! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Zsh, actually. I'm not sure if that's a specific feature or if it's emulating something else.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    62. Re:Oh! by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not bloatware?? Huh? News to me...

      Firefox, Thunderbird, TortiseSVN are anything but Bloat-Free.

      In the past six months to a year FireFox, Thunderbird regularly take up 130 MB by themselves. I once had Thunderbird manage RSS feeds.... That was a mistake! And don't even ask me about how SLOW Firefox has gotten with larger HTML pages.

      TortiseSVN has this annoying habit that it has to cache everything and if you have any SVN projects of any size it takes ages to do anything.

      What annoys me about these applications is that they take the attitude, "oh lets just load it into RAM after all everybody has enough." I get annoyed because I run Virtual Machines and these apps keep slowing everything down.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    63. Re:Oh! by snoyberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might be interested in this

      --
      Thank God for evolution.
    64. Re:Oh! by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

      I remember that Mac OS 6.8 was around 2MB. I think it had two floppies for the OS and the three or four others floppies were utility and support files. At that time RAM was expensive so I remember needing write small programs to fit within memory. Ah the good old days.

    65. Re:Oh! by Oopsz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      $ file `which yes` /usr/bin/yes: Mach-O fat file with 2 architectures

      it's a universal binary.

    66. Re:Oh! by Garridan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Weird. I read, "any self-replicating unix admin"... and I just pictured a /etc/passwd file rapidly filling the hard drive. But then, I realize -- if unix admins don't self-replicate, how else would they reproduce? The /etc/passwd file doesn't fill up, because they force their progeny to buy their own damned boxen.

      Oh yeah. Back on topic, I think that the Storm Worm is an excellent example of bloat-free software. While it's been under very active development, it doesn't use too much memory or take up much space, and really performs very well. Two thumbs up to the Storm Worm people. Awesome stuff. Now... let's see how fast it can factor Mersenne numbers!

    67. Re:Oh! by devnulljapan · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'd have to go with /usr/bin/yes. Often I find myself needing something to tell me I'm correct about a tough decision, or to provide me motivation to do something, or just for some general personal validation. For that and more, I trust yes.

      George? Is that you?

    68. Re:Oh! by alienmole · · Score: 1

      So the particular mod awarded doesn't matter?
      The point is that it does matter: awarding Funny confers no karma. You're complaining about the people working around the system. Unless you mean to defend the system, you've picked the wrong target.

      But really, if I say, "Sani-Flush makes an excellent dentifrice" and someone who doesn't know what Sani-Flush is mods me up as "Informative", you'd have to admit that they're pretty clueless.
      Perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be the situation here.
    69. Re:Oh! by hxftw · · Score: 1

      Does it come with a text editor yet?

      --
      Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right.
    70. Re:Oh! by spirit+of+reason · · Score: 1

      7-zip also integrates with the Windows Shell, actually. I don't really know how it compares to WinRAR, but I use it because it's free without gimmicks (like, e.g. reinstalling the trial version whenever it expires).

    71. Re:Oh! by Mortimer82 · · Score: 1

      Vuze is optional, not sure how you choose not to install it from a fresh install but recently my Azureus offered me the update to version 3 but made very clear that Vuze would NOT be included. Azureus is still damn good, used to run it on an old PII 300MHz with 128MB of ram and windows 2000. Would start up slow, but torrented fine. Haven't tried uTorrent, but frankly I find Azureus so good and right now I run a Core 2 Duo with 2gb RAM so don't ever feel anything it does anyway.

    72. Re:Oh! by gangien · · Score: 1

      The simple point you're making: Hardware is for us to USE, not "NOT USE". Sure, we don't want our applications to be completely wasteful. But if software developers can focus more on useful features and code with less bugs, I'd rather they do that than save a few megs of RAM.

      Which is why people should be using java instead of C++ :)

    73. Re:Oh! by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      -r-xr-xr-x 1 bin bin 9388 Jul 15 1997 /bin/cat
        uname -a
      SunOS conf 5.6 Generic_105181-19 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-1

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    74. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE/i386:

      ls -l `which cat`
      -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  8136 Aug 14 10:23 /bin/cat*

    75. Re:Oh! by dannannan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Zsh, actually

      Have a look at ps -eH under your zsh process next time you are in the middle of a ">". It spawns a cat to do its dirty work.

      DDL
    76. Re:Oh! by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      wow.

      ls -la /bin/cat
      \-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 21728 2007-03-05 08:13 /bin/cat

      Don't you guys apply security updates at all?

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    77. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That applies to the amiga too, it had another 512k of lowlevel OS ("kickstart") in rom (early amiga 1000s loaded that off disk too, as well as very late accelerator-card equipped amigas where loading kickstart into ram ("softkicking") rather than using the (relatively slow) rom was a big performance win and/or allowed use of later or earlier (for game compat) kickstarts without fiddling around changing chips)

    78. Re:Oh! by Intron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are security updates to cat?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    79. Re:Oh! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think I need to take a shower, and not for smelly Unix hacker reasons.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    80. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it is included as standard, but Vi has been ported to it:

      http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/emacs/viper.html

    81. Re:Oh! by alx5000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      How and why would you use more instead of ed??

      --
      My 0.02 cents
    82. Re:Oh! by tknd · · Score: 1

      uTorrent is pretty nice, yeah. I wish more developers would follow its example

      I don't like uTorrent. Everyone seems to rave about how it is better but I simply don't see it. In fact, I haven't come across a single Windows GUI based torrent application that I like. They all feel like they have something incredibly wrong with them.

      The bittorrent client I do like is rtorrent which is text based. Even though, I still find it worlds better than any other client I've used. Maybe part of it has to do with simplicity and the fact that the interface actually only shows me relevant information because screen real estate is limited in a text environment.

    83. Re:Oh! by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      All I can say from lots of experience is the following.

      With Azureus running = Forget about doing anything like gaming.
      With uTorrent running = Forget you're actually downloading something there's so little performance hit.

    84. Re:Oh! by dextromulous · · Score: 1

      uname -a FreeBSD shiny.router 7.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #1: Sun Aug 19 15:24:33 MDT 2007 root@shiny.router:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL i386 /bin/ls -l `which cat` -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 7996 Aug 19 15:49 /bin/cat :-D

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
    85. Re:Oh! by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      What? Sorry, but if you're talking about WinRar, you're very very wrong. It never expires. It just pops up a nag every time you load the main program. Right clicking and choosing extract pops up nothing. I've used WinRar for years, across multiple systems, and it has never expired. (It's been on my laptop for about a year now. On my older Dell box for over a year etc...)

    86. Re:Oh! by seebs · · Score: 1

      It's zsh. It's also incorrect; in standard shell, if you provide no command, no command is run, so '>x' is very similar co 'cp /dev/null x'.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    87. Re:Oh! by newt0311 · · Score: 1

      (show-paren-mode 5)

    88. Re:Oh! by QMO · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah! They only needed a few hundred K of RAM and disk space because of all the HUGE amount of stuff already stored in the ROM. Gigabytes, at least.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    89. Re:Oh! by fm6 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      awarding Funny confers no karma
      All the more reason not to mod jokes up as if they were serious comments. Good karma is supposed to help identify people who contribute to the discussion, not people who know lots of good jokes. Especially since Slashdotters differ on what constitutes a good joke.

      Not that it matters one way or another. It's not that difficult for a non-troll to achieve good karma, and once you're there, there's really no point in thinking about karma at all. That's why you can no longer even find out exactly how many karma points you have.

      Also, I imagine some people turn off or even reverse the "funny" bonus because they think a lot of them are lame. I'm sometimes tempted myself, though I probably won't. Treating jokes as serious posts removes that filter.

      But really, if I say, "Sani-Flush makes an excellent dentifrice" and someone who doesn't know what Sani-Flush is mods me up as "Informative", you'd have to admit that they're pretty clueless.
      Perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be the situation here.
      If you can show me somebody who runs lynx just because it has a small footprint, then I'll admit that you're right.
    90. Re:Oh! by spirit+of+reason · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was a reference to WinZip, hehe.

    91. Re:Oh! by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 1

      I've used WinRAR and 7-zip. I definitely choose 7-zip over WinRAR. Its faster, works on more file-formats and its free open-source.

    92. Re:Oh! by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Nice tip. I hadn't seen this editor before and have now added it to my right-click on all files. Very handy!

      Cheers.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    93. Re:Oh! by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Eight megs for an operating system is stinking enormous. PC-DOS 3.3 fits comfortably on a 360k floppy, with room left over for applications. The only application you really need is a text editor. I like UED, a full-screen editor that supports up to nine files at a time, split window, copy and paste, *and* search and replace. Plus UED comes in at only 38704 bytes, so there's still space left over for data, right there on the same floppy diskette with your OS *and* the text editor. Who needs a hard disk?

      Okay, so the truth is I use Emacs these days, not to mention OpenOffice, Gimp, Inkscape, and about thirty Firefox extensions. What can I say? I like features.

      But if non-bloatedness were a key goal, UED would by my editor of choice. It's better than a lot of MUCH larger text editors. For instance, ed is significantly larger and isn't even a full-screen editor, much less supports copy and paste between multiple files.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    94. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first operating system fit on an 8K ROM (4K RAM expandable)

    95. Re:Oh! by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      I don't ever recall having to install WinZip again to be honest. I remember it saying "You are on day 317 of your 30 day trial" and that's it.

    96. Re:Oh! by seandiggity · · Score: 1

      Notepad is a powerful editor only if it's really Notepad2 :)

      --
      Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
    97. Re:Oh! by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      In windows this can be used this way:
      echo some text>>log.file
      and it will add that line to the file.
      You can even add this for right-click action, by editing HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell
      to link to some batch file.Using multiple batch files,it easy to add unique remarks to thousands of texts.I'm sure it can be done in linux too.

    98. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joking aside, this is an interesting question.

      My current primary machine is a 2000-era laptop (c. 500MHz - that's 500 million thingys a second which is much faster than I can type).

      I'll keep it punchy.

      1) Why does Ubuntu install tens of fonts by default that I will almost certainly never use (and which I immediately de-install each time I install it - they are quite weighty in terms of HDD space needed).

      2) The (un-resolved) excessive dependencies surrounding GCJ, Eclipse, Evolution et al. further add to the misery of us HDD-deprived.

      3) We've done it with the kernel but the user-land also needs to be kept keen and lean. Hard work but really worthwhile.

    99. Re:Oh! by nickj6282 · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, is everyone in this thread really having a pissing match over who has the smallest cat? My wife's a vet tech, I'll let her settle this one (sorry, couldn't resist!)

    100. Re:Oh! by MattPat · · Score: 3, Funny

      yes is indeed handy, but it's not really practical for life applications.

      I'm currently in the process of writing no. It should fill the gap just perfectly. :)

      Make sure you check out next year's software lineup though-- I hear a patent has been filed for maybe.

    101. Re: Oh! by martin_henry · · Score: 1

      They all feel like they have something incredibly wrong with them. I have used uTorrent and Azureus in windows, and ktorrent in linux, and they all can be configured to show as little or as much information as you want...
      Azureus even has an always-on-top floating toolbar with realtime stats if I remember correctly.
      --
      www.purevolume.com/martyd
    102. Re:Oh! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      It's zsh. It's also incorrect; in standard shell, if you provide no command, no command is run, so '>x' is very similar co 'cp /dev/null x'.
      Pfft! Don't use 'cp /dev/null x'! all you have to do is 'touch x'! Look at how less bloaty THAT looks! Seven fewer characters!
    103. Re:Oh! by alienmole · · Score: 1

      All the more reason not to mod jokes up as if they were serious comments. ... Treating jokes as serious posts removes that filter.
      We're dealing with the law of unintended consequences here. It doesn't help to complain at the people who are choosing the only option they have to get the result they're looking for. The only thing that will change anything is to fix the system so that people won't have a reason to abuse it. If you want posts to be reliably flagged as Funny, then Funny should be treated like any other mod so that there's no incentive to avoid it.

      Good karma is supposed to...
      If it's "supposed to" achieve something, then it should be designed to achieve that in the real world, not in some little rule-followers heaven in which everyone does exactly what you think they should do.
    104. Re:Oh! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously when he wants to just read the document and not edit it. More or less gets the job done.

    105. Re:Oh! by DavidApi · · Score: 1

      Well blow me. My Mac has 'yes' already installed by default. I never knew I had such a fantastic app lurking in there. Jeez, I hope it isn't a security-risk. I might need to lower its privileges.

      But yes, a nice Cocoa wrapper around it would be nice. Good project here. Where's my SourceForge link...

    106. Re:Oh! by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      At first I read your post as part of a Steely Dan lyric: "Now you're going to do me everything / you dd baby!"

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    107. Re:Oh! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Plus, you can write your release notes in Wingdings.

      At the risk of being called an anti-Semite...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    108. Re:Oh! by maxume · · Score: 1

      So you're a comedian then?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    109. Re:Oh! by empaler · · Score: 2, Informative

      Morelike the GPLed Notepad++. Go on, you know you want to! :-)

    110. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your distribution sucks. I could probably implement ed in 4k.

    111. Re:Oh! by empaler · · Score: 1

      I prefer the GPLed Notepad++.
      I used to use NP2, but at some point I got some wonky problems (can't even remember what they were, probably due to a generally unhappy installation of Windows), so I shifted and haven't looked back.

    112. Re:Oh! by hawk · · Score: 1

      bah.

      Today's kids.

      If you can't flip the core rings with a magnet, you don't deserve your file. Keyboards? What's next, expecting your output on a television???

      hawk

    113. Re:Oh! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree... Opera, Eudora/Pegasus and ssh/web svn are cleaner and zippier.

      For those using FoxIt PDF Reader, it is small and zippy, but it also fails to load a bunch of PDF types (missing fonts, hit-and-miss encryption handling, etc.). I used Foxit for about 2 months, and then eventually went to Adobe Reader 8 -- it's slightly bloated, but it always gets the job done, and unlike 7.x, it launches as quickly as Foxit.

    114. Re:Oh! by hawk · · Score: 1

      *thunk*

      Well, you trolled *that* moderator :)

      hawk

      for the newbies, the original mac ROM was 64k . . .

    115. Re:Oh! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      Still bloated. The ultimate non-bloated program is usually found under /bin/true. Now, even there bloated versions are around, but the minimal version can be created with just the following commands (assuming /bin/true doesn't yet exist):

      touch /bin/true
      chmod +x /bin/true
      Now, try to write a program that's less bloated!
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    116. Re:Oh! by hawk · · Score: 1

      Could you send me a copy when you finish? It should prove helpful with my teenagers . . . :)

      hawk

    117. Re:Oh! by wuzfuzzy · · Score: 1

      /usr/bin/yes no gives you no! and /usr/bin/yes maybe gives you maybe :)

    118. Re:Oh! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Scite is another decent Scintilla based editor; one of many, but straight from the horse, as it were.

      Also, XnView can be less irritating than Irfanview, depending on your mindset. On older systems, tracking down a copy of the now defunct Slowview is the way to go.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    119. Re:Oh! by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That is the question, more or less.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    120. Re:Oh! by MattPat · · Score: 1

      Damn... obsolete before I even finish. :P

    121. Re:Oh! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      We're dealing with the law of unintended consequences here. It doesn't help to complain at the people who are choosing the only option they have to get the result they're looking for.

      There's still the "underrated" option.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    122. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    123. Re:Oh! by mzs · · Score: 1

      Here's the 'real' way to do what you want from /bin/sh:

      $ while read v; do echo "$v" >> foo; done

    124. Re:Oh! by tzot · · Score: 1

      I'm currently in the process of writing no. It should fill the gap just perfectly. :)

      $ alias no='yes no'
      There. I wrote it for you.
      --
      I speak England very best
    125. Re:Oh! by mzs · · Score: 1

      Argh! actually this is better:

      $ while read v; do echo "$v" foo; done >foo

    126. Re:Oh! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Nope. "touch" doesn't truncate the file if it already exists. You want ": > x".

      ">"!

      ">"!

      So simple and yet powerful, your friend and mine: ">"!

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    127. Re:Oh! by tantaliz3 · · Score: 1

      nmap

    128. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really do have examples of "bloat", please cite the appropriate .java file.

      You can find it by doing a search for *.java.

    129. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fabulous reply, more or less. (Who's wife picks up the First Baseman's paycheck? Of course!)

    130. Re:Oh! by InlawBiker · · Score: 1

      I have been using Photoshop professionally for 10+ years. It has always wanted 4x the RAM as any standard desktop, minimum. I never minded the expense, it's a professional tool for professionals. A few hundred dollars extra for the RAM to run Photoshop is nothing. Back in "the day" it was a few thousand dollars extra and nobody minded still.

    131. Re:Oh! by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      Well, just the system for PC-DOS 3.3 fits on a 360K floppy with-space-for-apps. If you want the full distribution of DOS binaries (what you'd copy to the c:\dos directory on a winchester drive,) it all fits on a 720K disk or two 360K disks.

      PC-DOS 1.0 all fit on a single sided (180K) floppy.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    132. Re:Oh! by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 2, Funny

      One of our adult cats weighs 3-1/2 pounds. (and she's actually the 'alpha')

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    133. Re:Oh! by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      The Wizards at Apple probably rewrote it in Objective C. It probably has a GUI help subsystem, if you type 'yes --help' at the prompt.

      Is that where they reassigned all the bozos who worked on Rhapsody and Pink when they gave up and bought in NeXTStep? (you know: all those people who were always in the photos and interviews when all the 'how wunnerful it is to work at Apple' writeups were being made)

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    134. Re:Oh! by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      Ulp. Were you meaning to describe a smallish system with that cite?

      I guess times have changed. I played Wolfenstein 3D on a 386 with 8M of RAM.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    135. Re:Oh! by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      The keygens for WinZip have been around for ages and ages. I've had the s/n for user 'none' memorized for nearly that long.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    136. Re:Oh! by poet_imp · · Score: 1

      Perfectly ridiculous answer to a perfectly ridiculous question. Thank You for the laugh!

    137. Re:Oh! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I don't know about bloat inside the source itself, but Moz/Firefox shows it in Everyday Life:

      Take Mozilla v1.8 -- on a P3 with 1GB of RAM, it effectively SINGLE-tasks. Why? Because every time I ask it to do a new task, it hogs 100% of CPU cycles until it is completely done with said new task (no matter how simple). It is the most CPU-intensive app I've ever encountered.**

      This is a good example of why developers should be required to suffer their creations on the dead minimum system the app will run on -- so they're made aware of just how bad its performance can be under less than optimal conditions.

      [** Conversely, any pre-Moz-codebase Netscape barely touches the CPU, for the same tasks.]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    138. Re:Oh! by Auntie+Virus · · Score: 1

      In the Winblows world: Foxit PDF reader. About 300 MB smaller than Adobe.

      --
      Why yes, I *AM* new here. Why?
    139. Re:Oh! by MattPat · · Score: 1

      That was TOP SECRET intellectual property!!! Who gave that to you?

    140. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vim is not so lean and mean as you suggest.

      Try to open a file of 1 GB. It tries to load the whole file in RAM, even if it is going to show you just one page.

      A more efficient editor would load 10 to 20 pages and allow you to scroll very fast.

    141. Re:Oh! by dreadclown · · Score: 1

      $ ">"!
      -sh: >!: command not found

    142. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or Comic Sans.
       
      *ducks*

    143. Re:Oh! by lems1 · · Score: 1

      The funniest of all things i've ever read on /.! Good gracious!!

      --
      This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
    144. Re:Oh! by kcelery · · Score: 1

      The statement is a little dated, it might help new slashdotter if you include the price of RAM when that statement was made.

    145. Re:Oh! by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      I've always been fond of Crimson Editor. Tabs, syntax highlighting, and the ability to run compilers from a menu or shortcut.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    146. Re:Oh! by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1

      but have you seen this "Vuze" shit they put out in the new version 3.0?

      Yes, and thank $DEITY that you can turn it off. Here's how to set Azureus so that the Vuze stuff doesn't load:

      • Select "Advanced" from the "View" menu, or click the "Advanced" tab.
      • Click the "UI" button on the far right of the toolbar.
      • Select "Classic Interface" and click "OK".

      (used ul to thwart "???, Profit!" joke)

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    147. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were doing well till you put firefox in there. The article asks about bloat FREE software, not most bloated. firefox is now little better than that piece of shit bloatware netscape became

    148. Re:Oh! by chris.evans · · Score: 1

      cont: lea bx, buffer call readline _print @buffer, 1, 1 call iskey or ax, ax jz cont call readkey cmp ax, 01bh jne cont ret :-)

    149. Re:Oh! by seandiggity · · Score: 1

      According to the readme, Notepad2's source code is also released under the GPL...not sure how that works since the GPL should probably be packaged with the binary also. But I didn't know about Notepad++; I'll check it out next time I'm in Windows.

      --
      Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
    150. Re:Oh! by gribbly · · Score: 1

      Reaper is amazingly tiny for what it does. Justin Frankel wins.

      --
      maybe
    151. Re:Oh! by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

      I prefer notepad2, at only 540K it has features like color coding for several programing languages, and case converter, for those pesky times you hit caps lock on accident, along with many other great features.

      --
      what sig?
    152. Re:Oh! by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Notepad creates bloat. It tacks on unnecessary carriage returns to every line.
      At least wordpad understands and can save text files with just LF and not CR+LF.

      I know carriage return and line feed made sense back in the days of linewriters, where you could use CR to return to the start of the line and overtype words to create bold effects, but couldn't reverse the flow of paper. But these days, this archaic bloat serves no useful purpose.

    153. Re:Oh! by baryon351 · · Score: 1

      Well there's a difference between running one app and running many. When I'm using Eclipse or Firefox I don't mind much if either is using all my resources, as long as it's going fast. The problem comes when I want to load up another app, or if I want to run both at the same time. What a moment ago was a good tradeoff that made things faster suddenly slows everything to a crawl as things are written to the hard disk.

      That's very true. Much like I don't consider JUST light resource use (ram and disk and cpu) to be the only metric of a good app, I wouldn't consider an app that always used every skerrick of RAM (even if it was fastest because of it) to necessarily be awesome, if it sacrificed other processes I needed running on the machine. Not all the time anyway.

      It's more complex than either two extremes, and falling in the middle somewhere is a whole range of different levels of usefulness to people. Perhaps there are some people out there who don't multitask very well, and would be happy to have Firefox use all available RAM and run like a rocket. Different folks, and all.

    154. Re:Oh! by elyk · · Score: 1

      Utorrent is also quite powerful on linux, as it runs quite well on wine.

      --
      MS-DOS: Most Severe Denial of Service
      Free Online Backup
    155. Re:Oh! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Foxit is a good idea, but sadly does not live up to expectations. The main issue is rendering quality - it simply is not up to the quality of the Adobe app or most open-source renderers. The Firefox plug-in is not very good either (no tab support!) but that is secondary really.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    156. Re:Oh! by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 1
      Another method in Windows or DOS, useful for creating autoexec.bat and config.sys files after a format:

      C:\>copy con hello.txt
      here is some text....
      and some more
      ^Z
      1 file(s) copied.

      C:\>

      Press F6 to get the ^Z character.
    157. Re:Oh! by Virgil+Tibbs · · Score: 1

      How and why would you use more instead of less?

      --
      www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
    158. Re:Oh! by stam66 · · Score: 1

      because of all the HUGE amount of stuff already stored in the ROM. Gigabytes, at least. Of course, by "gigabytes at least" you mean maximally 512 K ROM, which was the largest size ROM produced for the Mac Classic in 1990... (this was a re-issue of the Mac Plus with a much larger ROM from which it could boot up. Ahhh, those were the days...)
    159. Re:Oh! by MadChicken · · Score: 1

      Another strong vote for Reaper. I downloaded it back in the day when it was ".99MB" thinking it couldn't be all that great. Boy was I wrong.

      --
      SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
    160. Re:Oh! by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I didn't have a choice when I installed, and when I updated an older version it immediately displayed Vuze even though it said it wouldn't.

      I've had enough of Azureus.

    161. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should use Opera.

      Not only does a 3.5MB download get you one of the best browsers out there, but also a very good email program, usenet reader, RSS reader, Bittorrent client, IRC client and even a widget engine!

      And all of this is loaded on demand, so if you don't use the IRC-client, the memory is not wasted.

    162. Re:Oh! by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      hehe

      but, for the record, my OS (Plan 9 From Bell Labs) has neither less nor more. We use p.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    163. Re:Oh! by empaler · · Score: 1

      Ooh! It's GPL? My apologies for implying that it wasn't. My bad. :)

    164. Re:Oh! by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      I actually use that for short python scripts. When I've just learned something new from the language and want to try my hand at it, I usually take the first attempt via copy con.

      On a related note, for one-liners, why not echo LINE OF CODE >> filename.ext?

    165. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sumatra PDF is even tinier than FoxIt reader.

    166. Re:Oh! by Kabal` · · Score: 1

      Weird. I can run Azureus (Windows XP SP2) and I can't even tell its running. Task manager currently says that it is using 1% cpu.

    167. Re:Oh! by tombeard · · Score: 1

      RSX-11M was multi user multi tasking real time and ran in 64 Kb of ram along with a major application. It actually did support 128Kb via bank switching and I had 3 ea. RKO7, 28 MB hard drives with dual 14" platters. still think it was the best OS I ever used.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    168. Re:Oh! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course, prionic. I just love my Wavelab. It's also one of the few programs where I think I've used every single feature. To me, that's the definition of non-bloatware.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    169. Re:Oh! by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but DOS 1.0 doesn't support directories, which are an important tool for keeping my data organized.

      Besides, I don't have any 180K floppy drives. I do have a 360K floppy drive.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    170. Re:Oh! by urbanriot · · Score: 1
      Wow, you really need to upgrade your 486.

      All I can say from lots of experience is the following.

      With Azureus running = Forget about doing anything like gaming.
      With uTorrent running = Forget you're actually downloading something there's so little performance hit.
    171. Re:Oh! by Borealis · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'm a little dated too.

      --
      Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
    172. Re:Oh! by Spaseboy · · Score: 1

      The ROM on the original 128k Mac was 64k. The ROM of the Macintosh did not reach 1MB until the PowerMac 9500. The ROM was named Super Mario because of its size.

      --
      "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
      -Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
    173. Re:Oh! by Domini · · Score: 1

      Yea, slow for a operating system... and it does not even have vi.

    174. Re:Oh! by QMO · · Score: 1

      After reading the replies (and the first mod) to the parent, I feel the need to check the altimeter on my browser.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    175. Re:Oh! by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      You know, it's a little bit depressing to realize that cat is 19k large.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    176. Re:Oh! by quigonn · · Score: 1

      % ls -l cat
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 ak ak 1948 2007-09-17 16:46 cat
      % cat -h
      cat: usage: cat [-vsetu] [filename...]
      %

      "cat" from embutils, _statically_ linked against dietlibc. Beat that.

      --
      A monkey is doing the real work for me.
  2. Lynx? by saibot834 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lynx, anyone? :)

    1. Re:Lynx? by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who needs the bloat of Lynx when you can telnet to port 80?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:Lynx? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's really fun is reading your email by telnetting to port 110.

      I actually used to do this a lot when I was working for a certain ISP that had very flaky homebrew mail software. Mailboxes were getting corrupted all the time. The only way to fix them was to telnet in and fiddle. Or just copy /dev/null over the mailbox file, though customers tended to frown on that for some reason.

    3. Re:Lynx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      links / links2 / elinks are better in some ways, particularly frame support. 100 different programs to do the same thing slightly differently, it's the *nix way!

    4. Re:Lynx? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever tried it with Slashdot? The *light* version of the front page is 600k!

      The only alternative is the mobile interface, which is horribly crippled (top five comments only? the only good thing about slashdot is the comments!).

      The content on Slashdot *should* be ideal for reading on the way to work on my mobile - content that can be laid out easily in a linear fashion, lots of content on a single page so I can keep on reading through blackspots, no pictures - but the way it's laid out makes it way too annoying (and this is with an unlimited 3G data plan).

      --
      Beep beep.
    5. Re:Lynx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs the bloat of telnet when you can netcat to port 80?

    6. Re:Lynx? by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 5, Funny

      the only good thing about slashdot is the comments! You must be new here.
    7. Re:Lynx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed! I really, really wish Slashdot would revise their mobile page for 2007.

      Mobile browsers have come a long way in recent times.

      Check out http://www.fark.com/pda.html for a good example.

    8. Re:Lynx? by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      I had an ISP like that. Whenever someone sent you an email over a certain size (can't remember what size) it died and you had to go in via telnet and manually delete the email.

    9. Re:Lynx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever tried it with Slashdot? The *light* version of the front page is 600k!

      You must be doing somethhing seriously wrong, then -- because for me, the non-light version of the front page is is 439 kB when uncompressed, and only 156 kB when compressed. (and any decent modern browser will be using the compressed version)

    10. Re:Lynx? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

      The content on Slashdot *should* be ideal for reading on the way to work on my mobile - content that can be laid out easily in a linear fashion, lots of content on a single page so I can keep on reading through blackspots, no pictures - but the way it's laid out makes it way too annoying (and this is with an unlimited 3G data plan).

      I wanted everything you asked for and ended up writing this which I think does a pretty good job.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    11. Re:Lynx? by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Funny

      We all know Slashdot isn't for reading TFAs.....so if it isn't the comments and it isn't the articles, then it must be because of CowboyNeal.

      Layne

    12. Re:Lynx? by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      yea, you don't even need Lynx for https, us REAL hackers can just telnet to port 443 for https.

      Next your going to claim you can decode MIME encoded jpegs in your head. This will lead to a browsing porn with telnet joke that will end in "all I see is blonde, brunette, redhead."

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    13. Re:Lynx? by josath · · Score: 1

      I use skweezer for reading slashdot on my phone. the main page is like 15KB only, but it still has the stories with their summaries.

      http://www.skweezer.net/s.aspx?q=http%3A%2F%2Fslas hdot.org%2Findex.pl%3Flowbandwidth%3D1%26simpledes ign%3D1

      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
    14. Re:Lynx? by PietjeJantje · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >Ever tried it with Slashdot? The *light* version of the front page is 600k!

      Weird, I go to the *normal* front page, click Document Size on Firefoxes Web Developer add-on, and this is the result:

      Documents (1 file) 15 KB (67 KB uncompressed)
      Images (34 files) 31 KB
      Objects (0 files)
      Scripts (4 files) 68 KB (290 KB uncompressed)
      Style Sheets (3 files) 36 KB
      Total 150 KB (424 KB uncompressed)

      So where's your extra 176KB in the light version, and does Lynx have gzip support?

    15. Re:Lynx? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      telnet? Who needs the bloat and overhead of telnet??? Why, telnet from netkit is awhopping 77K! I use netcat! Just look:

      me@hostname:/etc$ ls -l /bin/nc
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 19516 2006-06-19 14:10 /bin/nc

      netcat is only 19K. And no messy escaping of characters necessary with netcat, so its overhead is much much lower. And can telnet do its thing on UDP? No. Can telnet listen for inbound connections? No. netcat! On my system, telnet is symlinked to /bin/nc.

    16. Re:Lynx? by KingJ · · Score: 1

      I read slashdot on my phone regularly, without downloading huge amounts of data. Get Opera Mini (free) and navigate to slashdot's RSS feed. You get full text articles (and all the comments) in a very lightweight format, plus it is easy to read on a phone.

      --
      I rent game servers, see my homepage for more information
    17. Re:Lynx? by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Opera Mini is the way to go. Everything is displayed the way the grandparent was describing.

    18. Re:Lynx? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      My God, and to think I've been wasting 57K all these years! Thank you! Now I can downgrade from an 8088 back to a Z80!

    19. Re:Lynx? by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      rss feeds

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    20. Re:Lynx? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Ah, I remember doing that. Someone mail bombed me for some imagined slight upon their character and I wound up having to telnet into the server.

    21. Re:Lynx? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      That site would be very useful for the browser built into DS Organize on the DS. (The best piece of console homebrew ever.)

    22. Re:Lynx? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The content on Slashdot *should* be ideal for reading on the way to work on my mobile
      And by blind users with a braille interface. One serious use of lynx is for sighted developers to test the accessibility of their web pages.
    23. Re:Lynx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, seriously, I probably use Lynx once a week or so. Very useful for seeing how your web-site looks from outside (via. a shell account) or to check accessibility. Sometimes I'm just pissed off with the crap and want to get to the content and Lynx does just that.

    24. Re:Lynx? by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah yes, I did that the other day. I was configuring a support email address inbox with a program I wasn't familiar with and I wasn't certain if it was leaving the mail on the server or not. I couldn't figure any good way to determine from the GUI where a particular message was stored so I just telnetted in and did a list. That confirmed conclusively.

      You have to respect the wisdom of the protocol designers in making them usable even by a manually telnetting human.

    25. Re:Lynx? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You have to respect the wisdom of the protocol designers in making them usable even by a manually telnetting human.
      Well, these were protocol designers who were eating their own dogfood. (Yucky metaphor, but I guess we're stuck with it.) And they had to deal with systems that had lots of nasty data incompatibility: bit order, byte order, even lack of byte addressability support. Restricting themselves to byte values they could bang out on a keyboard must have made debugging a lot easier.
    26. Re:Lynx? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And that's why I view Slashdot with a 10 year old browser (no JS, no CSS), set in light mode, with images off. Otherwise, I'd have to kill someone.

      Reduces the front page to [checking] 61k at the moment, with no story filtering.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    27. Re:Lynx? by Virgil+Tibbs · · Score: 1

      Why bother with computers at all? I've been using something called (snail) mail for the past 200 years or so!! with that, you get charged through your teeth for bloat. thats what i want to hear!

      --
      www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
    28. Re:Lynx? by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      If you can STARTTLS using telnet, then I'm officially Impressed.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    29. Re:Lynx? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      We all know Slashdot isn't for reading TFAs.....so if it isn't the comments and it isn't the articles, then it must be because of CowboyNeal.

      Wow, you really are new here.

    30. Re:Lynx? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Can I call you Virgil, or is it still "Mr. Tibbs"?

    31. Re:Lynx? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You touch a sore point. The ISP in question didn't offer secure connections. The only way they could have done that is to junk the SMTP/POP software they had developed in-house and gone to something off-the-shelf. Then I wouldn't have been able to hack the mail connection by hand. But I wouldn't have had to, because we wouldn't have had that stupid mailbox corruption issue.

    32. Re:Lynx? by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe you could just wrap the existing POP/IMAP listener in stunnel and use the alterate POPS/IMAPS ports.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    33. Re:Lynx? by dj2fast · · Score: 1

      I know one thing, on my PSP fark pda edition works great. (have to use the psp for something... lord knows gaming on it is painful)

  3. How am I.. by Marrshu · · Score: 1

    suppose to suggest any when the article mentions the two any basic geek needs? D:

  4. editors by kote-men-do · · Score: 0

    Emacs! Errrh, I mean Vim. Wait...

    Ed?

  5. (FP) MMM by Synflex · · Score: 1

    Magic Mail Monitor

    1. Re:(FP) MMM by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I use it and I tell all my friends to use it. It's small, it's fast, and it works.

  6. claws-mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the same functionality, claws-mail is the smallest.
    evolution > thunderbird > claws-mail

  7. mplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mplayer = no bloat

    1. Re:mplayer by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      On Ubuntu at least mplayer throws up an IPV6 error unless you configure it to not bother with IPV6. Since most users won't want IPV6, I think that'd count as bloat.

  8. At a little over a meg... by pieaholicx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PuTTy is my clear cut winner. A little over a meg for a full installer with all the bells and whistles, what's not to love?

    --
    http://blog.heavensdomain.net
    1. Re:At a little over a meg... by _14k4 · · Score: 1

      At that and it's not even an installer, the exe is the app alone!

    2. Re:At a little over a meg... by pieaholicx · · Score: 1

      Actually, the PuTTy app itself is only a few hundred KB. You can get an installer with most of the programs (PuTTY, PSCP, PSFTP, Plink, Pageant, and PuTTYgen) at a little over a meg.

      --
      http://blog.heavensdomain.net
    3. Re:At a little over a meg... by swb · · Score: 1

      The only thing thats not to love is the fact that it stores its settings in the fscking registry instead of in the same directory as the .exe. The registry method is acceptable for home destktops, I guess, but it'd be nice if it was setup as a purely portable application.

      (yeah, I know about the portable apps version, which I use with USB keys, but it'd be nice to have that functionality built in)

    4. Re:At a little over a meg... by pieaholicx · · Score: 1

      I do love the Portable Apps version. I took my portability a step further and placed them on my iPod so I carry my music and my apps.

      --
      http://blog.heavensdomain.net
    5. Re:At a little over a meg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PuTTy is my clear cut winner. A little over a meg for a full installer with all the bells and whistles, what's not to love?
      What's not to love is that one needs to download an app to make an SSH connection from a Windows box in the first place. MS hands out telnet, doesn't give SSH and then wonders why they have security issues all over the place...
    6. Re:At a little over a meg... by swb · · Score: 1

      I took my portability one step further and put my iPod up my ass so I can shit to the beat.

    7. Re:At a little over a meg... by drolrevO · · Score: 1

      I moved from putty to use putty tray which is a bit 'bloated' version of putty. Compared to putty this can minimize to tray (away from boss' eyes ;), understands urls and has a nice transparent background function. Yeah sure, it's bloated (200k more in size), but it's still long under one meg.

      Other small apps I happen to like include already mentioned media player classic and foobar. And *krhm* notepad.

    8. Re:At a little over a meg... by _14k4 · · Score: 1

      oh sweet! I didn't even think to get the whole package.

    9. Re:At a little over a meg... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1
      And then if you get Xming, you can tunnel your Linux apps over to your Windows client. The reasons Xming is superior to Cygwin/X for minimal installations is:
      • A: It actually gets updated (the last time Cygwin/X was updated was summer of 2005)
      • B: What if I don't want the entire Cygwin package? Xming is packaged nicely into a typical exe installer Windows users are familiar with.
      Also, unless the applications you want to use with Xming have any odd special requirements, it saves you from having to pay for something like Hummingbird Exceed...
    10. Re:At a little over a meg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when it cant save my password (security? fine, but dont force it) and it doesnt even have tabs... its a good lightweight app i use daily, but still, its not there yet and author doesnt seem to care.

    11. Re:At a little over a meg... by d3vo1d · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Although I never use the installer- a friend showed me a handy trick... just download putty.exe into C:\windows ... then that way it is in your default path, so you can start -> run (or windows key + R) and then "putty " ... very handy.

    12. Re:At a little over a meg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      PuTTy is my clear cut winner. A little over a meg for a full installer with all the bells and whistles, what's not to love?

      I used to think this way too, but recently I spent $65 or so for a SecureCRT license. It has every feature Putty has, plus three that Putty doesn't and I find indispensable:
      • A tabbed interface
      • Integrated scp/sftp interface (Putty's is a separate program with a command-line only interface)
      • Zmodem file transfers. Extremely useful as I have to ssh through multiple servers to reach the one I want, and to get a file back to my desktop involves multiple scp's.
  9. Opera by cybrthng · · Score: 1

    Small & Quick.. all though lately it has been eating massive amounts of memory at times the developers are quick to respond and work with the community to isolate & fix them!

    7zip is my second one. Fast and nag free!

    Trillian would be my 3rd but i'm anxiously awaiting release of the new product as the current publicly released IM client has been stagnant.

    1. Re:Opera by spyrochaete · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you use Windows I cannot sufficiently recommend Miranda IM. It's very lightweight (3MB download, 8MB RAM active) multi-IM client. You might call it the Foobar of Windows IM clients. It's got a fantastic community writing plugins and providing support on the official forums. The plugins are really numerous and cool too - Skype APIs, LCD display functionality, log analyzers, IM platform add-ons, out-of-office automators, a Windows uptime util, and hundreds more. It's also got great multinational localizations.

      I switched to Miranda from GAIM (which I switched to from Trillian) and I haven't regretted it for one moment. It's very snappy and responsive, it automatically resizes vertically depending on how many contacts are online, it appears and disappears with a single click of the tray icon, it auto-updates the base program as well as the plugins... I could go on and on.

      Give it a try. It's free! http://www.miranda-im.org/

    2. Re:Opera by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmm... I find your recommendation insufficient.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Opera by PinkPanther · · Score: 1

      LOL, I went from Trillian to Miranda to Gaim (note the lack of capitalization) which has now become Pidgin (http://pidgin.im/), though I cannot speak for how "light weight" any of them are for IM. Certainly better than the "native" IMs.

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    4. Re:Opera by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I was going to post "Opera" as well. Browser, news reader (NNTP or RSS), email program - all in one small package.

      It's my favourite low impact program.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    5. Re:Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can set AVG to not prompt you for updates.

    6. Re:Opera by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Does it support audio and video conferencing via MSN protocols?

      I tested the aMSN video conferencing which was soso... but the problem with messenger software is that unless you only wan to send text messages you've got to stick with the "official"

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    7. Re:Opera by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      No audio or video to my knowledge. It's a really lightweight client. Whenever I need voice chat I use the Gtalk client.

    8. Re:Opera by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

      Man, I used to love Trillian until I switched to Miranda. There were things I wished Trillian would have, Miranda lacks NOTHING. It takes about a day to customize it fully, but when you do, it's the IM client to end all others.

      --
      Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    9. Re:Opera by weszz · · Score: 1

      try out avast for the antivirus I've been using it for over a year now, great little program... the ONLY time it asks me about anything is if i want to click on the little green new version available window, which goes away after a couple seconds the daily updates it gets on it's own and tells you it's been updated, it's free for home use, and i don't notice it at all. (except when it tells me that it blocked something bad from a webpage or a temp file, email etc...) it's the only antivirus i recommend to people these days...

    10. Re:Opera by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      "Windows uptime util"

      Talk about pointless. "My windows box has been up 48 minu... Oh, well it was..."

    11. Re:Opera by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      actually I just saw an avast install that flat out refused to update (with an annoying prompt at each start) because the license was expired. This was the free version, mind you.

      Apparently the free version keeps bugging you after some time to get a new registration key, with a heavy hint to buy the full version.

      Naturally, there are people that have no idea how to deal with that, especially if they have not installed it themselves, so more support calls for me.

    12. Re:Opera by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      I can, but then it does not always update.

      I had to give it a manual kick in the behind on more than one pc, where it was so far behind with updates that windows complained.

      Not to forget the bullshit move avg pulled a while ago, where they discontinued all updates for the old free version, but instead of automatically updating to the *new* free version it only displayed a dialog box to "buy the full version".
      Which ends up in a support call to me.

    13. Re:Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say it lacks nothing, but I'm trying it for the first time right now... how do you keep all your IM windows in a tabbed container? It seems to offer the option for "Chat", whatever the hell that is, but that option doesn't affect my MSN windows.

      Also, how do I make it connect automatically on startup? Every time I start it, I have to manually connect to MSN as well. Can't find an option for this either. It's definitely lacking in a good configuration UI, and possibly these options too.

      (If you can point out the options I'm missing, I'd be grateful)

    14. Re:Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What evil things are you doing to that Windows box? My XP machine has run as long as 30 days at a time. It could go longer, but I turn it off when I leave town. Stop living in the past and upgrade that Windows 95 system!!!

    15. Re:Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget the auto-connect... I just restarted it, and it connects now. Perhaps I was impatient and it was just slow before? Still getting separate IM windows though.

    16. Re:Opera by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

      You need to install a few plugins before it'll get to that stage. The one you're looking for now is called tabsrmm. You should also install popups, a customizable away system, smileys, modern contact list, variables... I think that's it...

      --
      Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    17. Re:Opera by maxume · · Score: 1

      As far as they are concerned, you aren't using or supporting the free version on any PC other than your own; given that context, I fail to see how what they did was "bullshit".

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    18. Re:Opera by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      LOL! My XP box would probably have good uptime... If I didn't dual boot it.

      Wasn't there a bug in earlier versions of Windows that meant it would crash after 40 hours regardless?

    19. Re:Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's my favourite low impact program." - by whitehatlurker (867714) on Friday September 07, @12:56PM (#20510101) Agreed, 110%, & here is why: Opera is an excellent multithreaded example of good, solid, secure, efficient & FAST code design!

      APK

      P.S.=> Some added "FYI" for those of you comparing FireFox/IE/Opera:

      Opera security advisories @ SECUNIA (0% unpatched):

      http://secunia.com/product/10615/?task=advisories

      FireFox security advisories @ SECUNIA (43% unpatched):

      http://secunia.com/product/12434/

      IE 7 security advisories @ SECUNIA (56% unpatched):

      http://secunia.com/product/12366/

      (As far as security related vulnerabilities remaining unpatched, Opera leads here (super-important in today's online world where security IS a concern))

      ---

      Also, as far as speed comparisons? This is one that also extolls Opera's benefits over FF &/or IE here, & ON MULTIPLE OS PLATFORMS:

      BROWSER SPEED COMPARISONS ON MANY TASKS & MULTIPLE OPERATING SYSTEM PLATFORMS:

      http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

      And, especially on Win32 OS', the most used PC platform/OS there is...

      & here is yet another, very recent one. This one concentrates on Opera's speed superiority in terms of JavaScript parsing & interpretation processing only:

      http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

      ---

      (& the best part is, Opera has ALL of the features a body can need, & it is FREE (as in BEER) WITHOUT using addons (though it has that via Opera widgets), & YET, Opera is LIGHTER ON MEMORY than FireFox &/or IE typically!)

      You can check memory residency yourselves by loading FF, & Opera (& IE for Windows users) & test memory size occupancy via taskmgr.exe (or similar tools like Process Explorer) yourselves & see what I mean... I did so with FF 2.0.0.6, IE 7.x, & Opera 9.23.

      ---

      Opera also passed the "ACID2" test, for standards compliance (it is not alone here, but is over IE & FF, & it was the 6th browser to do so):

      http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/12/1416222.shtml

      A descending chronological order in which browsers (and authoring tools) passed Acid2, per a tip I got from by rh0 (member 1110203) here on /.:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2

      Safari, Prince, Shiira, Konqueror, Opera, & iCab

      (Firefox's Acid2 compliant branch has been merged into the trunk, thus, Firefox 3 will likely be Acid2 compliant, but currently FF & IE are not passers of this test.)

      ---

      And, Opera had features (like tabbed browsing) that other browsers (major 2 others in IE/FF) copied from it:

      FIREFOX MYTHS:

      http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyt hs.html

      (Yes, Opera had tabbed browsing before IE &/or FF, & other features as well. Opera comes FULLY LOADED features-wise, with a built in email client, IRC client, RSS client, & more + yet eats less RAM than others, & addons only bloat IE &/or FF even more memory-occupancy-wise. (AND YES, Opera has addons as well in "opera widgets" (like .xpi addons for FF))... apk
    20. Re:Opera by LuSiDe · · Score: 1

      I'll switch to whatever IM first supports Yahoo Messenger Java games. Its one of the few features I need because my girlfriend and me are living far away from each other (for now) and we'd like to play Literati via Yahoo every now and then. Only the official Yahoo Messenger for Windows or a browser + Java allow this. For other IM I use Bitlbee as its lightweight and has all the features I need.

      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
  10. minimalist by foodnugget · · Score: 5, Informative

    irfanview. Despite plugin capabilities, among many many other features, it is small, free, and faassssst compared to all the other image viewers I've tried (not all that many)

    I'd like to see this list include things that are conveniently free of spyware/trojans, too!

    1. Re:minimalist by SingTrav · · Score: 1

      I agree. I've used IrfanView for years as my default image app. Why open a PSD in Photoshop when it opens in IrfanView in a second or two? IrfanView does everything you need for basic image editing, including batch resizing and renaming.

    2. Re:minimalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beat me to it.... seconded

    3. Re:minimalist by foodnugget · · Score: 1

      If irfanview is taking a second or two to load on your system, you either have some really... really big pictures... or need to upgrade your kit!

    4. Re:minimalist by fbjon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would recommend XnView in the same vein. I prefer it's interface to IrfanView, it's non-bloated freeware and available on a lot of platforms, it can read every image format under the sun including camera raw files, etc.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    5. Re:minimalist by prestomation · · Score: 1

      I agree as well. I run PS CS2 but I use irfanview for everything I can get away with

    6. Re:minimalist by SingTrav · · Score: 1

      You're right, it takes much less time on my machine for an average size PSD to load - almost instantly. I didn't want to exaggerate the capabilities, not knowing how fast it would load on slower machines.

      One thing to point out is that IrfanView cannot actually edit and save layered PSD files, but it's good for viewing and saving to other formats without having to open Photoshop.

    7. Re:minimalist by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      I think he was talking about PSD's only -- no matter what system, they can be really big, and take a while to load up in Irfanview.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    8. Re:minimalist by MicktheMech · · Score: 1

      I'll just second the recommendation for irfanview. I've been using it for years. Great for when you just want to resize and image or convert to another format. It's also great for browsing through image folders.

    9. Re:minimalist by kisielk · · Score: 1

      For a less bloated image viewer try FastStone Maxview: http://www.faststone.org/FSMaxViewDetail.htm. It's got a more minimalist interface, and none of the extra non-viewing related features.

    10. Re:minimalist by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "It's also great for browsing through image^H^H^H^H^H porn folders."

      Fixed that for ya.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    11. Re:minimalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a question about IrfanView

      I've been using ACDSee for my image browsing needs. Its current version is quite bloated, so I use an old version that isn't quite so much. The main reason I use ACDSee is because, from what I can tell, it is able to do one thing that IrfanView can't:

      It can read inside archives. (zip, rar)

      Is this feature on the plate with IrfanView?

    12. Re:minimalist by maxxard · · Score: 1

      If its minimalist, it has to be this: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~uzdm0006/scans/1kchess/ Chess for a computer with 1K RAM, including the operating system!

    13. Re:minimalist by legirons · · Score: 1

      GQView is pretty fast too (e.g. pre-loading the next image), and it's even available on Windows now.

    14. Re:minimalist by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Yup. My standard Windows install goes: 2K -> Firefox -> Irfanview -> SP4, in that order.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    15. Re:minimalist by michaelar · · Score: 1

      I don't get anything for saying so, but I agree that XnView is fantastic. It's a really nice browser/viewer: free, lightweight, great features and interface, and very customizable. It also does image manipulation and batch processing. If you're still using a bloated paid app for your images, give it a try.

    16. Re:minimalist by splorp! · · Score: 1

      Agreed to the nth degree. It's on my short list of "must install" programs.

      Irfanview
      GeoShell
      Notepad++
      Firefox
      Thunderbird
      CDex
      WinAmp
      PowerArchiver
      VLC
      FileZilla
      XChat
      Open Office
      Zone Alarm
      AVG by Grisoft

      Is that still a short list?

      --
      Please don't humanize the morons around me. It makes me very uncomfortable.
    17. Re:minimalist by doti · · Score: 1

      Minimalist? Are you kidding me?
      An image viewer is supposed to view images, period.
      Try http://www.klografx.net/qiv/index2.html, the Quick Image Viewer.
      It has no GUI, only a little optional OSD status line (toggle with the 'i' key).

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    18. Re:minimalist by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Few months ago I also stumbled upon FastStone Maxview, and initially I thought I've found perfect replacement for Irfanview.
      However, after a month of usage, I came to conclusion that...Irfanview is actually less bloated, for me. Yes, Maxview preloads next image so it might have some advantage here...but it starts slower than Irfanview. Very noticeably slower... :/

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  11. Bonzi Buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bonzi Buddy

    1. Re:Bonzi Buddy by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Funny

      true, it saves so much resources. Normally, you would need 3 different programs to annoy the shit out of you, destroy your computer and constantly spy on you, but Bonzi Buddy does all 3 in one.

    2. Re:Bonzi Buddy by adrianhensler · · Score: 1

      Does it run under linux? I couldn't 'apt-cache search' it.

    3. Re:Bonzi Buddy by pyrestriker · · Score: 1

      No, Bonzi Buddy does not run under Linux. Most likely because a lot of the computer-crippling code found in Bonzi Buddy would need to be run as root. That, and Bonzi Buddy was intended to crash one's computer and make it slow down to a consistency equivalent of molasses. Then, PC repair places would get money, but more importantly other downloadable programs that claim to "Fix your computer's problems" would get the money needed to supposedly fix, but not fix your computer.

      Although I do not think it's being produced anymore, you can still search for him, and run it under wine. But to do that.... makes me shudder. I've seen PCs lose their email, password history, even their desktop contents and registry file trying to remove Bonzi Buddy. Not to mention when my school had suspended 3 students for downloading him, and made their parents pay for the repair of the PCs of the malicious purple bloat-coded monkey.

  12. WS-FTP by BendingUnit · · Score: 0

    I would have to say WS-FTP. I will run the WS-FTP95 LE version.

    --
    Super Vista Forum
    1. Re:WS-FTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried Filezilla?

    2. Re:WS-FTP by J0nne · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. I used to use WS-FTP, but switched to Filezilla because it's free (and it allows you to throttle your uploads/downloads).

  13. Vi by teknopurge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    QED.

    1. Re:Vi by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      I prefer Vim, sure it has what some puritans might consider bloat but compared to a lot of other text editors it's lightweight, fast and userfriendly (really, I've had to use nano/pico a few times and it just confused me to no end).

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Vi by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      vi ...QED.

      As long as we're only talking about old-skool vi, I totally agree with you.

      Some of these wonky new vi's with their fancy colouring and extra modes which coincide with legacy vi commands are evil. I've been using vi for almost 20 years -- and when I find myself in a new vi in a mode I don't know where I am, something has gone horribly wrong. If you're going to add modes and stuff, make sure that there is no bloody legacy vi command you've screwed up.

      There's nothing more sad than watching a guy who got coddled with emacs all through school suddenly finding himself on a customer site on a machine which only has an old-fashioned vi. They can't do anything, then they're asking the Solaris admin to install some software so he can do something simple.

      Everyone should be at least a little familiar with vi. When the fit hits the shan, sometimes it's all you've got to get out of the doo doo.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Vi by krgallagher · · Score: 1
      "Everyone should be at least a little familiar with vi. When the fit hits the shan, sometimes it's all you've got to get out of the doo doo."

      Amen brother! I do not even look for an alternate editor. I know vi will be there and it will be on my path. Why waste time looking for some other editor that may or may not be installed.

      --

      Insert Generic Sig Here:

    4. Re:Vi by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      agreed. original-flavor vi.

      vim can go get bent. frankly, the colors hurt my eyes.

    5. Re:Vi by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Everyone should be at least a little familiar with vi. When the fit hits the shan, sometimes it's all you've got to get out of the doo doo.

      As an emacs lover (in that way, M-x make-love), I have to agree with this. I'm not by any means proficient in vi. Thanks to nethack I have the movement keys down, and I can make simple changes to files though it's painful and error-prone. But there have been several occasions where this was the only way to get a system back. And that's just as a 'power user' running a home PC. If you're actually in any kind of IT, learning vi should be required.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Vi by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      And know EDLIN from the DOS days when you have to fix your friend's computer.

      Layne

    7. Re:Vi by value_added · · Score: 1

      Some of these wonky new vi's with their fancy colouring and extra modes which coincide with legacy vi commands are evil.

      Granted vi is everywhere and fast, but you have a problem with colouring?

      Using vi to perform even a trivial edit to a file that's heavily commented is as mind-numbing as it is counter-productive, to say nothing of the added bonus of mucking things up with a simple typo because you consider syntax hi-lighting to be something "fancy" rather than functional.

      IMHO, the only reason why someone would inist on vi rather than any of the IMproved versions, is that either they don't use it much, or that it's installed by default and anything else seems too troublesome. The counter argument, however, holds more weight. Using a featureful (in all circumstances) program that you've mastered and are accustomed to relying on almost always outweighs the benefits of insisting on an idealogue-ist minimalism.

      I write everything in sh, but I sure wouldn't want to be using it as an interactive shell. Installing bash (instead of tcsh or whatever the default is) and vim is the first thing I do. And if I have to slog through a big inbox, I'll expect to be using mutt instead of mail. I'd wager my approach is more productive in the long term. That doesn't mean I don't respect your point of view; I'm just wondering how often it is you need to visit the opthalmologist for a new eyeglass prescription. ;-)

    8. Re:Vi by oscartheduck · · Score: 1

      Word to the wise, try installing Nvi on any systems you use regularly and have the vi command linked to it. It's an almost exact copy of the original.

      --
      How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
    9. Re:Vi by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Granted vi is everywhere and fast, but you have a problem with colouring?

      Yes. It's fscking ugly, and I have no interest in investing time to turn it off or configure it. The colour choices available in ASCII are brain-searingly ugly, distracting, and I can't stand them. I don't want my shell to colour code things in my ls either -- that's why I do an "ls -F", so I can see what kind of files they are myself. I don't need my UNIX command line to have all sorts of pretty colours. Same goes for my vi.

      IMHO, the only reason why someone would inist on vi rather than any of the IMproved versions, is that either they don't use it much, or that it's installed by default and anything else seems too troublesome.

      Or, that every frigging time I run into something like vim, and try to issue a command for working with buffers or searching (it's been a while, I don't remember exactly what) I end up in some unknown-mode that I can't figure out how to get out of. I use vi all the friggin' time and have done so for almost 20 years. Each and every time I try to use one of the 'improved' versions, it isn't compatible with a command I use all of the time. The only time I've encounter vim is because it was installed by default in a Linux or whatever -- then within 5 minutes, it coughs up a house on me and fails on a common task (or, at least, common for me). Just because you can't think of a reason why someone mightn't like the new versions doesn't mean there aren't perfectly valid reasons why people actually do dislike them.

      I don't have some 'idealogue-ist' view about how vi should be minimal. But, when commands which have worked in vi for 30+ years are suddenly broken, then that is not an improvement. That's deciding you're gonna add some new fancy feature, and use keystrokes that are already used by people. That's just bad.

      If someone 'improves' on vi in such a way that commands and shortcuts I've used forever don't break, fine. But, don't break relatively common commands. I know people who have used vi for 30 years, and they have the same complaint. All of a sudden you're in some new-fangled mode, screen, or context. An escape doesn't get you back to a known state.

      It's not that I have a problem with change, just, if you 'improve' it, don't break what was already there. My problem is people (who haven't been using vi long enough to know that some of the key-sequences us old-timers have burned into our brains) don't realize they have unexpected consequences in the so-called 'improved' versions. They're like 80-90% backwards compatible. Same for every emacs vi mode I've ever seen. They just don't cover all of the stuff vi actually does. Invariably, some key sequence kills it. Because it's almost like vi -- almost enough for 90% of the people 90% of the time; for me, it's deficient 100% of the time. So, they're far less useful than vi to me, because the things I can do in vi are suddenly not there.

      If you know a little vi, these modes are pretty decent. If you expect to be able to jump around in lettered buffers, marks, and other things, it dies fairly quickly. Like I said, I have broken every improved version of vi I've ever encountered, usually within a short period of time. That's no improvement.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Vi by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some of these wonky new vi's with their fancy colouring and extra modes which coincide with legacy vi commands are evil.


      Er, and which ones are those?

      I've used vi, nvi, vile, and vim. By far, vim is the most popular (and powerful) of those. And it does not have any modes or commands that coincide with standard vi in compatible mode; there are a few minor differences in non-compatible mode, but nothing that's likely to trip up even seasoned vi-ers (and yes, I used vi for nearly a decade before any of the others, and still use vi from time to time when I get on a box w/o vim).

      If you're using vim and don't like color, disable it. In fact, it's disabled by default in compatible mode (which vim defaults to unless you have a .vimrc). If you find the colors "hard to read" then it's because you aren't using a real xterm and vim cannot properly detect your background -- do a :set bg=light or :set bg=dark for a light/dark background and the colors will become much better. Or use one of a few hundred different colorschemes that are available (for anything from 8/16 color standard consoles to 256 color enabled xterms; if you have no color, just :syntax off and go on your way).

      vim is a vast improvement over vi -- and not for the coloring, but rather for the buffer management, the filetype capabilities (smarter indenting is the tip of the iceberg), text objects (daB to delete an entire block delimited by {['s is one example; objects exists for words/WORDS, sentences, paragraphs, tags, etc), and macros. There's much, much more, of course, but those are the big ones in my book. I personally don't care much about windows and the vim7 tabs are misnamed and misunderstood, but some love them. I have a strong vi background, and I think the things I mentioned are more relevant to others with a similar background than those other items are.
    11. Re:Vi by IpalindromeI · · Score: 2, Interesting

      <i>frankly, the colors hurt my eyes.</i>

      :syn off

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    12. Re:Vi by crustymonkey · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious, what *exactly* are the commands you are using to break VIM. I use both classic vi (on Freebsd) and vim (on linux) all the time and I can't say that i've really run into any of the problems you seem to have. And yes, I use marks, named buffers and other things all the time without any problems on either one.

      --
      \033:wq!
    13. Re:Vi by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      Dude!

      You are hardcore.

      Lettered buffers?

      modes and shizz?

      whoa!.

      How long IS your beard?

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    14. Re:Vi by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious, what *exactly* are the commands you are using to break VIM. I use both classic vi (on Freebsd) and vim (on linux) all the time and I can't say that i've really run into any of the problems you seem to have. And yes, I use marks, named buffers and other things all the time without any problems on either one.

      I wish I had a concrete example.

      The last time I remember being specifically aware of a non-conforming vi was quite a while ago. It's entirely possible it's no longer a valid symptom and I'm just a crusty old UNIX geek with a bad memory. :-P

      I have a vague recollection it was a command something like ".,'a:s/test/toast/g" or something which I'd consider to be fairly straightforward. (Or some other compound buffer modifying command in the command mode which used position shorthand.) I recall that it coughed up horribly, and when I went and did the same command in my vi on another UNIX machine to confirm it worked like I remembered (I couldn't tell you a vi command, it's no longer a conscious thing) it was just fine -- then I confirmed on two more platforms of big-metal UNIX. Then I stopped using vim.

      At the time, it didn't seem like I was doing anything overly exotic, it was literally a command I would do every day of the week while editing. I just remember thinking "if this is improved, I want my old vi back". I would say the same thing for every emacs vi mode I've ever seen -- they cover the basics, but as soon as I started doing buffers and marks it would hurl.

      Generally left me feeling rather non-plussed about the whole thing. I think I even remember demonstrating to en emacs advocate who was claiming his vi mode was just as good as the real thing.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:Vi by crustymonkey · · Score: 1

      Huh, maybe it was a previous version or something, but I use that type of thing all the time as well. I actually just tested it in a file and it worked fine. Here's what I used for the test: VIM - Vi IMproved 7.0 (2006 May 7, compiled Feb 26 2007 15:23:35) Included patches: 1-174 Modified by Gentoo-7.0.174

      --
      \033:wq!
    16. Re:Vi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,

      Have you tried running vim in compatability mode (:set compatible)? It turns off a lot of the new vim features. It doesn't change everything, but you might find it more useable.

    17. Re:Vi by d3matt · · Score: 1

      Where I work, with our legacy product, vi doesn't work on the console port. You have to use edline!

      --
      I am d3matt
    18. Re:Vi by strstrep · · Score: 1

      Vim tries pretty hard to not conflict with "classic" vi's keys and behavior. There are other vi clones that conflict a bit more. Setting compatibility mode (I think it *is* set by default unless you override it in your .vimrc) with :set cp will put most of the borderline cases back to normal vi behavior. Also, any known cases where vim behaves contrary to vi are documented in the help file.

    19. Re:Vi by trashbat · · Score: 1
      May I suggest putting the following couple of lines at the top of your .vimrc:

      set compatible
      syn off
      This will make Vim behave much more like vi, and with no syntax hilighting.
    20. Re:Vi by Niten · · Score: 1

      [vim is] lightweight, fast and userfriendly Absolutely. Especially with respect to vim and other vi descendants, people seem quick to confuse user-friendliness and newbie-friendliness. vim is not newbie-friendly, because learning it entails covering a lot of ground (in a sense, learning a new form of touch typing). But once you've taken the plunge and really learned how to use it, nothing else comes close to vim's efficiency and power.
    21. Re:Vi by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      "frankly, the colors hurt my eyes."
       
      :syn off

      Acck! *phhbtbtbt*

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    22. Re:Vi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFM grandpa. dont be afraid of learning new things or you'll quickly become a luddite

  14. AbiWord FTW by Synesthesiatic · · Score: 3, Informative
    Back in the day I used to be a huge fan of AbiWord. It's very lightweight and really does all the most people need from a simple word processor. Reminds me of Word for Windows 2.0, actually. Three years ago I had a friend using it on a Pentium 133 with 16 MB of RAM! I'd take it over OOo Writer any day.

    Of course, now I'm on OS X, and the Mac port is fugly, so I haven't touched it in a while.

    1. Re:AbiWord FTW by Intron · · Score: 1

      I once timed the install at 12 seconds. Highly recommended.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    2. Re:AbiWord FTW by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      and really does all the most people need from a simple word processor. Until AbiWord or Writer work with proper outlines ( not some pretend outlines like Writer does btw ), they don't do what most people need from a simple word processor. Writing a college paper or technical document you need outlines. Those make your job a lot easier.
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:AbiWord FTW by rehabdoll · · Score: 1

      AbiWord depends too much on gnome for my taste. Atleast last time i tried it. Perhaps things have changed since.

    4. Re:AbiWord FTW by uwog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      AbiWord does hardly depend on GNOME. We have only 1 dependency with GNOME in the name, and that is libgnomeprint (libgnomeprint only depends on gnomecanvas, which in turn depends on nothing GNOMEy).

      And this ofcourse only holds for the Linux version, not for our native Windows version for example.

    5. Re:AbiWord FTW by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      I know Ubuntu has a GTK-only build of Abiword, and it runs on Windows as well (which for obvious reasons, lacks GNOME)

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    6. Re:AbiWord FTW by rehabdoll · · Score: 1

      Well there you are. Too much gnome for my taste :)

    7. Re:AbiWord FTW by Stroman+Rebar · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was always more a fan of Abby Winters myself...

    8. Re:AbiWord FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AbiWord meets 99% of my .doc needs. OpenOffice, on the other hand, may meet 100% of them but the difference in load time (read: bloat) is astronomical. As the lone linux guy in a Mac/PC workplace, I'm very, very glad AbiWord exists.

    9. Re:AbiWord FTW by SilverAlicorn · · Score: 1

      Actually, AbiWord is available through MacPorts, which uses Apple's X11 instead of Aqua. Should work like AbiWord for any other UNIX/Windows.

    10. Re:AbiWord FTW by vertigoCiel · · Score: 1

      You might want to take a look at Bean, a very light open-source text editor for OSX that reads and writes .doc and .txt (why the hell doesn't Textedit save in .txt?). It does lack a few features (mainly footnotes), but it's a damn sight better than OpenOffice.org in performance.

    11. Re:AbiWord FTW by SilverAlicorn · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have to take that back - it just compiles the Aqua version. Probably shoulda tried it before posting :/

    12. Re:AbiWord FTW by Synesthesiatic · · Score: 1
      Thanks, I'll check that out.

      I should mention, however, that you can switch TextEdit to plain text mode by choosing Format > Make Plain Text.

  15. I've got a summary by realdodgeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would guess that whatever your favorite non-bloat software is, it is most likely in Damn Small Linux...

    1. Re:I've got a summary by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would guess that whatever your favorite non-bloat software is, it is most likely in Damn Small Linux... Which suggests that Damn Small Linux is, well, somewhat bloated.
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:I've got a summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have had more issues getting dsl to run on any number of system then any other linux distro or windows for that fact. if you have a system that runs dsl with no problems it's sweet but it's also rare.

    3. Re:I've got a summary by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      I would guess that whatever your favorite non-bloat software is, it is most likely in Damn Small Linux...

      I would second that, but then again, Firefox comes with DSL

    4. Re:I've got a summary by Ratbert42 · · Score: 1

      +1 for Damn Small Linux. I keep an old laptop on my desk at work running DSL. It does 90% of what I need all the time with a P2-266, no hard drive, 256 megs of memory, and a 32 meg thumb drive. It's amazing to see what can still be done without Gnome, KDE, .Net, Java, etc.

    5. Re:I've got a summary by empaler · · Score: 1

      i have had more issues getting dsl to run on any number of system then any other linux distro or windows for that fact. if you have a system that runs dsl with no problems it's sweet but it's also rare. AFAIR it runs on 2.4 series kernel, but apart from that it should be fine on all but the most bleeding edge computers. I've never had any problems on stationary compies, and only problems with lappies when using old versions of dsl. Ofc, YMMV.
  16. Apple II by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

    ] call -151
    * 300: ad 30 c0 20 ed fd 4c 00 03
    * 300g


    Hours of random entertainment!

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:Apple II by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      Truth! my main word processor (and I am not kidding): Fredwriter.
      3D0G

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:Apple II by tepples · · Score: 1

      Truth! my main word processor (and I am not kidding): Fredwriter.
      3D0G On that note, what's the best way to get text documents in and out of an emulated Apple II so that I can edit them in FrEdWriter? I already know they have to use US-ASCII character encoding and 0x0D newlines, but then how do I copy the files between AppleWin and the host PC's file system?
    3. Re:Apple II by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      In a very real way, I'd have to say Apple ][ as well. Nothing was as easily programmable, both in machine code and basic.

      That said, it's just out of date. Here's what I would like, instead, and why.

      (1) PDA. There's no reason, except high-performance graphics (read games/porn), that you need super large desk computers, any more. Battery powered is tons better, in lots of ways.

      2) with IR. I really don't go for the electromagnetic pollution of the microwave phones/pdas/etc. This should be able to communicate from PDA to PDA, or from PDA to printer (etc.)

      3) with smartcard-type drive for memory storage. This is instead of a hard drive

      4) with a basic applesoft-style programming language.

      5) with access to machine code, just as call-151.

      6) but with isolation, so one computer program cannot corrupt another

      7) dual touchpad input, adaptable to both keyboard-style and mouse-style input.

      8) a123.com style lithium ion battery.

      With that, I could write my own programs easily enough. As it is, I have to try to use pocket excel, which is great for a lot of things, but terribly awkward for others.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    4. Re:Apple II by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Heh, I used to walk into stores selling Apple ][ machines and leave the machines running a variant of that, which clicked the speaker, loaded a random character into the accumulator, output the character, then looped. Good times.

    5. Re:Apple II by nacturation · · Score: 1

      It's probably about the most audiovisual fun you can have in 9 bytes.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:Apple II by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      There, 11% smaller... ;-)

      300: ad 30 c0 20 ed fd D0 F8

      main
        LDA SPKR
        JSR COUT
        BNE main

    7. Re:Apple II by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1
      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    8. Re:Apple II by nacturation · · Score: 1

      But the LDA operation will set the zero flag if it happens to load that value from $C030. So while your program is substantially (ha!) smaller, it will also terminate. Of course, I could be wrong if $C030 never has a zero value. Damn... now you made me dust off my assembly reference. It looks like BVS (Branch on oVerflow Set) would be a suitable replacement as LDA doesn't affect this flag. Awesome... an 11% space savings! Thanks.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    9. Re:Apple II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C=>64

      10 poke808,239
      20 y=rnd(1)*15
      30 x=int(y)
      40 poke53280,x:poke53281,x
      50 goto20

      Yes, I wrote this from memory and still remember those damn peeks and pokes from 1985 but I still can not remember my f'king PIN for my bank card. My memory must not be FIFO.

      This is a great small program with very little bloat ;)

    10. Re:Apple II by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      You can run this small program to verify that reading the speaker will never be less then #$80, i.e. the hi-bit is always set.

      300:a0 00 84 00 a2 10 86 01 ad 30 c0 91 00 c8 d0 f8 e6 01 ca d0 f3 60

      Have you checked out AppleWin? :-)

      Cheers

    11. Re:Apple II by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Geez! This brings a tear to the eye! I thought I was the only one left alive! PR#1
      My last Apple //e was a 384k + Rocket Chip + 20MB SCSI HD running Mousedesk! Still works too!!

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    12. Re:Apple II by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Apple ][ Forever, Baby! :-)

    13. Re:Apple II by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Wombat ][ for me!
      I've still got a few clones lying about!

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    14. Re:Apple II by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I used to have the emulator installed but don't anymore. However, I dusted off the old yellowed Apple //c (monitor doesn't seem to work, so typing blind) and entered the now 8 byte program using D0 and you're right... it's not terminating. Ahh... nostalgia!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  17. Emacs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Surely you jest?", you say.

    No - emacs was probably truly bloated back when people made jokes about its bloat: Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping. Ha ha.
    But I'm far more productive in emacs, now a (relatively) blazingly fast, slim, and powerful Editor/IDE, then in some monstrosity like Eclipse or VS.

    1. Re:Emacs. by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Let's compare my `top`:

      PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
      1030 vim 0.0% 0:00.15 1 14 19 816K 1.15M 2.26M 27.7
      993 Xcode 0.0% 0:02.52 1 71 208 5.14M 7.75M 10.3M 145M
      992 TextMate 0.0% 0:00.78 1 64 83 2.31M 3.79M 5.74M 121M
      983 emacs 0.0% 0:00.18 1 15 28 1.18M 3.64M 3.56M 56.0M

      Not very surprising. Vim comes in first in resource economy. Emacs second. TextMate third. Xcode fourth. But the difference between emacs and TextMate is negligible. Xcode is rather large in comparison, but I wouldn't call it a monstrosity. (I realize you didn't call it one -- it's the only "full featured" IDE I have installed on this box)

      I'll stick to TextMate unless I'm building Cocoa applications or logged in remotely.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    2. Re:Emacs. by empaler · · Score: 1

      5315 nano 0.0% 0:00.00 1 13 16 120K 768K 416K 26.7M 5314 emacs-i386 0.0% 0:00.01 1 13 23 808K 3.96M 2.48M 47.0M 5310 vim 0.0% 0:00.04 1 13 18 796K 1.54M 2.01M 27.7M Surprising size on the nano, IMO.

    3. Re:Emacs. by empaler · · Score: 1

      5315 nano 0.0% 0:00.00 1 13 16 120K 768K 416K 26.7M
      5314 emacs-i386 0.0% 0:00.01 1 13 23 808K 3.96M 2.48M 47.0M
      5310 vim 0.0% 0:00.04 1 13 18 796K 1.54M 2.01M 27.7M


      Surprising size on the nano, IMO. Damnit! Forgot the line breaks. Sorry.
  18. Emacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the flamefest begin.

    Me ducks for cover under my desk.

    1. Re:Emacs by middlemen · · Score: 1

      favourite bloat-free software not favourite bloatware ! however, this begs the question, if Emacs were re-written in Java, would it be bigger than Vista ?

    2. Re:Emacs by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      No one knows, they've never found a hard drive that can fit the result...

      Errr, wait, they have hard drives that can fit Vista... So, YES!

      (Don't flame me for picking on emacs, it's my favorite editor, even if it uses 20MB of memory on my system)

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:Emacs by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      The odd things about these days of enormous hard disks and memory is that emacs is no longer a large system. I realised this the other day when using it and realising that my browser(firefox) was using an order of magnitude of memory than poor little emacs :)

    4. Re:Emacs by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      I use microemacs, which does fit the criteria. Since I have the source, I've been able to tweak it for my preferences, and move it to whatever OS I've needed to use.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    5. Re:Emacs by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Emacs?

      Dude... TFA seems to be talking about applications, not operating systems.

      [badum-ching]

    6. Re:Emacs by mechsoph · · Score: 1

      No kidding.

      Eight Megs and Constantly Swapping. Well, it's still just eight megs, which is, for better or worse, quite lean nowadays.

    7. Re:Emacs by m0smithslash · · Score: 1

      I cannot hardly believe I am saying it, but EMACS indeed. There was a time, not too long ago, that I would kill any process that was taking more memory than EMACS because there had to be something terribly wrong with any process taking that much memory. Now, EMACS takes seemingly no memory and runs really fast. Beside, there was a new release, after 6 short years. What's not to like? EMACS - The first Portable OS / virtual machine ELISP - The first run-anywhere computer language. Runs anywhere there is EMACS.

      --
      Your friend and well-wisher
      m0smithslash
      http://www.ferociousflirting.com
  19. Putty! by Prien715 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Putty is 412 KB for an SSH client that supports window resizing and has no installer! Doesn't hurt that it's open source either.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Putty! by cybrthng · · Score: 1

      Putty, how could i forget that one! AMEN!

    2. Re:Putty! by Necroman · · Score: 1

      Definitely. PuTTY is some of my favorite small applications for Windows. Serial/Telnet/RLogin/SSH all in a single executable (and I use all 4 of those). SSH Tunneling and lots of other goodies make it an amazing application.

      --
      Its not what it is, its something else.
    3. Re:Putty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Agreed! With putty, I can run as many CPU/Memory intensive applications as I need, and my Windows box barely feels it! I also use VNC, who would have thought my 128MB Windows laptop could run a gnome desktop and so many applications so fast!

    4. Re:Putty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The flaw with putty is that it stores your server list in the registry; not a text file in the home directory. Portable apps has a version of putty that stores it as a text file.

      http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/putty_portab le

      Regards

    5. Re:Putty! by ostiguy · · Score: 1

      I believe it was .60 that added serial support, so no more using hyperterminal until you get ssh working on the router. Woot!

    6. Re:Putty! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Serial support came out in .59 : http://lists.tartarus.org/pipermail/putty-announce /2007/000014.html

      Pretty cool though. It's nice to have a familiar interface for a Serial console.

      Hyperterminal is miserable. It always seems to say 'Connected', even if the serial cable is the wrong kind, or the cable is split, or the serial port is disabled. What exactly is it 'Connected' to?

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    7. Re:Putty! by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Putty provides the decent terminal emulator Windows should have come with. It's easy to switch out terminal emulators on X11, but it doesn't seem to be as easy on Windows. If it were, I'd just use Putty to run local commands.

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Foobar by edelholz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Foobar2k! Best audio player for Windows ever. http://foobar2000.org/ Quite minimalistic, but highly configurable. Very low memory footprint and plays basically everything.

    1. Re:Foobar by dosboot · · Score: 1

      It has a weird concept of playlists though. Or maybe _no_ concept, I'm not sure. If you open a foobar playlist file it actually takes all those songs and places them in whatever playlist was open the last time you ran foobar.

    2. Re:Foobar by edelholz · · Score: 1

      You can always "enqueue" instead of "Play in foobar". Or, if that's not what you're looking for, you can easily create additional playlist and/or specify the playlist to which the files will be sent. Then again, I like to keep my music organized by folders and don't have this one-playslist-contains-all many people seem to like. Should still be easily possible, though.
      Things get fancier with ColumnsUI, which gives you a nicer interface. And then there's albumlist, which enables you to go trough your music, iTunes-style.
      What I like most about foobar is that it opens instantaneously. Right-click, "Play in foobar", music starts playing. Winamp or the evil WMP always add a certain lag to that, especially under heavy load.

    3. Re:Foobar by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Ah, usability traded for executable size. That's a bargain only a Slashdotter could love.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    4. Re:Foobar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      foobar2000? but that's sooooo "last millennium"...

    5. Re:Foobar by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Foobar's default action for any file is to add it to the current playlist. So when you double-click on a .fpl file, it adds it onto your current (last used) playlist. I like using the Playlist Dropdown plugin, it makes playlist selection much easier. I also recommend the FoFR interface, though it is far less minimal than the default.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    6. Re:Foobar by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      Columns-UI, add a pane somewhere for selecting playlists, and then context/right-click in that area and select "New" - drag and drop your songs in, and save then save it as m3u, fpl, etc...

      For importing playlists, do the same thing up to creating a new one but do "Load" instead...

      It's like how using "su -" gives you more privileges than just "su" on a *nix box - just get into the habit of doing it that way and it works (or at least for me - YMMV)...

    7. Re:Foobar by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      foobar has a fast string search so if you DO like to put all your music into one playlist you can find whatever you are looking for very quickly. when you have 20K songs on your computer that's ofter just about the only way to find a song if you don't know who sings it.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    8. Re:Foobar by maxume · · Score: 1
      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Foobar by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Keeps losing my main library playlist, keeps adding tracks to the last playlists and removing playlists just because I close them. Maybe I should save them.... Kinda needs a 'back' or History button. Album List is the only way I can navigate. Mind you I've only been using it for a few weeks and of course it doesn't come with a FA.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    10. Re:Foobar by MojoStan · · Score: 1

      Foobar2k! Best audio player for Windows ever. http://foobar2000.org/ Quite minimalistic, but highly configurable. I'm a foobar man myself. However, I think foobar2000 is too minimalistic without at least a few components. Other popular music players are at least "okay" without add-ons. I think most first-time downloaders will install foobar2k without components and think: "What the fuck?" Where's the volume control?

      Any time foobar2000 is recommended, popular components should be mentioned as well (also a link to that hydrogenaudio-hosted wiki). My essential components (all on that linked page):

      • Columns UI
      • LyricsDB
      • Monkey's Audio decoder
      • Autoplaylist Manager
      ...and my configuration is minimalistic compared to most power users (I think). There are components for album art, iPod management, and other stuff I don't need.

      Also, foobar2k includes transcoding settings for LAME MP3 and Nero AAC, but the binaries aren't included (for licensing reasons I assume). Foobar2k asks for the locations of "lame.exe" or "neroaacenc.exe" the first time you try to encode to these formats. They can be downloaded for free:

      Encoders for open source codecs (like FLAC and OGG) are already included, of course.

      Finally, essential reading for newbie foobar2k users: Bachi-Bouzouk's Guide to Foobar2000 v0.9.

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    11. Re:Foobar by Shardz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, foobar is great. Also the only media player I've seen that supports tabs.

  22. who needs formatting? by uberjoe · · Score: 1

    Word vs Notepad?

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  23. TinyApps.org by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.tinyapps.org/

    If you're running Windows, I also like Sumatra PDF

    http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/

    (not sure if that's listed at the former or no, which is why I specifically mention it --- the balance of my preferred small programs are)

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    1. Re:TinyApps.org by kebes · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another good listing of smallish software is Portable Apps. These are normal (open source) applications that have been fine-tuned to be "portable" so that you can run them off of a USB key for instance (e.g. they store settings locally).

      Many of the apps were chosen because they are small and light. Others have been stripped to the minimum, so that they can fit comfortably on removable media (e.g. OpenOffice Portable is 69 MB instead of the usual 100 MB).

      The PortableApps Suite is only 89MB and covers all the basics (office suite, browser, email, etc.).

      If you're looking for a lightweight app to fill a particular need, it's a good place to start looking.

    2. Re:TinyApps.org by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Excellent point.

      I feel kind of silly though --- one of the links in the OP query was to the TinyApps site.

      I did think of one other small I use (for Windows) which isn't there but I find quite useful, Dirk Struve's WinTeXshell:

      http://www.projectory.de/texshell/

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    3. Re:TinyApps.org by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Another good listing of smallish software is Portable Apps.
      Firefox? Thunderbird? StarOffice???!!! Those are huge applications. Yes, there are some small apps there, but by and large, portable apps are just the usual bloatware reconfigured to run without being installed. They don't have to be frugal with memory, because multi-gigabyte thumb drives are cheap.
    4. Re:TinyApps.org by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Let me back you up on this. www.tinyapps.org has links to a lot of neat, unbloated DOS/Windows software. Much of it is open source that is also available for Linux and much of the remainder will run under wine without a lot of grief. I generally hit tinyapps and look around whenever I find a need for a tool and don't have a clue what it's going to be called. More often than not, there is a pretty good answer there.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    5. Re:TinyApps.org by rinkjustice · · Score: 1

      I rock Sumatra PDF too. Great lil' app.

    6. Re:TinyApps.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SumatraPDF is great, especially the way it remembers which page you're up to when you close it - awesome. Unfortunately, it has some stability issues... on some PDFs, clicking or trying to select a rectangle on the page crashes it, and then it doesn't remember the page you were on at the time of the crash :(

  24. Blackbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blackbox fits the bill. If you are unfortunate enough to be using windows, the bblean port is nice replacement of the windows shell and consumes far fewer resources than explorer.exe.

  25. Putty by alta · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I love putty. It's great. There's also a companion program called putty knife that you can put in your quick launch. When you hit it, a list of all your saved connections pops up. Very sweet combo. Combine this with shared keys and such and I'm two clicks away from a terminal on any server I have access to.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    1. Re:Putty by nuzak · · Score: 1

      I always combine PuTTY with PSHotLaunch, and put my most commonly-used connections on a single hotkey each (as well as add a few other hotkeys). Very nice launchpad app -- not sure if it supports running off a thumb drive though.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  26. MS Paint by IndieKid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know it's a bit crap, but I must confess to quite liking MS Paint for it's simplicity. When all you need is to crop a screendump and save it as a JPG, nothing beats it!

    Other than that, I'd second the VLC and Winamp combo. Ever since there has been iPod support in Winamp (via a plugin or 'out of the box') I haven't used anything else.

    1. Re:MS Paint by jo7hs2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I too like MS Paint for simplicity, but I disagree that it is a "bit crap." How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed. The actual workings and features have changed slightly over the years, but the interface is basically the same, and anybody who can turn on the computer can use it. And that's from a Microsoft product! I would suggest that it may be one of the top ten most useful programs ever made, largely because of the simplicity of it.

    2. Re:MS Paint by baadger · · Score: 1

      WHAT!? You DARE challenge the power of MS PAINT?!

      http://elftor.com/elftor.php?number=112

    3. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, if you could master the simple concept that IT'S == IT IS and the possessive is ITS, you could have saved an apostrophe and spared us the bloat of the extra byte in this page.

    4. Re:MS Paint by p0tat03 · · Score: 0, Troll

      MS Paint for screenshots is the wrong tool for the job.

      On Mac: Cmd+Shift+3 takes a screenshot to your desktop in PNG format. Cmd+Shift+4 allows you to drag out a zone, which is then similarly dumped to a PNG file. Cmd+Shift+4 then Space allows you to click on any window to take a shot of just that window. Funny shortcuts to remember, but it's MUCH faster that PrntScrn, Open Paint, Paste, Crop, Save As.

    5. Re:MS Paint by IndieKid · · Score: 1
      Woah, bit OTT I think! Just because someone admits to finding paint quite useful for achieving simple tasks it doesn't make them a "Windows noob".

      no need for MS Paint, no need for cropping. By no cropping, do you mean that achieves the same thing as Alt-PrtSc?

      There's actually a nice tool for taking screen shots built into Vista too that can output PNGs and the like for those that are after something a bit more powerful than a complete screendump.

      I'm glad you're enjoying your OS, now please leave people in peace to discuss their favourite little apps.
    6. Re:MS Paint by IndieKid · · Score: 1

      Yeah I agree, it's probably one of the most useful apps ever, but it could use a bit of an update. For example, the zooming functions aren't great, and I get annoyed when trying to make a selection of something that doesn't fit on the screen. I'm not suggesting anyone goes and adds extra bloat to Paint though, as that would disqualify it from being my favourite bloat-free application!

    7. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too true. I really liked paint - it's pretty much the only thing I miss on windows. I've been using paint for (I think, don't hold me to exact dates) about 13 years and in all that time i've never found anything to match it for the really simple image tasks which crop up from time to time. Now I have to use gimp - which is really hard in comparison and makes just making a really quick .jpeg more of a chore than it needs be

    8. Re:MS Paint by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      If you like MS Paint, try Paint.Net - much much better and almost just as light.

    9. Re:MS Paint by IndieKid · · Score: 1

      Err, what are you talking about?

      I said "I know it's a bit crap" which translates as "I know it is a bit crap", i.e. the correct usage.

    10. Re:MS Paint by operagost · · Score: 1

      The problem is, Paint doesn't crop. You have to paste in the screenshot, select the area you want, copy it, then open a NEW project and paste it in.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree:

      productivity = 1 / choices

      They researched for months to select the only 12 colours we'd *really* need out of 16 billion:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxx2KcPWWZg

    12. Re:MS Paint by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      OTT? We shall let the mods decide!
      Don't take it personally, I didn't mean you were a noob, but rather the mods.
      (Anymore the mods are on such crack which completely blocks their sarcasm receptors.)

      I'm glad you're enjoying your OS, now please leave people in peace to discuss their favourite little apps.
      I can see by your UID that you're new around here, and that's fine, but what would /. be without a little friendly mud-throwing?

      Besides, it's Friday, I feel good, and I'm gonna pick on Windows all day long!

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    13. Re:MS Paint by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

      But, MS Paint is not useable for what I need. Ever seen what it does to a screen shot that you try to save out as a GIF file? OMG, my eyes, my eyes! I use Paint Shop Pro for all my screen shot for documentation work. MS Paint, maybe be relatively small and simple, but it's CRAP, IMHO!

    14. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By real OS, you of course mean *NIX, right? I sincerely hope you don't mean that watered down POS that Apple runs on all its overpriced PC hardware.

    15. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. Enjoy your overpriced, bloated, largely closed, incredibly slow excuse for an OS. The only things OSX has going for it are that it looks pretty and is designed for use by the mentally challenged, just like Vista. Being an OSX zealot does not make you cool or indie.

      "Get yourself a real OS" indeed.

    16. Re:MS Paint by slackmaster2000 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It's the absolute worst program for use as a simple crop tool, seeing as how it has no crop feature whatsoever.

    17. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed.

      Almost none -- most were significantly improved. MS Paint has obviously not suffered from this affliction.

    18. Re:MS Paint by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed.


      I can't remember its name right now. Damn, what's that app called, the one that displays the BSOD?
      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    19. Re:MS Paint by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      By real OS, you of course mean *NIX, right? I sincerely hope you don't mean that watered down POS that Apple runs on all its overpriced PC hardware.
      You mean that watered down POS that is a full-on UNIX (and certified as such in Leopard)?
      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    20. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use the PNG file format. All the the BMP greatness with GIF like size.

    21. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. It's the absolute worst program for use as a simple crop tool, seeing as how it has no crop feature whatsoever. Which basically makes it the worst program for working with photos...ever.

      I don't understand GP's love of Paint. I always thought it was used exclusively by people who like to send a 30 KB JPEG to all their 50+ colleagues on a huge mailing list...as a 2 MB BMP.

      For the love of dogs, please use IrfanView for photos.
    22. Re:MS Paint by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
      How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed.

      Up until Vista, I'd say Freecell (what's up with allowing undo all the way to the beginning of the game? That takes the fun out of seeing how long you can go without losing).

    23. Re:MS Paint by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The actual workings and features have changed slightly over the years, but the interface is basically the same, and anybody who can turn on the computer can use it.

      Use it for what? Pathetic little drawings? Sure, anyone can use it for something entirely useless. Nobody can use it for anything worthwhile.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    24. Re:MS Paint by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      And that's from a Microsoft product!


      I thought they bought it from Wang.
      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    25. Re:MS Paint by Orestesx · · Score: 5, Funny

      HIM: "I really like MS Paint for screenshots."
      YOU: "MS Paint sucks. Buy a new computer so you can take screenshots more easily"

    26. Re:MS Paint by J0nne · · Score: 1

      That sucks, how do you even find out what the shortcuts are? I just press print screen, and Ubuntu asks me where it wants me to save the screenshot. Why complicate things?

    27. Re:MS Paint by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      That sucks, how do you even find out what the shortcuts are? I just press print screen, and Ubuntu asks me where it wants me to save the screenshot. Why complicate things?

      I really hate that about Ubuntu though! I much preferred Windows copying the screen to the clipboard and then being able to paste it where I want (typically Paint Shop Pro in them days). So now in Ubuntu I have to save the file somewhere and then re-open it... which is sooo much slower.

      (I still love Ubuntu though) :)

    28. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed. The actual workings and features have changed slightly over the years, but the interface is basically the same, and anybody who can turn on the computer can use it."

      Why, Solitaire of course!

    29. Re:MS Paint by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      "sound-recorder" (or whatever it is/was called) also defied any updates I think. That said, it was so incredibly pants, no one has *ever* used it more than once!!

    30. Re:MS Paint by Kaetemi · · Score: 1

      In Vista you can now zoom out with Paint. :)
      Also, they moved the color palette to the top of the window, changed the colors on the color palette, and you can Undo more than 3 actions.

      Sadly, there are quite a few bugs in the Vista version of Paint, and it has even crashed a few times. For example, left clicking zooms in and right clicking zooms out. Now, draw a line, and left click to zoom in and right click to zoom out. If you accidently are still holding down the left button while clicking the right button, the drawing of the line is permanently undone and you'll have to draw it again.

      --
      Kaetemi
    31. Re:MS Paint by Kaetemi · · Score: 1
      --
      Kaetemi
    32. Re:MS Paint by Draek · · Score: 1

      I too like MS Paint for simplicity, but I disagree that it is a "bit crap." How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed. The actual workings and features have changed slightly over the years, but the interface is basically the same, and anybody who can turn on the computer can use it. And that's from a Microsoft product! I would suggest that it may be one of the top ten most useful programs ever made, largely because of the simplicity of it.

      All that applies just as well to Notepad. It can be used to write software, webpages, quick letters (just switch the default font to Times or Palatino and send it to the printer), and more, all in a very small, light, and WINE-compatible package =D definitely Microsoft's best piece of software, IMNSHO.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    33. Re:MS Paint by gangien · · Score: 1

      How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed.

      solitaire?

    34. Re:MS Paint by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      If you like VLC you might like foobar2000. If you don't know it give it a try. If you do know it give it another try.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    35. Re:MS Paint by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Actually the better solution in Windows is Irfanview. Hit Print Screen, paste into Irfanview, do what you need (crop, blur etc...) Unless you want to actually draw on the image, Irfanview is great.

      Just checked the sizes. Irfanview is 446k, Paint is 335k... So Irfanview is 25% bigger, so I've rather shot myself in the foot there since this is about small apps... *sigh*

    36. Re:MS Paint by molo · · Score: 1

      Screenshots should be saved as PNGs. JPEGs make all the nice hard edges go away. And MSPaint does support saving to PNG now.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    37. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always just Alt+PrintScreen for just the active window instead of having to crop anything. /shrug

    38. Re:MS Paint by J0nne · · Score: 1

      The Gimp also has a screenshot feature, if you prefer it that way. (File > Acquire > screen Shot).

      And since we're talking about Linux, there's got to be a way to do it from the CLI too ;).

    39. Re:MS Paint by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you on freecell and the undo thing. I used to keep a text file of all the game #s I beat to see if I could eventually do them all (however many that may be).

    40. Re:MS Paint by podperson · · Score: 1

      It bugs me that notepad and ms paint are so terrible. Given that they're ubiquitous and useful, a paint program with selection tools that work nicely would be nice. And notepad can't edit large files. The first thing I do with a new Windows install is download a decent text editor (notepad++ say). Paint.NET isn't bad for free software, but it's bloated.

    41. Re:MS Paint by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      Use it for what? Pathetic little drawings? Sure, anyone can use it for something entirely useless. Nobody can use it for anything worthwhile.

      A ton of artists beg to differ. Try doing a search for MS Paint on youtube some time.

      How to draw a car in MS Paint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElrldD02if0
      An even better car done in MS Paint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUWqRhReaZk
      John Locke from Lost: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K_NQe57C-k&mode=re lated&search=

      And one of the best MS Paint jobs I've ever seen, the Mona Lisa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU&mode=re lated&search=
    42. Re:MS Paint by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Better than MS PAINT or Irfanview is something called Photoeditor. Yes it's an MS app, very small (for MS) and I think only came in MS Office XP. Brilliant for printscreen and alt-printscreen. Rotating centre wheel zooms, simple 'crop-copy-then paste' into any app you want. Fantastic if you write manuals.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    43. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed

      I always thought that they had just forgotten to take it out of the new releases and now didn't care anymore...

    44. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, there are command line utilities

    45. Re:MS Paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the version of Notepad found in Windows XP can edit large files.

  27. In the Windows world... by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

    In the Windows world, how about stuff made for U3 memory sticks?

    I'd say that PuTTY is also pretty utilitarian - does what it needs without any fancy installs or bloating - BRILLIANT!

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
    1. Re:In the Windows world... by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      www.portableapps.com is the same thing.

    2. Re:In the Windows world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Portable Apps tend to be smaller than U3 apps (version:version comparison).

    3. Re:In the Windows world... by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1


      OOh, that's cool. Thanks for the info.


      Of course I don't see Ultra Edit on the list yet, but it can't be ~that~ far between a U3 version and a PortableApps version.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
  28. Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Especially in an era of 500gb HDs and 2GB of RAM.

    My criteria are usability, utility, and functionality. For that reason iTunes is second on my list, with WinAMP all the way down at the bottom of 50. iPhoto recently shot up to #1 due to it's Web Gallery feature: Select an event, publish, and then edit the gallery at your leisure. The gallery is updated on the website "behind the scenes", so you never need to synchronize or revisit it, it's all done automatically.

    iTunes is high on that list for a similar reason. Set up a few "Smart Playlists", and music is automatically added or removed from my queue as necessary depending on playcount, on ranking, on genre, or new additions. I never need to do anything except insert a CD, vote up or down my like of any particular song at the moment, or plug in my iPod.

    Gives me more time to do other things... like rollerblading, taking pictures, or talking to people.

    1. Re:Weird criteria by nomadic · · Score: 1

      iTunes is high on that list for a similar reason. Set up a few "Smart Playlists", and music is automatically added or removed from my queue as necessary depending on playcount, on ranking, on genre, or new additions. I never need to do anything except insert a CD, vote up or down my like of any particular song at the moment, or plug in my iPod.

      iTunes would be near the top of my list if it supported nesting.

    2. Re:Weird criteria by Synesthesiatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      iTunes is great if your music collection is well-tagged and well-organized. However, the average user has a bunch of crap downloaded from Kazaa that they've just thrown into folders for makeshift playlists. If they want to correct the metadata, they rename the file. Meaning the actual tags are less accurate than the filename. For these people iTunes is a huge, confusing hassle and most people I've setup with iPods would be happier with the option to drag-and-drop through Explorer. Few people take the time to properly tag their files.

    3. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTunes would be near the top of my list if it supported nesting.

      Except that it does.

      When creating a Smart Playlist, choose filter criteria Playlist -> Is -> *whatever other [smart] playlist*

    4. Re:Weird criteria by kryptkpr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I must respectfully disagree.

      I absolutely abhor the iTunes interface. It is 2nd last on my list of good music management programs, one small notch above Music Match Jukebox. Seemingly simple tasks like copying music from your hard drive to your mp3 player have to be done in roundabout ways which for some reason involve playlists. I gave up after half an hour and just installed RockBox on my Nano so I could be free from it's horrors.

      I would imagine that iTunes is great for the casual user that doesn't need nor want much MANUAL control over their music library, but for more advanced users the non-standard UI (on Windows) and strange "simplified" ways of doing simple things make it near useless.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    5. Re:Weird criteria by interiot · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, there are taggers out there (like the GPL'd EasyTag) that can scrape the information from the filename and put it in the tags (and others can do much more).

    6. Re:Weird criteria by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seemingly simple tasks like copying music from your hard drive to your mp3 player have to be done in roundabout ways which for some reason involve playlists.

      Hmmm. I don't have any playlists in iTunes (I prefer dealing with albums), and I have zero problems with simply dragging an album (or other batch of songs) onto my iPod in the pane on the left. I guess that's too difficult and "roundabout" for some people, though...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    7. Re:Weird criteria by bcguitar33 · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, I think you may have been using an old version of itunes or something. I'm no great fan of apple, and I've only had an ipod & itunes the last couple of years or so, but I've never had any problem dragging and dropping songs directly from my library to my ipod. I never had to do any playing around with playlists or any such; the itunes interface seemed to work just as well (ok, it's laggier) than the 3rd party ipod management utilities I've used. Perhaps you're thinking of burning CDs from your music in itunes? That indeed does require some annoying playlist nonsense.

    8. Re:Weird criteria by ConanG · · Score: 1

      How can you call iTunes highly functional compared to Winamp??? Winamp supports playback of far more audio and video formats than iTunes.

    9. Re:Weird criteria by truesaer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Even with 2GB of memory my system still feels sluggish, because everyone in the world thinks their software needs to run as a service or have some persistent background process eating up memory. 5-10MB of memory times a zillion apps and suddenly your computer is slow.


      Why does iTunes have to have like 3 services running on my computer at all times? Its absurd. iTunes is not user friendly either, it just seems that way because other media players are even worse.

    10. Re:Weird criteria by mindaktiviti · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Meta-tags are a huge time-consumer. Applications like iTunes (and the iPod itself), and anything where you have to associate keywords or ranking with your media files can be endless hours in front of your computer, getting it "just right" for your own tastes.

      I recall when I first bought an iPod I spent countless hours tweaking the id3 tags, instead of you know...talking to people. ;)

      Winamp, VLC, IrfanView, Scite, 7Zip ...are my picks. Simple programs that do their function and do it well.

      Oh, and programs that do have huge footprints that I think are great: Photoshop, Firefox, MS Access, SoundForge

    11. Re:Weird criteria by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. I don't know where people find the time to organize everything. I just want an interface that lets me drag a whole bunch of stuff from one place to another, organized or not.

      I have four laptops, each with multiple OS's, and I don't want to screw around with one program that tries to organize everything on "My Computer". "My Computer" doesn't exist as a single entity.

      I don't want playlists, I don't want fifteen different "My Music" libraries on my computer that each store music files their own way.

      I like ripping CD's with Windows Media Player which you can configure to rip each album to its own folder. That's easy, simple, and the whole catalog can be moved quickly.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    12. Re:Weird criteria by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Bloat is usually defined as resources used without adding useful features, rather than the original poster's minimum RAM and disk usage. I prefer Vim to Vi because a lot of the extra size of Vim provides features I actually use (syntax highlighting, folding, etc). I use LaTeX over plain TeX, because I find the semantic markup helpful. I use iTunes over VLC for music because I like the way it manages playlists.

      Some code is just bloated, but most of the author's examples are not in that category.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Weird criteria by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that a lot of geeks have preconceived notions of how to do things. What a geek thinks is simple is often incomprehensible to anyone else.

      I think manually managing things is really a big waste of time. I just use smart playlists to rotate what's on the player.

    14. Re:Weird criteria by Mattintosh · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Seemingly simple tasks like copying music from your hard drive to your mp3 player have to be done in roundabout ways

      Yeah. Like plugging in said mp3 player. Pshaw. Who ever does that?

      Maybe if you spent less time fighting the software and let it do its job, you'd have better success. In short, PEBKAC.

    15. Re:Weird criteria by nomadic · · Score: 1

      When creating a Smart Playlist, choose filter criteria Playlist -> Is -> *whatever other [smart] playlist

      Doesn't that just stick all the songs in those playlists into the smart playlist you're creating? That's not nesting, that's still a big undifferentiated mass of songs.

      What I want is to be able to group albums by genre, subgenre if I want. Click on classical, and it brings up a list of sub-genres. Click on baroque, it brings up a listing of composers. Click on the composer, it brings up a list of albums.

    16. Re:Weird criteria by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not likely.

      iTunes will play any file that Quicktime will play. And most not-already-supported-out-of-the-box codecs have a QT plugin. Which iTunes will inherit. And play.

      Or did you mean the bastard version on Windows? 'Cause that's not the real iTunes. It's the bastard Windows version that has stripped down, just-enough-to-make-the-iPod-work-and-play-a-few-f ormats functionality. Apple should've named it wTunes or something, just to make it clear that it's not the real deal.

      iTunes is awesome. iTunes for Windows sucks balls. So which one are you comparing to Winamp? 'Cause I'm pretty sure Winamp falls between the two in functionality and probably just barely behind iTfW in usability.

    17. Re:Weird criteria by cshay · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I added a bunch of mp3 files to my girlfriends PC. iTunes noticed this and added it to her playlists. She told me to get that crap off of there, so I went back to the file system and dleted it all. Did iTunes sync up and delete these items frm the playlists... nooooo. Boy was my gf pissed at me. I ended up having to use some freeware utility to go in and clean out the playlist entries pointing to the non-existant files. LAME!

    18. Re:Weird criteria by fm6 · · Score: 1

      By "casual", I guess you mean "somebody who never uses a computer". Because iTunes' UI idioms are so idiosyncratic, anything you know about interacting with your computer is useless. The first time I used iTunes, I wanted to download some TV shows from the Apple store and play them. Took me a half hour to figure out how to control playback.

      And my time and four bucks was wasted, because the version of Quicktime you need to run iTunes has audio sync issues on every computer I've tried to run it on.

      But back to usability: as I see it, UI designers pay too damn much attention to looking kewl and providing skinability. (Especially multimedia software, a trend that seems to have been started by Winamp.) The original idea behind GUIs was to provide a consistent user interface so people wouldn't have to learn all the interaction idioms from scratch every time they start using new software. I guess "usability standards compliance" is not terribly interesting to creative types.

    19. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have zero problems with simply dragging an album (or other batch of songs) onto my iPod in the pane on the left. I guess that's too difficult and "roundabout" for some people, though

      It was too difficult for me. I spent probably 12 hours over three days trying to figure out how to do that. I searched with Google and everything. You can mock me if you want, but I'm the computer guru at work and among all my friends, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. At a party the next weekend, I asked a friend and they told me how to do it. Stupid "easy to use" GUIs.

    20. Re:Weird criteria by juuri · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would imagine that iTunes is great for the casual user that doesn't need nor want much MANUAL control over their music library

      Give it up!

      Manual control of the library was great, when it was actually needed back in the 90s. What on Earth do people honestly believe they still need manual control for? To find the files? They are placed in a very logical structure. For splitting a huge library across mulitlpe locations? Use symlinks.

      Bitching about needing manual control is like bitching about your car having an electric starter. It's quant... and sad at the same time.

      I've never quite understood the tech luddites on /. it's like they learn *one* way to do something and will fight until they die to only do it that way because it most obviously has to be the best.

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    21. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and programs that do have huge footprints that I think are great: Photoshop, Firefox, MS Access, SoundForge I think you need your head examined if you think Access is "great".
    22. Re:Weird criteria by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      iTunes is a direct port of the Mac iTunes. It uses the same idioms as other Mac applications. They may be different than window's idioms, but they are actually often more logical. The key is not to assume the usual Windows idioms apply. But if you have used Macs iTunes should be highly intuitive.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    23. Re:Weird criteria by v01d · · Score: 1

      Manual control of the library was great, when it was actually needed back in the 90s. What on Earth do people honestly believe they still need manual control for?

      Well, I have around 40GB of music and would like it to be accessible for my wife and I whether we're using Windows, Mac or Solaris. Letting iTunes organize things makes that impossible. An NFS/Samba share containing all the music is much more easily managed.

      I've never quite understood the tech luddites on /. it's like they learn *one* way to do something and will fight until they die to only do it that way because it most obviously has to be the best.

      It's even sadder when their one way of doing something just happens to be the one way Apple told them.

    24. Re:Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Functions are more than formats. I named functions of iTunes. iTunes is as extensible as WinAmp, so if there is a format you wish, you need merely acquire the correct codec. Just like, with WinAmp, you need to download plugins in order to extend it's functions that iTunes does automatically.

    25. Re:Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Weird, again.

      iTunes has ripped music to it's own folder since v1 in 2001. Organization happens automatically, with iTunes. The interface doesn't allow you to drag and drop because it assumes it will copy everything onto your music player (unless you have more music than player, then other rules kick in).

      So it's literally designed to be "plug and play", not "drag and drop".

    26. Re:Weird criteria by eMbry00s · · Score: 1

      Gives me more time to do other things... like rollerblading, taking pictures, or talking to people.
      Or making huge lists of software sorted by usability.

      Or making apple commercials on slashdot.
    27. Re:Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      You should have used iTunes to delete the files, then.

    28. Re:Weird criteria by ALpaca2500 · · Score: 1

      Well, the "browse" function does this to a degree; it doesn't do "sub-genre", I don't recall there being a sub-genre ID3 tag...

    29. Re:Weird criteria by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that iTunes is great for the casual user that doesn't need nor want much MANUAL control over their music library, but for more advanced users the non-standard UI (on Windows) and strange "simplified" ways of doing simple things make it near useless.

      Hmmmm .... thankfully, we all get to have our own opinions.

      My music collection lives on a FreeBSD network share, gets ripped by lame, mounted by Samba, and manually added to my music collection in iTunes with a 5 second "add folder to library" command with an option to recurse. From there I can add tunes to my Nano with a simple click of a button.

      My music library is entirely manually controlled and maintained. Once it's in MP3 format and mounted over the network drive, it's then nice and simple to work with in iTunes from a completely separate machine.

      Really, it's not that difficult (or, you have really funky stuff you're doing to your music).

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    30. Re:Weird criteria by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the Windows version, but iTunes (on MacOS 10.4.8) seriously sucks, or at least it is horribly documented at best.

      I use a Mac at work, and I started bringing in music. iTunes didn't even recognize the files as music; it didn't know what to do.

      I finally figured out what was wrong: iTunes for MacOS doesn't know how to handle Vorbis files! In 2007, still no Vorbis?! Fortunately, I poked around the net and found a plugin that sort of worked.

      But it only sort of worked, and it fails to detect track numbers (so albums would play out of order) and every once in a while it just flakes out and sucks 100% CPU without doing anything. While I don't really blame Apple for someone else's plugin flakiness, it is a pretty shocking oversight for a plugin to be needed at all. At least if it were proprietary, I would understand how they could omit one of the top audio codecs, but Vorbis is free. There's just no excuse.

      Oh, and the UI is confusing.

      I switched to Cog. Cog just works, never blows my mind with some kind of weird stubborn defects, has an easy-to-understand UI, and makes iTunes look like some kind of Microsoft atrocity by comparison.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    31. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives me more time to do other things... like rollerblading, taking pictures, or talking to people.

      Or apparently verbally fellating your own iPenis Nano on Slashdot.

    32. Re:Weird criteria by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      Weirdo. What's wrong with Winamp? I want to play a song -- I click "open", and I've now got a window where everything is alphabetized so it takes me about three seconds to find the song I want. Then it plays. How much more "utility" or "functionality" do I need here? How much faster could this possibly get?

      Forgive me for not wanting a huge-ass iTunes window open, replete with all kinds of fancy-schmancy graphical crap and worthless menus. I don't need the program to calculate what songs I like based on inane vote-up-vote-down criteria which is as much a mood and whim thing than anything else. I can decide for myself what I want to listen to. Plus, if I'm listening to music, I'm probably doing something else at the moment too; the last thing I need is to constantly switch back to another window to give a yay or nay to a song so some idiotic program can decide for me if I like it.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    33. Re:Weird criteria by localman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is an interesting thing with much Apples software... you have to trust it and follow its lead. As a programmer and former LInux user, you can imagine this was hard for me at first. I struggled against the Apple software and it fought back. But at some point I decided to just give myself over to the world of Steve (a little like surrendering your life to Jesus, I suppose), and I must admit that you're right: it is better. Most of the things that I was frustrated I couldn't do well in iTunes, for example, was because I didn't need to do them at all. Like managing folders, something many of my non-iTunes friends still futz around with. I haven't even thought about organization of my music or images in years now. iTunes and iPhoto are really just amazing file browsers for those tasks, leaving the finder and the command line in the dust. It was hard to trust, but now I trust, and it is good.

      And I still use vim as my text editor of choice :)

      Cheers.

    34. Re:Weird criteria by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Especially in an era of 500gb HDs and 2GB of RAM.

      My criteria are usability, utility, and functionality.
      Except that memory footprint is not unconnected with your criteria. Bloated software is slower to load, more complicated to use, and a pain to maintain. Worst of all, it tends to have lots of bugs caused by feature creep and conflict between its many modules.

      Now, it's perfectly true that a good software team can produce a big application that's well planned so that these problems don't occur. But there aren't that many really good software teams out there, so you can usually see an inverse correlation between footprint and overall quality.

      Of course, "tiny app" enthusiasts go beyond eliminating bloat; they're in love with the challenge of eliminating extra bytes just for its own sake. But even their work adds a lot utility, especially if you're the kind of user who prefers obscure command line idioms and considers GUIs too clumsy.

      iTunes is high on that list for a similar reason. Set up a few "Smart Playlists", and music is automatically added or removed from my queue as necessary depending on playcount, on ranking, on genre, or new additions.
      Well, yeah, if like this specific feature, and don't want to decide for yourself exactly what you're going to listen to, iTunes is nice. But the very design philosophy that suits you drives me up the wall.

      I only run iTunes because I bought an iPod Shuffle for my mother. She's old and out of it, and needs an mp3 player that it isn't complicated to use. I just want to stuff her Shuffle with audio books and podcasts I know she'll enjoy. The way both iTunes and the Shuffle second-guess everything I do makes this absurdly complicated.

      I guess it's really not fair to call iTunes "bloated". It doesn't actually have any features that aren't useful to its intended audience. It's just that many of those features have complex, undocumented subtleties that are welcomed by people who like the way they work but are a pain in the ass to those of us who just want the software to do what we tell it to.
    35. Re:Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Nothing is wrong with Winamp, it just doesn't do what I need, right?

      And in iTunes the same functionality you want exists, so in that regards iTunes is a superset of Winamp. In fact it's even faster: If I type the first three letters of the song name I want, I am presented with, usually, less than 10 songs to choose from. Since I can type about 100 words per minute, that means I can actually find the song I want in less than a second.

    36. Re:Weird criteria by GauteL · · Score: 0

      "I would imagine that iTunes is great for the casual user that doesn't need nor want much MANUAL control over their music library, but for more advanced users the non-standard UI (on Windows) and strange "simplified" ways of doing simple things make it near useless."

      I'm sorry, but this is yet again the fallacy of the "advanced user" which is used just to make those users feel superiour. You might as well use "anal retentive" user and say that iTunes is useless for those "anal retentive" users that are set in their mindset about music applications and don't care to get used to a different way.

      I'm not even saying that iTunes is superiour, but it is clearly not "near useless". It is simply "different", and it is completely understandable if someone doesn't like it. I do, however, object to you making your own opinion more important by labelling yourself an "advanced user".

    37. Re:Weird criteria by Myopic · · Score: 1

      First, let me say that it makes me angry that I can't drag music from my hard drive right into a folder on my iPod and have it be available.

      But, let me ask you what kind of iTunes do you use anyway? When I have a music file on my hard drive and want it on my iPod, I drag it onto the iPod icon in iTunes, and it is copies there. I don't use any playlists for that, and the file never has to be in the iTunes Library at all. That is about a half a degree more difficult than dragging it to the iPod icon on the desktop. It's still an icon which represents my iPod, it's just in a different place. You couldn't figure that out?

    38. Re:Weird criteria by kryptkpr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Organization happens automatically, with iTunes.

      I think you've really hit the nail on the head here. I believe this to be the main reason why myself and others like me (I see a few in this thread) loathe it. I want to be able to organize my music myself in a way that makes sense to me (and often, only me).

      I don't consider this to be a waste of time at all, as I enjoy the occasional walk through my library to add new music or re-discover old favorites.

      In the end, I think to each his own. iTunes is simply not for everyone and neither is any other piece of software, be it made by Apple or not.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    39. Re:Weird criteria by Verte · · Score: 1
      two things:
      1. iTunes has some nice features for navigating via metadata tags, but manages to fall short of working like a real relational database. So, if there are other criterion you need to organise music to, for whatever reason, you're out of luck. [Try to find me a baroque/classical/romantic fan who manages to access all their music through iTunes!] OTOH, a file system is a good abstraction that, if kept in order, can be manipulated at will.
      2. Though the majority of what you do with your music on your computer is listen to it and move it to your portable music player, that is not the only thing. Others have pointed out the horror of trying to use iTunes with non-persistent distributed music libraries, consider how this is compounded with limited disk space, hence caching out music to removable media. Or how about other programs that need to interact with your media files?
      I'm over re-synching libraries and broken links.
      --
      We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
    40. Re:Weird criteria by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      iTunes is a direct port of the Mac iTunes. It uses the same idioms as other Mac applications.

      I am a Windows user at home and a Linux (both KDE and Gnome) user at work. iTunes was the first piece of Apple software I ever tried to use, and my experience was a disaster.

      The key is not to assume the usual Windows idioms apply.

      Why not? I'm still using Windows, aren't I? iTunes looks and acts like no other program I've ever seen on any platform (except Apple's own). Should the user interface idioms of a foreign platform really be shoved down my throat, just so I can copy files to an MP3 player?

      Don't even get me started on giving all my songs 6-character filenames and putting them in a hidden folder on the target file system ...

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    41. Re:Weird criteria by garnetlion · · Score: 1

      Seriously! I hate that! Why does every damn program have to start at boot these days?

      When I was still running Windows, msconfig was my best friend. Some programs will detect that they've been told not to start at boot, and will change the settings back. Then it gets uninstalled.

    42. Re:Weird criteria by FigTree · · Score: 1

      And last I checked all that happens is the playlist entries stay... and you can just delete those like you would if the files were still on the computer.

    43. Re:Weird criteria by FigTree · · Score: 1

      If you turn off the option that makes iTunes copy it's files to its own library and then drag the shared folder into it it should work.

    44. Re:Weird criteria by philipgar · · Score: 1

      I don't blame apple for not supporting ogg/vorbis out of the box. Just because ogg/vorbis is free, does not mean it is free for apple to include. Sure they could include a free implementation with iTunes, but they would still have to worry about patent trolls suing them. You might think that ogg/vorbis isn't patent encumbered, and I don't think anyones tried suing them, but just wait until a big company decides to use it. If some troll thinks they can make millions off it, they will, which is why they haven't gone after the format yet.

      From apple's perspective, does it make sense to take this risk? They can license mp3 and aac playback, and the risks are relatively known, and who owns the patents is somewhat well defined. Businesses like known expenses, and don't like risking lawsuits. Especially taking such a risk for a feature that few people want/need, and of those that need it fewer want to use a commercial product like iTunes anyhow.

      Phil

    45. Re:Weird criteria by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I've actually used Macs. And you're right, the user interface idioms are a lot different. But I can usually figure out stuff like controlling sort order or repositioning the playback indicator — which I find a lot less obvious in iTunes.

    46. Re:Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      I didn't say, "Delete the playlist entries", I said, "Delete the files". From the library you can actually select and delete the files.

    47. Re:Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I misread your post.

      What playlist entries are you talking about? If it's a Smart Playlist, those entries automatically go away when the files go away. Otherwise... if it isn't a smart playlist, you have to manually add or delete files to the playlist.

    48. Re:Weird criteria by ConanG · · Score: 1

      Of course I was refering to the Windows version. What would be the point of comparing two pieces of software on two different OSes? For the record, I use iTunes on my Macbok Pro and Winamp on my Windows machine. Nothing beats iTunes on Mac (yet), but iTunes on Windows is absolute crap.

    49. Re:Weird criteria by Scaba · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I added a bunch of mp3 files to my girlfriends PC.

      Now I know you're lying.

    50. Re:Weird criteria by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      Apple has their own software style.

      On Windows, your software is your babysitter. It prevents you from getting into trouble (poorly), and tries to keep you from breaking things, and limits you in what you can do. It's like having an appliance with gymnastics padding all over it and every sharp corner rounded off. Sure, it'll do the job, but usually not very well.

      On Linux, your software is your toolbox. It consists of a lot of small, simple tools that do one thing and do it well. This is quite useful, especially when coming from babysitter-land (Windows), and you tend to get used to having absolute control. Unfortunately, this leads to an inflexible mindset about software. You'll see why in a moment...

      In Apple's products, the system's software (not yours, really) is geared toward automation. The system brings itself to a stable, usable state, then attempts to maintain that stability and usability at all costs. Even when those costs conflict with your wishes.

      iTunes is an example of this. You wish to have control over where files are stored, and you wish to use the toolset you learned in Linux. But iTunes uses those tools and many others in combinations that you probably haven't dreamed of. It uses them to automate the final expected result: a managed set of media files that you can organize and access with minimal fuss. It does this very well. Unfortunately, it does this its own way and expects you to only care about the final result. It's sort of a "the end justifies the means" viewpoint. If you can't get over the means, the end isn't going to please you either.

      To geeks and nerds, this is a bad thing. Windows is a pain, and we all know it. But Linux is good, right? But wait, Apple takes software design to the next level by not only providing the tools to do real work, but also by creating more tools that automate huge chunks of stuff. Linux gives us our tools, Apple takes them away, hides them, and uses them to replace us with a seemingly-bloated piece of automation software. It scaressss ussss it doessss. We've been replaced by a very large binary with a GUI. All those feebs we've threatened with obsolescence in the past, all those shell scripts we've written to replace the meat-bots, all of that will come back upon us in the end! Bad! Bad Apple!

      You can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. (No, my proposal is not acceptable.)

    51. Re:Weird criteria by Nevyn · · Score: 1

      My criteria are usability, utility, and functionality.
      Except that memory footprint is not unconnected with your criteria. Bloated software is slower to load, more complicated to use, and a pain to maintain. Worst of all, it tends to have lots of bugs caused by feature creep and conflict between its many modules.
      [...]
      Of course, "tiny app" enthusiasts go beyond eliminating bloat; they're in love with the challenge of eliminating extra bytes just for its own sake. But even their work adds a lot utility, especially if you're the kind of user who prefers obscure command line idioms and considers GUIs too clumsy.

      Right, when something is "too bloated" I'd just mark it down as unusable, or at least less usable. One of the big problems I see is that the "tiny app" people tend to produce unusable crap, and then think they've done something useful because it's only 2K or whatever.

      Dietlibc is a good example, as with most people I'd be very happy with an alternative to GLibc esp. if that was smaller and faster for "simple" apps. (Ie. non-threaded, not using expensive interfaces like POSIX aio etc.) ... but dietlibc is an exercise in how badly they can reimplement the C std. library and get away with it (but, hey, it's small). The result is completely useless.

      This generally results in me (and I suspect a lot of other people) not talking about "bloated" at all anymore, as I don't want to be associated with the "tiny app." nut jobs, even though minimal size (but no smaller) is something I strive for in my code.

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    52. Re:Weird criteria by legirons · · Score: 1

      for example, how do you burn a playlist to CD as MP3 files? itunes seems to insist on burning an audio CD

      being able to export the playlist to a directory would be a good start...

    53. Re:Weird criteria by legirons · · Score: 1

      Even with 2GB of memory my system still feels sluggish, because everyone in the world thinks their software needs to run as a service or have some persistent background process eating up memory.

      For fun, try using a brand new Dell computer. It comes preloaded with about a thousand types of program who paid to be on the default install, and every one of them has its own little "update" program connecting to the net and popping-up messages to tell you that it wants to install stuff.

      So Java, Acrobat Reader, Roxio CD creator, InstallShield, the various drivers, and a load of "me too" programs each have completely separate update mechanisms. (of course, this is in addition to the 35 types of balloon-popup that Windows displays at every opportunity...)

    54. Re:Weird criteria by hey! · · Score: 1

      For the same reason that Palm's Hotsynch or Microsoft's ActiveSync automatically runs in the background. iTunes is primarily a system to manage a large, heterogeneous collection of data on a mobile device that is occasionally connected. As such comparisons to WinAmp are misleading.

      Now it would be nice if makers of operating systems provided for serial devices something that worked like inetd for TCP/IP port connections. When you connected a device to USB you could select a program to be launched. They're sort of doing that now with digital cameras but it's kludgy.

      There are other common services that could be improved by providing a standard mechanism in the OS. One of them is phoning home to check for updates. Sometimes this is done by installing a daemon (very wasteful), other times this is done by checking in when the user launches the program (Acrobat can be really annoying this way).

      The real problem is a kind of tragedy of the commons. Every vendor wants to draw attention to his product, and litters the user's system with background processes, responses to user actions the user doesn't want, and launch mechanisms. People don't want to learn to use a special utility to play with their video card settings; they manufacturers would do better to use the OS facilities and provide registry or configuration file documentation for the very few users who want to tweak non-standard settings. Vendors of network cards would do well to do the same. Half the reason it's more pleasant to use Linux than Windows (once you get it working) is that that vendors don't bother "adding value" -- although if they provided drivers it would be nice.

      Everybody wants a slice of user attention, and the result is the same as if vendors behaved themselves and let the OS developers do their jobs.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    55. Re:Weird criteria by crustymonkey · · Score: 1

      iTunes is ok if you don't have a lot of music. I have over 400GB of mp3s and it's completely and utterly unusable if you try and use it's built in library functionality. Incidentally, I think I figured out why this is, it seems to store all the library info in an XML file. On the contrary, I use Amarok on my linux boxes because I, as well, like features and functionality. Using sqlite as the backend, I can access anything in less than a second with no real performance hit (at the time). Try having iTunes search through 80,000+ songs. Good fscking luck.

      --
      \033:wq!
    56. Re:Weird criteria by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      You've been able to disable the "auto organize" feature since either version 2 or 3. At this point I believe it comes with it off by default, or it asks you at install time or something.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    57. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why does iTunes have to have like 3 services running on my computer at all times?

      It doesn't. Kill them. Problem solved.

      Seriously, though, if something adds a background service, you disable it and see if the program stops working. If it still runs, bam, you just eliminated one useless service.

      Don't bend over and take their shit. Stop those services if they bug you!

    58. Re:Weird criteria by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      for example, how do you burn a playlist to CD as MP3 files?

      Preferences > Advanced > Burning > Disc Format: MP3 CD Tough stuff...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    59. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess with the $$ to afford that kind of rig, it's great to be you (and, you seem to know it). --AC

    60. Re:Weird criteria by lkeagle · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never had a shared music library that needs to be accessed outside of iTunes.

      The missing point here is that not everyone uses iTunes. Once iTunes takes over your music library, you've lost the ability to organize your music based on your specifications. If you ever decide to switch to another music player, or heaven forbid, put your music on a device other than an iPod, you now have to rebuild your layout how you like it. Luckily there are some tools available to organize your filesystem based on MP3 tags, but they don't work for everything.

      All I want from Apple is the ability to specify multiple libraries in various locations, and to have the ability to switch off iTunes organizational capabilities at the library level. If I have all my media on a media server, I don't want iTunes to touch the layout of the files on that server.

      On another note, I want iTunes to actually alter the MP3 tags when I change song information, rather than simply altering the data in the XML library file.

    61. Re:Weird criteria by improfane · · Score: 1

      What the hell?

      Music tracks are files to me. I want to put the files onto the iPod. Other MP3 players expose the space as a removable drive. Like a CD player or a casette player or a VCR. iTunes wants me to import it into its SOFTWARE to put files onto the player. My library is a music folder on my audio partition. I do not need another library.

      It's like people who prefer manual gearboxes to automatic. You have your way, I have mine. It's like having a tape that wants to you to 'install' your tapes to your VCR before you can play them. It's absurd. I'd rather store tapes on a bookshelf. Manually.

      There is no PEBKAC. In short, you do not understand.

      --
      Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    62. Re:Weird criteria by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      I don't really like Access that much, but the only "competitor" that I know of for it is OpenOffice Base, which is essentially a clone of it.

      Like it or not, Access is an excellent tool for creating simple databases with GUIs.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    63. Re:Weird criteria by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      So when you boot iTunes for the first time and it asks, "do you want to manage your music manually, or have iTunes manage it for you?" answer "manually." I mean, cripes, why complain about something that's just a checkbox in the preferences dialog and that iTunes actually specifically ASKS you about when you first start it up?

    64. Re:Weird criteria by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Well, I have around 40GB of music and would like it to be accessible for my wife and I whether we're using Windows, Mac or Solaris. Letting iTunes organize things makes that impossible.

      How so?

      An NFS/Samba share containing all the music is much more easily managed.

      So tell iTunes to store the library there. How does that prevent Windows or Solaris from using it? Alternatively, if you're super picky about folder structure, tell iTunes to use the files located there but not enforce its own organization. (It still keeps its own organization in its XML file, but it won't move anything in the filesystem.)

      It sounds to me you just don't know how to use iTunes.

    65. Re:Weird criteria by ducman · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to be rude, but have you ever used iTunes?

      you've lost the ability to organize your music based on your specifications

      In the "Advanced" section of the preferences window is a checkbox called "Keep iTunes Music folder organized." If you uncheck that, iTunes won't move or rename anything.

      All I want from Apple is the ability to specify multiple libraries in various locations

      On the Mac, hold down the option key while iTunes is starting up and you'll get a dialog box that lets you create a new library or choose an existing one. You can have as many libraries as you want. I'm sure there's a way to do the same thing in Windows.

      If I have all my media on a media server, I don't want iTunes to touch the layout of the files on that server.

      I have all my music on a file server, and four different computers access that music. Each one can update tags, but none of them mess with the layout.

      --
      "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
    66. Re:Weird criteria by BigFlirt · · Score: 1

      Sorry... I couldn't help myself: http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1560413&vid=15096 8

    67. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah; you should use the ITunes Library Updater.

      On MacOS, iTunes has a farily extensive AppleScript support, in the Windows world it actually sports all the same in COM interfaces (which is the Windows standard way for this sort of thing.)

      This program can do two things - one, scan your iTunes library looking for tracks that don't physically exist any more and remove the entries in iTunes (which should fix your situation), and two, scan a directory structure adding songs in that directory to iTunes if they're not already registered there.

    68. Re:Weird criteria by arikol · · Score: 1

      The search field in most media libraries should do nicely.

      In iTunes type in search field "Rock Slipknot" and you should have something (depending on musical taste, obviously...).
      If you want genre and sub-genre you should be able to do that by listing them both in the Genre id3 field, such as "rock backbeat" then when you search you can get all "rock" or just "rock backbeat", also when you sort by genre it gets ordered into groups of sub genres.

      In iTunes it works using the search field, in winamp (the only program I sortof miss from PC, although I am finding that I can do everything I used to do in iTunes, usually simpler. Winamp is a good way around the spreadsheet like design of windows....) you can have the refine field also, making more criteria even easier.

      Oh, and smart playlists are rather nice for playing groupings of stuff you like, simple enough so it can be used in real life use and powerful and tweakable enough for most of us geeks :)

    69. Re:Weird criteria by FigTree · · Score: 1

      The way it worked last I checked was that iTunes didn't check to see if the file referenced existed until it tried to play. If it didn't exist it would grey out and had a question mark by it. I think I just meant library entries. It's been awhile since I seriously used iTunes though as I haven't been listening to music much recently and before I got my new MBP I was running Slackintosh on my 12" PowerBook...

    70. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like people who prefer manual gearboxes to automatic. You have your way, I have mine.
      well then dont buy a card with a automatic transmission and then whinge about how it's not manual, you fucktard.
    71. Re:Weird criteria by v01d · · Score: 1

      How so?

      Because a lot of the info iTunes requires is stored in XML files which is not safe for concurrent use. If I'm using iTunes on my Windows machine and my wife is using iTunes on a Mac both pointed to the same share they conflict. Like songs being listed several times or not at all. If I rip a CD my wife won't see the songs. There are countless examples problems doing this. Try it sometime, or check with google if you don't believe me.

      So tell iTunes to store the library there. How does that prevent Windows or Solaris from using it? Alternatively, if you're super picky about folder structure, tell iTunes to use the files located there but not enforce its own organization.

      Multiple itunes can't use the same share at the same time. Yes, Solaris can read the files just fine using XMMS. That's part of my point. XMMS/Winamp don't organize the files they just read what's there and they always work.

      I was responding to a post saying people don't need to organize their files and they should just let iTunes do it, now you're telling me to not let itunes organize things. Thanks for the tip.

      It sounds to me you just don't know how to use iTunes.

      It sounds to me like you're an arrogant prick. I have three machines i routinely use iTunes on. I know how to make iTunes not oganize my music. Have you tried to make multiple iTunes to use a common share for music? I'm guessing not. So try it, then try setting up a share for use by xmms and winamp.

    72. Re:Weird criteria by winphreak · · Score: 1

      While you are right about kazaa/limewire rips, most of the stuff on BitTorrent is already tagged when put together. Even the album art works by default on iTunes. This is thanks to the effort of the creator.

      --
      "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
    73. Re:Weird criteria by Slashdiddly · · Score: 1

      I think you've really hit the nail on the head here. I believe this to be the main reason why myself and others like me (I see a few in this thread) loathe it. I want to be able to organize my music myself in a way that makes sense to me (and often, only me).

      You must really hate file systems then. Do you have any idea which set of clusters did it put your song? It's an organizer's nightmare, I tell you.

      iTunes is a database. You can use a database, or you can use plain text files. You can anything you want with either, even if it makes sense to nobody but you.

    74. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely off topic, but I wanted to tell kryptkpr that the link in his sig no longer works (if it ever did?)

      I think I managed to find you here:

      http://www.soundclick.com/djkrypt

      Which soundlcick then redirects to:

      http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pageartist.cfm?ban dID=97487

      Hope that helps ... Haven't checked the tunes out yet ... hopefully they were worth the effort :)

    75. Re:Weird criteria by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Mod this people up!

      I will never get it why Microsoft didn't bother to create simple yet effective single update mechanism until now. Program updates was already a nightmare in Windows 98/98SE. Yes, everyone wants to have seperate installer, bloat, ads for PR sake, but come on, such bloat and distraction only drives people away from apps.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    76. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scotty the watchdog can help you disable these. Also, a very nice and useful lightweight program.
      http://www.winpatrol.com/

    77. Re:Weird criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall when I first bought an iPod I spent countless hours tweaking the id3 tags, instead of you know...talking to people. ;) +5, Insightful
    78. Re:Weird criteria by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The part that's confusing me is that if you set iTunes to NOT organize your music, won't each version of iTunes have its own XML file? My laptop and desktop are set up that way; each has their own XML file, and so there's no conflicts. (Of course, one's a Mac and one's a PC, I don't know if that makes a difference.)

      Oh well, I'm not trying to be an "arrogant prick." I have the same setup as you and it works fine for me. I don't know what else to tell you.

    79. Re:Weird criteria by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The iTunes services are tough to get rid of, and seem to get reenabled randomly by iTunes. My solution is to simply don't let that Apple crap touch my computer.

    80. Re:Weird criteria by cshay · · Score: 1

      No, there were hundreds of them. Far too painful to use iTunes to delete them all (she has a large library of other stuff). This is just poor design of iTunes. If they seamlessly synch when new files are added to the file system, they should seamlessly sync when files are deleted from the file system. The fact that I have to use some third party software to do what I wanted shows that they have poor design.

    81. Re:Weird criteria by cshay · · Score: 1

      That's what I used, but it is poor design of iTunes that I should have to use a third party software to do such a basic task. Which was the point of my post.

    82. Re:Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      If you say so.

      From the iTunes library select, "View->View Options"
      Check, "Date added"
      Click on the column for Date to sort by date
      Scroll to the date you added them to your GF's computer
      Select, using shift, multiple files
      Hit Delete
      Confirm the Delete
      Shut down iTunes

      You're right, it would be nice to have a feature to seamlessly synch when file are gone, but that you had to use a third party software only says you didn't know how to use iTunes.

    83. Re:Weird criteria by lkeagle · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll clarify.

      I want iTunes to be able to handle distributed libraries. I have a large collection of music that I've painstakingly organized by genre (lots of classical and jazz). It's stored on a central media server, which I access locally via my TiVo, and remotely via GnuMP3d. I only used iTunes to sync with my iPod. I now use Anapod, because it does exactly what I want it to do with no fuss.

      There are other users in my home that have their own iTunes libraries, which they let iTunes organize. I don't want their music on my media server, but I want them to have transparent access to my library so they can add that music to their iPods without having to create a separate library. All iTunes has to do is have one more level of nesting in their library xml file in order to indicate that a group of songs is not meant to be organized by iTunes. Or better yet, take the development time to allow multiple libraries to be accessed at the same time...

      Wait, why am I explaining this to you?? You don't work for Apple!! Or do you?!?!?

      Man, it's late...

      and yes, I DID use iTunes for a very long time, until my frustrations led me to pay for software that is far more useful for my needs.

    84. Re:Weird criteria by improfane · · Score: 1

      Cars here have dual transmission so we can choose. I shouldn't have to pass many hoops to turn on manual.

      You're calling me a tard? You spelt car wrong.
      You uncultured assclown.

      In short, you fail at trolling.

      --
      Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    85. Re:Weird criteria by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      From apple's perspective, does it make sense to take this risk?
      If it doesn't, then they might as well not produce any software at all. Apple probably doesn't have a single program that doesn't violate countless patents. Nobody does. If you can't handle the indeterminate risks that go with the whole patent mess, then you might as well get out of the software business.

      They can license mp3 and aac playback, and the risks are relatively known
      The risks are never known. Their MP3 and AAC playback could just as easily violate some obscure patent held by some patent troll. You just don't know, until someone sues you.
      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    86. Re:Weird criteria by cshay · · Score: 1
      Well, that third party software exists for a reason and I can usually find my way around intuitive user interfaces no problem.


      I'm pretty sure it must not have been intuitive or that functionality didn't exist in whatever version of iTunes she had.

    87. Re:Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      That feature (add columns, sort by date) has been in iTunes since the first version.

      And the ability to delete files, too, has been in iTunes since the first version.

      What isn't there is the feature, "Delete files I don't want".

    88. Re:Weird criteria by cshay · · Score: 1
      If this feature exists (and has existed for the entire time), why is it that there is a third party application written to delete playlist entries that no longer have files associated with them? The answer must be that it is not convenient to do this in all cases with iTunes. I'm not remembering the precise situation that occured with my gf's machine since it was a while ago but if the solution was straightforward I doubt I would have had to search for and use the third party solution. Maybe the files were added at various times so it made it harder to pinpoint them all, I dunno..


      My guess is that the most typical use case for iTunes is to use it to rip CD's and therefore people who have a library of mp3s on a CR-R end up needing features that aren't there because they aren't the typical user.

    89. Re:Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      We are now talking about two different features, then.

      I was address the original, "Delete files on GFs computer" problem.

  29. Aim vs. Gaim/Pidgin by canyon289 · · Score: 1

    No match there. Aim takes up so much ram and pops up an ad filled browser window with all the latest news of celebrities I dont care about

  30. MC/NC by doktorstop · · Score: 1

    Anyone recalls Norton Commander? NC, or its free Linux alternative, MC... simple, powerful, no hand-holding, the way any file manager got to be!

    --
    http://www.automatiq.se
    1. Re:MC/NC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try total commander
      http://www.ghisler.com/

  31. not really bloat space/ram-wise, but by Keruo · · Score: 1

    I just noticed today that Vista business edition companied by office install and recovery files for hp laptop leaves you with almost 400,000 files on your hd.

    --
    There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    1. Re:not really bloat space/ram-wise, but by SEMW · · Score: 1

      ...Are you seriously suggesting that absolute number of files is a meaningful unit of comparison? Or even if we accept that it is (which I don't), you're obviously implying that more files is worse, which I would take issue with: for example, I'd take Unix-style thousands of single-purpose config files over a Windows-style monolithic registry any day.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  32. Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh God, he insulted Apple software...Oh God, oh God...get out while you can!

  33. Emacs by sjf · · Score: 1

    I jest.

  34. IceWM or Fluxbox? by kc2keo · · Score: 1

    I like both these WMs. Fluxbox is my favorite out of the two.

    1. Re:IceWM or Fluxbox? by HaydnH · · Score: 1

      Add WindowMaker to that list...

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
    2. Re:IceWM or Fluxbox? by kc2keo · · Score: 1

      I tried BadWM but used it only a few times. Fluxbox is my favorite. I'm sure there are plenty of others I'm missing. A person posted Lynx as non-bloated software and it was marked as funny. There have been a bunch of times where lynx or links2 came in handy when I needed a text-based web browser for downloading something like a graphics driver.

    3. Re:IceWM or Fluxbox? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      How did you get either of those to run on your Apple II?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:IceWM or Fluxbox? by FigTree · · Score: 1

      I prefer Blackbox myself.

    5. Re:IceWM or Fluxbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. I just run them outside my emulator.

    6. Re:IceWM or Fluxbox? by flewp · · Score: 1

      I like both these WMs. Fluxbox is my favorite out of the two. I used Fluxbox about 3 years ago on a PII-400 system and it ran great. How is it these days? I've been thinking of installing it on my secondary machine when I put linux on it again.
      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    7. Re:IceWM or Fluxbox? by kc2keo · · Score: 1

      In my opinion I think its a simple, fast, reliable WM. I admit I do not use it on my computers that have plenty of computing resources but when I need a minimal WM I use that. Also, How come I can't get some Karma points or some good points? :-(

  35. Name Your Favorite Bloat-Free Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Name Your Favorite Bloat-Free Software

    Don't tell me what to do. You're not my mom!

  36. Can't live without by El+Lobo · · Score: 2, Informative
    Cobian Backup (http://www.cobian.se). An amazingly good and full-featured backup program, which actually, works as a Windows Service, which is unique AFAIK

    IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com) . There's no better for image viewing an batch manipulation.

    Actually, those are the only 2 freeware programs I use. The rest, I pay for them. I don't use freeware and OS programs just because. That's not a religion and I firmly believe in commercial applications, so I help the developers buying the programs I need, even if there is an almost identical free variant.

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:Can't live without by AndyCR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      so I help the developers buying the programs I need, even if there is an almost identical free variant. You do realize that buying a program when there is free, just as good competition hurts the free market, right?
      --
      If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
    2. Re:Can't live without by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you know what they say, a fool and his money are soon departed

    3. Re:Can't live without by El+Lobo · · Score: 1

      You do realize that buying a program when there is free, just as good competition hurts the free market, right?
      The free market doesn't need help. There will always be MILLIONS of people with use free programs for many reasons: some people are cheap, other are OS zealots, other may be people who really don't have the money, other may be non-profit organizations with not enopugh budget. Free market will never die. BUT, the *commercial* market, especially those single developers or small companies working their ass off... THOSE people really NEED our help. So I happily pay for my WinRAR, Total Commander, The Bat!, etc even if we have some free equivalents.
      --
      It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    4. Re:Can't live without by AndyCR · · Score: 1

      I think you're making a mistake by separating the software market into a free section and a non-free section. Non-free software competes with free software in the market as well. If there is a free equivalent to a commercial software package, the commercial software package just got bested and needs to become more appealing to continue to compete.

      No, I don't wish to imply you will single-handedly bring down the free market. I'm merely saying that if there is a free version by all means use it, and if there is a commercial product you wish to throw money at, one that innovates and outdoes its free cousins, by all means do so.

      * All references to "free software" here refer to price.

      --
      If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
    5. Re:Can't live without by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      Cobian is excellent. Along a similar vein, I also like Unison File Synchronizer.

    6. Re:Can't live without by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      If you find a piece of free software you like, you can always donate to the developers.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  37. uTorrent by Telvin_3d · · Score: 4, Insightful

    uTorrent is one of the cleanest, smallest, most efficient pieces of software I have ever had the pleasure to use. Since switching to OSX a few months ago (I bought a Macbook Pro planning to run XP, and the switch just seemed to happen), my one real regret is that uTorrent is Windows only. I've been reduced to using Azureus, which gets the job done, but is horribly bloated.

    So, my nomination is for uTorrent, and if anyone knows of a similar package for OSX I would love to hear it.

    1. Re:uTorrent by ch0ad · · Score: 1

      deluge is similar to uTorrent but for gtk. it uses libtorrent (written in c++) with a python/gtk GUI. it's currently very usable but still has minor bugs and is pre version 1.0

      it can probably be gotten to run on OSX, altho it will use gtk so maybe that doesn't cut it under "efficiency"

      oh and the forum has a section labeled "osx port" so one is perhaps in the works using a native gui :)

      http://deluge-torrent.org/
      http://forum.deluge-torrent.org/index.php

    2. Re:uTorrent by Alakaboo · · Score: 1

      You should give Tomato Torrent a shot. I've had good success with it.

    3. Re:uTorrent by hansamurai · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used Azureus for a long time, being a Java developer myself I saw it as the app to show off the capability and portability of Java. I stuck with it, the memory footprint and CPU usage was never that bad for me, so I never thought about replacing it. Then I updated my JDK so that I could take advantage of version 6, and boom, Azureus stopped working. I warily downloaded Vuze, but that didn't work either thankfully. So I downloaded uTorrent, and will never look back. It really is a great piece of software, faster and more efficient than Azureus, and basically the exact same functionality and UI.

    4. Re:uTorrent by harryman100 · · Score: 1

      Give "Transmission" a try, I used it for a while, but have since moved to using rtorrent in a screen session on my server instead.

      http://transmission.m0k.org/

      --
      .sigs are for losers
    5. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uTorrent is one of the cleanest, smallest, most efficient pieces of software I have ever had the pleasure to use.
      really?
    6. Re:uTorrent by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's an OSX port in the works (it's been reviewed online). If you can't wait unitil then, you can run uTorrent under WINE. Sure, you get some extra memory bloat, but the CPU and disk footprint should be the same (assuming you already have WINE installed).

    7. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll second the Transmission vote. Great app.

    8. Re:uTorrent by burris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because it is small and efficient doesn't mean it is written well. Small and efficient are just two possible goals when writing software. A lot of very ugly hacks were used to make uTorrent so micro. That means it misses the mark on other possible goals like maintainability and portability.

    9. Re:uTorrent by kTag · · Score: 1

      You should check out Transmission, it's a great, clean and small piece of software

    10. Re:uTorrent by JohnnyBigodes · · Score: 1

      From the programmer's point of view, yes, you're totally correct (and I'm a coder myself), and I'll grant you the point fully.

      From the user's point of view, he/she (in this case, me) couldn't care less :)

      Of course, the software being small could mean that it's buggy, but thankfully that's not the case, it's pretty much rock-solid. And what is most surprising is that it's fairly new too.

    11. Re:uTorrent by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      ditto. rtorrent + screen.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    12. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      server-side rtorrent + screen + monitored NFS/Samba shared torrent folder

    13. Re:uTorrent by Telvin_3d · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I took a look. In almost every respect, it is exactly what I am looking for. Unfortunately, the lack of encryption is a deal-breaker for me. I'm going to keep an eye on it for the future.

    14. Re:uTorrent by localman · · Score: 1

      I've never used uTorrent, but my favorite torrent app for Mac by far is Transmission. Just thought I'd mention it since it took me a while to find a torrent app I liked on OSX.

      Cheers.

    15. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xtorrent is a lovely, clean, simple client with some pretty nifty searching abilities.

    16. Re:uTorrent by Myopic · · Score: 1

      yo try Tomato Torrent. it's very plan and basic and small. i tried Azureus and went back to Tomato, which is less capable, but i don't need more capability.

      the one feature i've heard of that i wish Tomato had is the ability to download specific parts of a torrent. that would be nice. but if all you want to do is download torrents, Tomato will do that very well.

    17. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a linux user and I run utorrent under wine. I also run a 2nd copy of firefox under wine so that torrents will go directly to utorrent (I only tried for half an hour, but I couldn't get linux-firefox torrents to pop wine-utorrent). utorrent is really great. You can set up & down speed limits (KB/sec) for the overall app, and for each individual torrent and/or high-med-low priorities on torrents, and it appears to handle multiple trackers no prob. I used version 1.50 for a long time; it was very stable. All the 1.6* versions had a tendency to crash when I changed the KB/sec limit on a torrent, so now I usually pause a torrent before changing speedlimit. The 1.7* versions have been changing rapidly, so I can't comment on stability. I have azureus too, but it's more bloated.

    18. Re:uTorrent by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Isn't uTorrent spyware?

      Anyway, you should run like hell from the bloated piece of crap that is Azureus. Check out rtorrent. You can run it in a screen session and manage your torrents anywhere. You can configure a directory to watch for new torrents, loading one is as easy as saving the .torrent there. It has session management so you can start it and stop it at will without losing any per torrent configuration or rehashing everything. It supports fetching just a subset of a .torrent. It supports protocol encryption. It is just an all around joy to use. Try it, you'll like it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:uTorrent by pestario · · Score: 1

      set up an ssh server then.

      --
      :n
    20. Re:uTorrent by elwinc · · Score: 1

      > A lot of very ugly hacks were used to make uTorrent so micro. I'd love to see the source so I can port it directly to linux. Where did you see the source?

      --
      --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    21. Re:uTorrent by niall111 · · Score: 1

      I had a similar setup to yourself, but i didn't need that second copy of firefox. I assume you mean that you clicked a .torrent link in firefox, and it automatically loaded in uTorrent? My solution wasn't quite as simple, but I preferred it. Set up uTorrent to automatically load torrent files from whatever directory, then have linux-firefox automatically download all files with .torrent extensions to that directory, and you are all set. uTorrent never pops up in front of firefox on you, either.

    22. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tomato Torrent seems pretty straightforward for me.

    23. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah its great software its a shame I had to stop using it, as it is now directly programmed by programmers who get their paychecks from the MPAA.

      The original author no longer programs for it as far as I am aware.

    24. Re:uTorrent by sakari · · Score: 1

      You might want to try out Transmission http://transmission.m0k.org/, which is IMO the best torrent client for Mac Os X and has the least bloat I've seen yet. Azureus is horrible bloat with tons of unnecessary features.

    25. Re:uTorrent by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      Isn't it written in one of the new Microsoft proprietary 'frameworks'? .net or whatever the abomination is called now...

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
    26. Re:uTorrent by maxume · · Score: 1

      Probably not:

      http://www.utorrent.com/faq.php#What_are_.C2.B5Tor rent.27s_system_requirements.3F

      I get the feeling that it isn't even written to MFC, but directly against various Windows APIs.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    27. Re:uTorrent by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest Transmission as a Mac-native, usable, featureful client that everyone seems to use. It's missing some of the 'crazy' features that the advanced torrent clients have (like encryption), but it's still pretty slick, does the job well, and integrates well (Growl notifications, for one). Among other things, it can watch a folder for torrents (so when your browser downloads a torrent, it adds automatically), it can download to a temporary directory, and it can move to the main directory when downloading is complete. It supports file selection and priorities, and it looks pretty slick too.

      Give it a try, it's pretty rockin'.

    28. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, really. I use both regularly, and uTorrent has many, many more features and uses far less RAM.

    29. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't uTorrent spyware?


      No.

      Also, uTorrent does everything rTorrent does (http rather than ssh for remote control though) including everything you mentioned, uses less memory, and has many more features. Just doesn't run on linux, too bad.
    30. Re:uTorrent by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I've never used uTorrent, but check out Transmission for your Mac.

    31. Re:uTorrent by wulffi · · Score: 1

      I would suggest Transmission. It's very OSX'y and works very well.

      Get it here:

      http://transmission.m0k.org/

    32. Re:uTorrent by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      IMHO, bittorrent should be able to run in text mode. A GUI is not just unnecessary bloat, but makes it harder to run the client on a remote server. RTorrent is a nice textmode client written for unix, so it probably compiles on OSX too.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    33. Re:uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uTorrent is one of the cleanest, smallest, most efficient pieces of software I have ever had the pleasure to use.
      really? Try reparsing his comment; "one of the...", "... I have ever had the pleasure to use." implies that (a) it's not the smallest, cleanest, etc., nor that your experience is part of the consideration.
    34. Re:uTorrent by empaler · · Score: 1

      I had a similar setup to yourself, but i didn't need that second copy of firefox. I assume you mean that you clicked a .torrent link in firefox, and it automatically loaded in uTorrent?

      My solution wasn't quite as simple, but I preferred it. Set up uTorrent to automatically load torrent files from whatever directory, then have linux-firefox automatically download all files with .torrent extensions to that directory, and you are all set. uTorrent never pops up in front of firefox on you, either. This also works wonders with Azureus; it also adds another advantage (for some): Just because I download a .torrent-file, I don't necessarily want to load the torrent client this very instant. The above-described solution automagically cues the torrents. Mmmm, automagically.
  38. tee by gus+goose · · Score: 3, Funny

    tee. Only two command-line options.

    The way it should be. It's name is it's documentation too.

    gus

    --
    .. if only.
    1. Re:tee by value_added · · Score: 1

      tee. Only two command-line options.

      A good alternative is script. Flushing output at 30 second intervals is probably more efficient in circumstances where there's heavy IO, like a long compile job.

  39. emacs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that was easy

  40. My list by starrsoft · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Read my blog: HansMast.com
    1. Re:My list by Em+Ellel · · Score: 2, Informative


      Hate to say it but half of that list belongs on the "over-bloated" side. I mean OO??, Firefox??, Thunderbird?? Google Dekstop??? - have you actually used any of those?

      I use most of them daily and as much as I love them, calling them anything short of "bloated memory hogs" is flat out lying.

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    2. Re:My list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you going for +5, Funny? OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird? Why don't you compare them with Opera and KOffice and then tell me they aren't bloated?

    3. Re:My list by Dputiger · · Score: 1
      Why is an application bloated if it uses more memory than was considered standard in, say, 1992? Wasn't that the point of system advancement?

      I second all the authors who call for effective use of resources. No, don't fill my system up with useless crap, but if sucking down an extra few hundred MB of RAM make a program run more effectively or give me options that I actually want, by all means, do so. That's why I've got 2 GB of RAM, after all.

    4. Re:My list by iovar · · Score: 1

      The question was about favorite Bloat-Free software, not
      favorite bloated Free-Software ;) .

      --
      http://recordmydesktop.iovar.org
    5. Re:My list by supremebob · · Score: 1

      OpenOffice and Firefox 2 aren't bloated? Sadly, those are only two open source freeware alternatives that are actually slower than their Microsoft counterparts on my computer.

    6. Re:My list by Rary · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The problem is that people keep equating "bloat" with "memory usage", when in reality "bloat" means (or at least should mean) "unnecessary memory usage".

      I don't expect an application to be small. I just expect it to be as small as possible while still being as effective as possible.

      Sometimes, it takes a lot of hard drive space and RAM to do all the things an application must do. Really, this shouldn't be an issue in an age where you can get a TB hard drive for under $200. But an application that's loaded with unnecessary, marketing-driven features and consumes more hard drive space and RAM than it should is a truly "bloated" application.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    7. Re:My list by AusIV · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I agree. Of the original poster's list, I use OpenOffice, Firefox, Google Desktop, Picasa, and the Gimp (occasionally). These may not run on a minimal memory footprint, but that's why I've got 1.5 GB memory.


      Firefox may not be the lightest web browser or the fastest, but with its plugins it has all the functionality I want from a web browser. Google Desktop isn't exactly light weight software, but I find the time it saves me well worth the extra processes that run (I might also note that I'm a Linux user, and I've found it to be much more efficient and stable than the alternatives). I don't use Picasa much, but it's nice for basic picture management - it provides what I need without getting in the way. OpenOffice isn't great as far as bloat, and I certainly don't use the pre-loader, but it gets the job done whenever I need an office suite.

      Of that software list, the Gimp tries the hardest to run on a minimal memory footprint, and as some others have pointed out, that can be a pain in the ass. If I've got 500 MB of memory going unused, there's no reason for the Gimp to take extra time to avoid acquiring more memory.

    8. Re:My list by fahshimah · · Score: 1

      *Whoosh*

    9. Re:My list by rinkjustice · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on e-Sword, Google Desktop and Picasa - it's a pretty good list actually. Open Office however has really gotten on my nerves with how it toddles along, GIMP is awesome but not lean by a long shot, and AVG Anti-Virus is the most annoying nagware I have ever dealt with in my life. Clamwin is open source and much, much better all around.

    10. Re:My list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! With FireFox and OpenOffice the Bloat is free, ergo, Bloat-free.

    11. Re:My list by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      The problem is that people keep equating "bloat" with "memory usage", when in reality "bloat" means (or at least should mean) "unnecessary memory usage".

      I don't expect an application to be small. I just expect it to be as small as possible while still being as effective as possible.

      Sometimes, it takes a lot of hard drive space and RAM to do all the things an application must do. Really, this shouldn't be an issue in an age where you can get a TB hard drive for under $200. But an application that's loaded with unnecessary, marketing-driven features and consumes more hard drive space and RAM than it should is a truly "bloated" application.

      While I agree with your statement in principle, my firefox currently using 400+ MB of RAM while opening 7 tabs with HTML pages (no streaming of any kind) - and that's just ain't right.

      -Em
      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    12. Re:My list by starrsoft · · Score: 1

      Thank you all for your kind mod points, though those funny mod points weren't exactly my goal. If you would give me just a moment, I would like to defend my unintentional humor. I am an IT Manager, not a professional developer. For myself, those apps run great on my 2 Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2 GB ram. In answer to your question, yes, I run all of them. In fact, right now I have Thunderbird (760 MB Inbox), Google Desktop (incl sidebar with weather, world clock, resource monitor, netstat, and news), 35 tabs in FF, 22 ooWriter windows, 1 ooCalc, 1 ooDraw, e-Sword, Azureus, AVG, gTalk, Spyware Doctor, MSNmsg, Skype, JVM, and VNC Server open. I am using 55% of my memory and 26% of CPU. All software has a tradeoff between resource usage and features. Yes, vi is less resource intensive than oo, but it really doesn't have the features I'm looking for. The same with many of these other programs. I think the resource usage is reasonable and not excessive for the features they provide. Now let me hasten to add that I am not dissing all of you hardcore geeks that do so much for us in wringing every last CPU cycle out of programs and optimizing code. I know just enough about several different languages to appreciate the difficulty in writing well-designed, optimized code. As an IT Manager, I also see bloat as encompassing quite a bit more than memory usage. I see spyware, invasiveness, extraneous tray icons, poor design, excessive features, adware, unnecessary background processes, etc, etc as all part of bloatware. These are not attributes of any of the programs I listed.

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
    13. Re:My list by starrsoft · · Score: 1

      Ok, I took what you said seriously and compared Opera and Firefox. I went to iGoogle and opened a total of 23 tabs in both by clicking the news links to open in new tab. Here are the results: Firefox, 166 MB ram; Opera, 143 MB. As a web developer, I have a profusion of SEO and web dev add-ons installed in FF that make my job far easier. That 16% ram diff is not enough for me to call the far more functional FF bloatware.

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
    14. Re:My list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For myself, those apps run great on my 2 Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2 GB ram.

      "Runs great with 2GB RAM" is not the meaning of the word "bloat-free". Most software runs great with 2GB RAM. Doesn't mean it isn't bloated. I suspect you are using that description as an excuse rather than admit your real definition of "bloat-free software" is "software I like".

      Yes, vi is less resource intensive than oo, but it really doesn't have the features I'm looking for. The same with many of these other programs.

      It's disingenuous to characterise the alternatives mentioned as being akin to vi. You know damn well the feature sets of many of them are practically identical.

      Now let me hasten to add that I am not dissing all of you hardcore geeks that do so much for us in wringing every last CPU cycle out of programs and optimizing code.

      It's disingenuous to characterise anybody who considers OpenOffice to be bloated as "hardcore geeks" focused on "every last CPU cycle". You know damn well this isn't a matter of a few cycles here and there.

      As an IT Manager, I also see bloat as encompassing quite a bit more than memory usage. I see spyware, invasiveness, extraneous tray icons, poor design, excessive features, adware, unnecessary background processes, etc, etc as all part of bloatware. These are not attributes of any of the programs I listed.

      As an IT manager, you are an idiot. Spyware and "invasiveness" isn't bloat, it's simply malicious. Extraneous tray icons don't use any significant amount of memory. "Poor design" could mean anything, excessive features are attributes of the programs you list. Furthermore, pretty much every piece of software that matches these descriptions would run fine with 2GB RAM, so they aren't bloated by the definition you use to excuse your favourite software.

    15. Re:My list by starrsoft · · Score: 1

      You really don't need to flame to make your points.

      2 GB: I have the same software running across all the machines I manage--some of them are 500 Mhz, 256 Mb, Win 98 machines--and I use them on a regular basis without trouble. They perform well.

      VI: Please suggest some windows alternatives to oo. I use linux strictly for servers.

      Hardcore geeks: No, actually I don't know that. If you would point me to benchmarks to show my ignorance, I would be grateful. Alternatively, as the remark above indicates, suggest some alternatives to the software I listed that I can test for myself.

      I realized that I haven't had much experience with some of the software that was being presented as being Slashdot-Certified Bloat-Free(TM), so I downloaded one of the suggestions--Opera--and compared it to Firefox. Firefox took only 16% more ram even though it was loaded down with add-ons. Needless to say it didn't inspire confidence in all the claims that are being bandied about.

      I would be open to suggestions of other software with similar features to the ones I listed that are less bloated. I would be delighted to find more efficient alternatives.

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
    16. Re:My list by starrsoft · · Score: 1

      What version of FF do you have? FF used to have horrible mem problems for me, but FF 2 has fixed much of that. I have 2.0.6 and have 24 tabs open at 167 MB.

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
    17. Re:My list by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      You really don't need to flame to make your points.

      2 GB: I have the same software running across all the machines I manage--some of them are 500 Mhz, 256 Mb, Win 98 machines--and I use them on a regular basis without trouble. They perform well. You must have a funny definition of performing well, or else not using the machines for more than 5 minutes and let your users suffer. You just said your apps take up over a gig of RAM - so how exactly are they performing well on a Win98/256MB/500Mhz box?

      VI: Please suggest some windows alternatives to oo. I use linux strictly for servers. Off top of my head AbiWord. But this discussion was about bloat free software. Just because you cant find an alternative or you can live with the bloat, does not mean its not bloated

      Hardcore geeks: No, actually I don't know that. If you would point me to benchmarks to show my ignorance, I would be grateful. Alternatively, as the remark above indicates, suggest some alternatives to the software I listed that I can test for myself. Again, whether or not it has an alternative has nothing to do with it being bloated or not.

      I realized that I haven't had much experience with some of the software that was being presented as being Slashdot-Certified Bloat-Free(TM), so I downloaded one of the suggestions--Opera--and compared it to Firefox. Firefox took only 16% more ram even though it was loaded down with add-ons. Needless to say it didn't inspire confidence in all the claims that are being bandied about. What exactly is "Slashdot-Certified Bloat-Free" and where did you pull that out of? Personally I have no opinion on Opera being more or less efficient, I don't use it, but following your numbers - 16% of 500MB (What my firefox is eating right now on 2 windows with 11 tabs combined) - is 80MB - which is as almost as much as most of my other applications (not counting Eclipse, T-bird, windows and FF) are using combined (and yes, I do run a lot of other apps). The real problem with Fifefox is not its initial footprint, its that unchecked it grows to unreasonable proportions. There is no reason to use half a gig of RAM for 11 pages with not more than 100k each (including all the images etc).

      I would be open to suggestions of other software with similar features to the ones I listed that are less bloated. I would be delighted to find more efficient alternatives. Again not the point. The question was about non-bloat out there and not about what bloated software we like or what does or does not have alternatives. And while you may not find using up over a gig of RAM on word processing and web browsing alarming, many of us consider it bloat and would prefer to leave the RAM for applications that actually have reasonable need of it (Audio and video editing, CAD, modeling apps, etc)

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    18. Re:My list by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      What version of FF do you have? FF used to have horrible mem problems for me, but FF 2 has fixed much of that. I have 2.0.6 and have 24 tabs open at 167 MB. Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6

      Do you reboot every day? Usually after restart the memory footprint is reasonable, but as I start to actually use it, it swells up, to the point that I have to kill it every few days or so just to reclaim the memory.

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    19. Re:My list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of these projects have you donated resources to?

  41. let's burn some karma by farker+haiku · · Score: 1

    and continue the flamewar from below to boot...

    Opera.

    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
    1. Re:let's burn some karma by empaler · · Score: 1

      My Opera croaks when trying to use the 'new' comment system here...

  42. ls / cd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ls and cd vs explorer :)

  43. Foxit by j.sanchez1 · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
    1. Re:Foxit by GoatEnigma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely the best de-bloating move I ever made. I was so sick of Adobe's Reader phoning home, downloading slower and slower updates with more crap, crashing my web browsers, and generally taking 30+ seconds to start up. If you've never heard of Foxit reader, I strongly recommend it!

    2. Re:Foxit by nickheart · · Score: 1

      Additional vote for FoxIt. Free, 3MB download (if you choose the MSI over an exe). Runs real quick, and doesn't have any of the issue i have seen with Acrobat (only showing the first page of a PDF, then "cant' read" the rest of it... download 10mb updates everytime you open it... completely hang firefox...)

    3. Re:Foxit by Oswald · · Score: 2, Informative
      Seconded! (Thirded, actually). Here is my what's in my Foxit directory:

      • FoxitReader.exe.........3696 KB
      • Foxit_JS_ExObjects.dll..1981 KB
      • fxdecod1.dll..............436 KB
      • js.dll......................504 KB
      • Uninstall.exe.............80 KB

      That's it. I'd like to be able to compare it to Adobe Craprobat, but I've deleted all vestiges of it from my machines. Foxit is quick, small, and stable--all the things Adobe can't manage.

    4. Re:Foxit by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      I used Foxit for a while but switched back to Adobe Reader recently. My reason was really trivial too. I hated how Foxit, unlike most other Windows document readers, didn't support Ctrl-mousewheel to zoom in and out. When you do that in Adobe it zooms in to where your cursor is pointing. Considering how stupid the idea of reading a PDF on a monitor is, I have to zoom in and out of most PDFs to make them legible at different levels.

      The latest Adobe Reader loads much more quickly than previous iterations. If you're having any headaches with Foxit I recommend checking it out. If not, then by all means stick with Foxit as it's super speedy and perfectly functional for most people.

    5. Re:Foxit by benfinkel · · Score: 1

      Yes. I cannot stand Adobe reader. Or any Adobe software for that matter.

      Hooray for Foxit!

    6. Re:Foxit by The+Taco+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Seconded (thirded?). I only got around to discovering Foxit when Adobe's server was down for several days and I couldn't get a copy of reader to save my life. I was pleasantly surprised to find it not only worked perfectly, but it was snappier and didn't constantly throw up modal dialogs asking me to update. No way in hell Adobe's reader touches my PC any more.

    7. Re:Foxit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked at Adobe replacements, saw Foxit, but found SumatraPDF to be even less bloated.

      Oh, and grab PDFCreator while you're at it; it's a print-to-pdf program, opensource, and works well.

    8. Re:Foxit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason your new version of acrobat loads faster is because they have been front loading it in your windows boot. Who the hell needs acrobat loading (and staying in memory) when you don't need it most of the time?

    9. Re:Foxit by roaddemon · · Score: 1

      fourthded. I'm not even sure if Foxit is that awesome, but Adobe sure is trying hard to make it look that way.

    10. Re:Foxit by cerelib · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use Foxit reader for viewing as well and love it, but I do still keep Adobe Reader around. Why? Foxit still has trouble rendering some PDFs nicely. So I use Adobe Reader when I want to print something and Foxit for my default viewer.

    11. Re:Foxit by J0nne · · Score: 1

      Yep, seconded (or seventhed by now, probably). On windows it's the best. On Ubuntu I use whatever came with it (I have no idea what it's called, but it works, and it isn't bloated).

    12. Re:Foxit by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Another thing to love about foxit (aside from 0.5 seconds startup, versus Adobe Reader's 0.5 month startup) is that Foxit can do fit-to-width viewing when in full screen mode, for those tall narrow documents.
      I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe Reader can do it too actually, but I'm buggered if I've ever figured out how

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    13. Re:Foxit by Acuram · · Score: 1

      Foxit is good for general viewing, but don't ever try to print anything on it.

    14. Re:Foxit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neat program! Thanks.

    15. Re:Foxit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I haven't got access to a Windows computer ATM, but, FWIW, here are my observations about speediness and memory consumption under Wine (yes, both work very well, with only one fixme coming up for SumatraPDF, and two for FoxitReader):

      File 1 is a now public domain edition of Hanon's first finger exercise volume, but all pages are internally JPEGs (scans). Both viewers faired rather badly, but Foxit was a little slower I think. SumatraPDF also used more memory than FoxitReader.
      File 2 is www.virtualsheetmusic.com's edition of several pieces from the ballet "Nutcracker" by Tchaikovsky. (And because this will probably not tell most people too much, I shall add that the first Lemmings game included a version of the piece "Dance of the reed pipes/reed flutes/Mirlitons," which sounds positively awesome.) So this file consists of vector graphics/font magic. FoxitReader fared very well on this one, SumatraPDF wasn't sluggish, but not very fast either (coupled with the lack of wonderful smooth-scroll, it was actually barely bearable). SumatraPDF used 31 megs for the second file, while FoxitReader used 24 megs IIRC.
      SumatraPDF is also rather feature-deprived IMO, but it's younger than FoxitReader, and also open-source, and I hope to encourage the developer(s) to work more on it.
      Oh, and BTW. I printed something from FoxitReader and it looked good. What you see on the screen is - in my experience - a bit worse than what you really get by printing.

    16. Re:Foxit by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      You left out "introducing security vulnerabilities". Who thought it was a good idea to execute Javascript in a PDF reader?!

    17. Re:Foxit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Fedora Core 6, and Evince is great for reading PDFs. It launches in about a second (1.6GHz, one core, 256 MB RAM), and takes 17 MB in memory (resident) for a small 6-page PDF.

    18. Re:Foxit by maxume · · Score: 1

      The Acrobat 7.0 tree is 130 megabytes here. Nearly half of that is contained in a directory named "Setup Files" where there are two very similar directories names ENU and ENU_. Gotta love it. There are about 21 megabytes in the actual Reader directory, with another 23 megabytes of plug-ins(and six more megabytes in subdirectories of plug-ins).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:Foxit by Raineer · · Score: 1

      I too low Foxit but yes it has some troubles. Author a PDF under Acrobat with file links and suddenly those links are broken under Foxit.

    20. Re:Foxit by jptechnical · · Score: 1

      Yes! Until their latest version has 5x the number of toolbar buttons (2 extra rows) which, if you are unlucky enough to click on one you have to click a nag screen away. I love the product, get the version just previous to the present to avoid the button insanity.

      --

      Boredom's not a burden anyone should bear.
    21. Re:Foxit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that. Problem is, Foxit doesn't work as a plugin in a browser, it opens files in a separate window.

  44. Pine, of course by zifn4b · · Score: 5, Informative

    Still the best mail client around. :)

    --
    We'll make great pets
    1. Re:Pine, of course by localman · · Score: 1

      Here here! Pine is all you need!

      Why did this get modded "Funny" and not "Insightful" I wonder?

    2. Re:Pine, of course by danpritts · · Score: 1
      Pine? It's a pig. Mutt is where it's at. Following from my x86 FreeBSD system, YMMV: ps output, just sitting there after startup, no mailbox open:

      danno 22393 0.0 0.1 7580 3964 pd S+J 4:58PM 0:00.03 pine
      ps output, just sitting there after startup, 2.4M inbox open.

      danno 22484 0.9 0.1 4880 2576 pd S+J 4:59PM 0:00.05 mutt
      binary size (yes, pine is stripped!):

      % ls -l /usr/local/bin/pine /usr/local/bin/mutt
      -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 558640 Nov 6 2005 /usr/local/bin/mutt*
      -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 3814988 Nov 6 2005 /usr/local/bin/pine*
      They use all the same shared libraries, except pine uses the tiny BSD "libcrypt" and mutt uses the huge "libcrypto" from openssl.
  45. Not an "application" by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's not quite an "application" but: WindowMaker. Unbloated in every sense.

    Also, as the rest of modern desktop Linux has bloated to the point where Konsole and Gnome Terminal aren't bottlenecks any more I've moved away from it in favor of tabs, but I used to only use rxvt instead of heavier alternatives. Gnome Terminal in particular used to have visible lag, and I'm a lot more tolerant of that stuff in a multimedia app than in a freaking shell.

    1. Re:Not an "application" by Webdude · · Score: 1

      WMX is way better then WindowMaker if size and memory is your key goal. Statically compiled its under 900k runs super fast...

    2. Re:Not an "application" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I like rxvt, but I REALLY like the one line at a time scrolling feature of aterm (hold shift and hit up/down arrows). aterm is basically rxvt with that and the ability to set backgrounds. I recently switched to urxvt though because it also has the one line scrolling feature and unicode support, which occasionally comes in handy. It's still crazy lightweight. I toyed with urxvtd and urxvtc where all of your rxvt's run in the same process, but because malloc doesn't return memory to the system, when I tested opening a few hundred windows and closing them, urxvtd was then using like 20 MB of ram. I decided he extra memory usage of urxvt was a fair tradoff for getting it back when the program stops using it.

      As a side note, I believe you have to compile urxvt yourself to get the scrolling feature. I run Gentoo, so there's a useflag to do this.

    3. Re:Not an "application" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bloat on the Linux desktop seems to have become worse in recent years and I avoid using KDE or Gnome desktops and associated software when possible :
      • I like to use mrxvt http://materm.sourceforge.net/wiki/ as my terminal -- it's nice and lightweight, has tabs, can do pseudo transparency and is pretty configurable. Much more lightweight than Konsole or Gnome terminal.
      • I use ROX-filer http://rox.sourceforge.net/desktop/ for file managing -- a little different to alternatives like Konqueror, but well worth checking out. Pretty lightweight and fast to use, with plenty of useful features (drag-n-drop works properly, in-filer window shells, sensible options when you drag a file somewhere (symlink, copy, move etc), configurable menus ...) As an added bonus, it can also be used to give pinboard on the backdrop/wallpaper for putting clickable links to files, applications etc.
      Using these two 'core' apps free me from being tied to a particular desktop environment. Icewm or fluxbox integrate well with ROX -- I've yet to find a machine that doesn't fly with this combo. For example I found that a 250MHz Pentium3 was very slow and unusable with the bloat of KDE or Gnome, yet very responsive and stable with Fluxbox or Icewm + ROX file + mrxvt! This is even true on my work machine which has 4Gb of ram and 2 dual core Xeon processors, where I find KDE or Gnome just get in the way of things, crash and are generally annoying.
    4. Re:Not an "application" by legirons · · Score: 1

      "It's not quite an "application" but: WindowMaker. Unbloated in every sense."

      And WindowMaker's clock, which makes just the right use of screen space - a mystery why no other desktops have used that layout.

  46. Zim by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It has to be one of the most useful personal documentation, note taking tools in existence. It's basically a wiki for the desktop. All the information is stored in wiki style text files so even if you want to switch to something else, it's easy.

    http://pardus-larus.student.utwente.nl/~pardus/pro jects/zim/index.shtml

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Zim by omeomi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's basically a wiki for the desktop.

      ZuluPad is similar, but more advanced in some respects. 'Course, I wrote it, so I'm a bit biased.

    2. Re:Zim by airhed13 · · Score: 1

      I use http://www.tiddlywiki.com/ for that.

    3. Re:Zim by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      It's basically a wiki for the desktop.

      And there is the open sourced WididPad:
      http://www.jhorman.org/wikidPad/
  47. on win32. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cdrtfe for burning
    ghostview/ghostscript for reading pdfs
    mplayer for watching video

    i'm sure there is more but i cant think of it this early.

    (and btw, i didn't mention gimp because lately i've been using paint.net. yeah, ill admit it. /shrug)

  48. Here's my picks by wsxyz · · Score: 1

    Office Suite: Appleworks
    IDE: Merlin Pro
    Desktop Publishing: The Print Shop
    Media Player: Music Construction Set
    Entertainment: Wavy Navy

    1. Re:Here's my picks by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      WP: Multiscribe
      Entertainment: Choplifter

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  49. irssi by aegzorz · · Score: 1

    irssi is an IRC client which works great with screen and Putty, all three programs are bloat free :)

  50. pip by maynard · · Score: 1

    there's no smaller peripheral data transfer program still in use!

  51. Thread Convergence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera. You can tweak it down to near nothing on resource usage, and it's a full-featured web browser. Sorry, Firefox has too large a footprint for a limited resource machine. Yes, I know you hate hearing that.

    1. Re:Thread Convergence! by empaler · · Score: 1

      Tweak Opera? That's unpossable!

  52. Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  53. ping! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Finger just sounds too dirty.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  54. My choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ditch the consumer version of McAfee or Norton.
      Eliminate SpySweeper.

      Install either Corporate Norton or Avast!

      For anti-spyware, Defender, Ad-Aware and Spybot win the day,
      although the latter two have to be run manually in their free versions.

    1. Re:My choices... by weszz · · Score: 1

      I'm a huge fan of Avast, ripped Norton or Mcafee off computers that were running very slowly, taking 5 minutes to boot up etc... put on avast, and not only is it free for home, but it brought the computers right up to where they should be for speed and booting up and logging in under a minute.

      i recommend it to everyone, especially people that complain about paying for their computer stuff

  55. suckless.org by Xzzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like dwm, it's a rather tiny and simple window manager. Watching their mailing list is entertaining at times, the amount of effort invested in deleting lines of code is pretty impressive.

    http://www.suckless.org/wiki/dwm

    The tarball for it is only 19k, and doing a wc -l on all the *.c files gives 1781 lines. RSS on my system right now is only 1336K, which is smaller than a single bash shell. Probably not something someone infatuated with glittery stuff would like to run but it's definitely a small program.

    1. Re:suckless.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also like dwm and dmenu a lot! They're quite customizable too, if you get used to it ;-)

    2. Re:suckless.org by SEMW · · Score: 1

      I like dwm, it's a rather tiny and simple window manager. It took me about five seconds to realise that you weren't talking about Vista's Desktop Window Manager, dwm.exe.

      I hope you will forgive any aspirations regarding your sanity I may have entertained during those five seconds.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  56. /bin/yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only 13,144 bytes and it'll go as long as you can want.

  57. memtest86 by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesn't get much more bloat free than that.

    1. Re:memtest86 by dgym · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you kidding? That thing used up all my memory.

  58. My nomination for compilers is.... by canuck57 · · Score: 1

    What are some of your favorite applications which are a little less bloated?

    For compilers, this is easy. Borland Turbo Pascal.

    In 29K or so it amazed me they could pack in all of:

    • compiler
    • strict type checking
    • linker
    • editor
    • debugger
    • library

    But will agree, it is ancient and I haven't used it for years.

  59. Bloat free by Firstoni · · Score: 2, Informative

    IZarc as oposed to Winzip, or WinRAR or ... pretty much any other compression program

    1. Re:Bloat free by supremebob · · Score: 1

      7-Zip is pretty good as well... Last I saw, the installer was about 1MB.

  60. Konqueror by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Konqueror.

    No, seriously.

    Before my Clamshell iBook (running Gentoo Linux) died, my alternatives for web browsing were Konqueror and Firefox. I found that, despite the heaviness of qt versus gtk+, Konqueror was much nicer than Firefox in terms of both memory and CPU usage. (Opera was on par with Konqueror but... it gave me the creeps to use, I don't know why.)

    -:sigma.SB

    --
    WARN
    THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    1. Re:Konqueror by Nevyn · · Score: 1

      Galeon wasn't an option, why?

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    2. Re:Konqueror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What?", you say,

      You have no chance to survive make your time.
    3. Re:Konqueror by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Konqueror"

      No flash-blocking, no blocking animated images, no blocking blink tags, no filtering of javascript, no blocking background music, no blocking videos...

      it's like browsing with internet explorer -- okay for trusted sites, but not something you'd want to explore the web with (unless you really like flashing animated advertisements)

    4. Re:Konqueror by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1

      Because I didn't know about it, of course. :P

      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
  61. Lighter-weight CD/DVD Burning for OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burn OSX. GPL. Much lighter-weight than using iTunes for Audio CDs.

  62. My favs by crt · · Score: 3, Insightful
    • Ultra-Edit for text editing. Tons of features but still starts & runs fast. 10MB download, ~10MB ram.
    • ACDSee for image viewing. I run an ancient version, so I don't know if the new ones are more bloated.
    • Jungle Disk for storage and backup, 1.5MB Win download (4.5MB mac), ~12MB ram. Mozy uses about 30MB.
    1. Re:My favs by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      Interesting list. I consider both UltraEdit and ACDSee as bloatware.
      I use Irfanview instead of ACDSee.
      As for UltraEdit, haven't made up my mind yet concerning a proper text editor. Currently I use PSPad, but CrimsonEditor or ConTEXT are also better than UltraEdit. And if you don't mind paying a bit, EditPlus is also much better than UltraEdit.

    2. Re:My favs by crt · · Score: 1

      Looking at the latest version of ACDSee I'd have to agree with you. They've gone to the dark side. The old versions rocked though.
      UltraEdit is interesting - it's clearly had a bit of feature bloat, but I wouldn't call it bloatware. That thing has a million options and features now, but they've done a great job of keeping the size small and the speed fast. The quality is still high too. While I probably won't use many of the newer features I find useful stuff all the time.

    3. Re:My favs by StarfishOne · · Score: 1
      Another vote for EditPlus. It can do an awful lot given it's <= 1MB download.

      For torrents I have become quite a fan of rtorrent [ http://libtorrent.rakshasa.no/ ]

      It's both fast and very light-weight!

    4. Re:My favs by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      Emphatic agreement on Ultra-Edit. I bet you can trim it from 10MB too - the executable is only 4M.

      I regularly commune with the Big Iron all the time; it's the only editor I know that can FTP Open from an MVS host. I use this option at least once a day.

      It also makes the EBCDIC-ASCII conversion a little saner than you get when you just FTP from an MVS host in ASCII format. If you bring the file over in binary and do a local conversion (which you can also do with Ultra-Edit) you don't have as many issues with spurious line breaks, etc.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    5. Re:My favs by xtracto · · Score: 1

      I used to use ACDSee a long time ago (maybe 8 years ago!). It was really neat and lean. But it became *really* bloated and I discovered irfanview.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    6. Re:My favs by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah ACDSee is bloated as hell now. The early versions were fantastic though. I switched over to FSview, but really old ACDSee is a great choice.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    7. Re:My favs by nevermore94 · · Score: 1

      UltraEdit may have grown a bit, but it was one of the first to have Open/Save via FTP which is an essential feature that I use daily and can not live without. I will have to check out those you named, but you could save me some time by telling which, if any, of those can Open/Save via FTP.

      --
      Nevermore.
    8. Re:My favs by zugurudumba · · Score: 1

      I totally concur on ACDSee. Really, I've been using the same version since 2002 or so. It's ACDSee 3.1 and can still be found here. Back in the day I used to have an ongoing debate with a friend, a small "vi vs emacs" religious war, about what's better and resource friendlier: ACDSee or IrfanView. While IrfanView has managed to stay bloat-free, ACDSee is exactly the opposite today. I tried IrfanView but I just can't give up the keyboard shortcuts and the functionality of ACDSee 3.1 that I got used to over the years. And it STILL displays everything.

      --
      Sig
    9. Re:My favs by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      ACDSee Classic version 2.43 is a very fast image viewer.

      It is also renders directly onto the visible screen and doesn't lock the controls while doing so, which makes it the perfect viewer for quickly browsing images, especially when enlarged in full screen mode.

      Also, by just pressing enter you switch between the image viewer and a simple but effective directory browser (that also has an image preview part).

      The only features I miss are unicode support and rebinding the keyboard and viewing zip archives as an image directory. Oh, and it doesn't have png transparency support either, which doesn't matter to me much, because I mostly view jpgs.

      If I could find an image viewer as fast as ACDSee Classic (including the ability to see partially rendered images) with any of the missing features I mentioned I would probably switch, but I havn't. And I have looked at a lot of viewers.

    10. Re:My favs by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      iirc all of them have FTP support. But that's all irrelevant. I use WinSCP and open my favorite editor to edit the remote files. WinSCP will handle the updating of the remote files in the background.

    11. Re:My favs by Kugrian · · Score: 1

      PSPad has a god awful FTP browser though. That's the one thing I miss from Crimson Editor.

  63. .theprodukkt --3D FPS in 65k! by rhartness · · Score: 1

    I think I originally heard about this projecto n /. quite a while ago (sorry, to lazy to search for the article). .theprodukkt Is an amazing project where a simple but amazing FPS is crammed into 65k! I think they also designed much of the game in a 3D editor that is also smaller than 65k.

  64. My Favoritse by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
  65. I like MOVEit Freely for the same reason... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    I like MOVEit Freely for the same reason...(it's a command-line FTP/SSL client for Windows)

  66. vi by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

    My nominee is the little Unix utility that everyone loves to hate: vi It sucks just as bad as it did twenty years ago but it has not gotten worse--which in my book is a plus.

  67. rTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    My favourite bittorrent client is rTorrent

    "rtorrent is a BitTorrent client for ncurses, using the libtorrent library. The client and library is written in C++ with emphasis on speed and efficiency, while delivering equivalent features to those found in GUI based clients in an ncurses client."

    1. Re:rTorrent by bdigit · · Score: 1

      I second rtorrent. I was pulling my hair out with the gnome bittorrent client using up a couple hundred megs of ram while downloading torrents and when I only had less than a GB of ram it was painful.

  68. Perl by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perl is my favorite unbloated language. I know you laugh but hear me out. Pick up the O-reily quick reference for almost any major language. with the exception of fortran (:-) the perl one is not just a little bit thinner, it's more than half as thick as most and that includes c++.

    Basically I find it really annoying that to get even a fraction of the functionality of stock perl one has to import some library. Why do I have to import Regular expression or Strings in python? or for that matter, just to get the command line args I have to import a freakin library? And then why does it take a zillion pages in the quickref to explain it when it has less fearutes than stock perl.

    I don't want to rag on python here and this is not a flame to say perl is better than python. (python is in very many ways superior to perl for organized project programming. It also used to be easier to read since there was only one way to do something but that zen is gone now.)

    Once you learn perl you don't need a big set of reference books to explain every obscure library. Just the manpages or a quick reference will do. I hate language bloat.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Perl by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      What about plain old C? Its still one of the most popular languages on the planet as well :)

    2. Re:Perl by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      odd, I found even with the references, perl could be a PITA to do anything. Python may not include everything you need (and many things you don't) by default, but it throws help at you like it's going out of style. Aside from the excessive amount of electronic help python gives you, I'd say it beat perl in the bloat context hands down.

      >>> import sys
      >>> import re
      >>> help("re")
      >>> help("sys")

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:Perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Python help is sadly pathetic compared to perl man pages which actually attempt to teach and give insight, not just list calling args. I'm guessing windows users like yourself don't see these so they don't know what they are missing.

    4. Re:Perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen them, I'm primarily a freebsd user actually...

      Regardless, the help pages are somewhat useful as a quick reminder, if you need more, the documentation on the web site for python goes into much better details than Perls lackluster man pages.

      of course being an ASSumptive, you probably wouldn't bother checking, since you already know everythign, don't you?

    5. Re:Perl by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know you laugh but hear me out. Pick up the O-reily quick reference for almost any major language.

      Is that a *really* good metric for a language? O'reilly is pretty good as companies go, but they are still after the bottom line. And the bottom line is: bigger "quick references" will sell better and for more money.

      And then why does it take a zillion pages in the quickref to explain it when it has less fearutes than stock perl.

      See, just like I told you.

      Once you learn perl you don't need a big set of reference books to explain every obscure library.

      Is there a language that, once learned, you need a big set of reference books? I use both Perl and Python (and 4 or 5 others). I have no books on Python. I have the camel book for Perl. I still find Java's javadoc to be the best language reference around. I no longer program in Java so that's just an interesting side note at this point.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    6. Re:Perl by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 3, Informative

      PERL lacking bloat? You've got to be kidding!

      If you want minimal, try out UnLambda or Pax. Unlambda is so minimal the functions (except a few built-ins) don't even get names. As a purely functional language, it also lacks variables. Despite this, it's Turing complete, so it can do anything you can do in such bloated messes as C++, PERL or Python. Pax is also Turing complete, and the page referenced above includes complete source code to its implementation, in a total of 175 lines of code (including white space, nice indenting, etc.)

      What's truly sad is that even though it was apparently invented with the specific intent of being obfuscated, Pax programs are generally much more readable than most PERL. Oh, and just to address a couple of your other points: Pax doesn't need a library to do pattern matching -- in fact, the language is basically built entirely around pattern equations. The tutorial and reference manual together work out to just over 200 lines of text. Most of that is the USTL reference manual mentioned above.

      Much as I hate to, I have to admit that even compared to PERL, programs in UnLambda are somewhat obfuscated -- though once you get used to its syntax, they're not quite as bad as they initially appear (rather the opposite of PERL in that respect).

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
    7. Re:Perl by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Python may not include everything you need ... I'd say it beat perl in the bloat context hands down.

      I think missing the point a little. I think "bloat" has to be a measure of size/functionality. Otherwise, the only sane program to run would be no-op; a single instruction that doesn't do anything.

      I suppose you could beat that with an empty file, but then I don't know an OS that would execute it, so that's a technical disqualification right there

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    8. Re:Perl by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      let me rephrase that, it doesn't automatically include everything, but at the same time it doesn't automatically include stuff you don't need

      I have written a lot of perl applications where I didn't need regular expressions for example, but that library was included by default. Who knows how many things were automatically included that I didn't need beyond that?

      Conversely, if I need regular expression in Python, I can simply put the line 'import re' near the beginning of my file, and viola, I have them.

      all the functionality I need, sans excess during the runtime.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    9. Re:Perl by aldousd666 · · Score: 1
      --
      Speak for yourself.
    10. Re:Perl by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      using the size of the reference book measurement of bloat,
      C is the best language I have on my shelf right now.

    11. Re:Perl by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have written a lot of perl applications where I didn't need regular expressions for example, but that library was included by default.
      If you wrote a perl app without regexes, you probably did it wrong ;)
      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    12. Re:Perl by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      but perl is bloated. problem is PERL comes with a crapload of 3rd party libraries included. you never realize this until you try and fit a perl interpeter into an embedded project. I got 16 meg of flash for OS and tools and app Cool!

      not with PERL you dont. I can get miniperl in there but I cant do 1/4 of what the standard perl does without soldering on another 16 meg of flash and doubling my ram.

      Dont think it's small, Perl and it's supporting entourage is HUGE.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Perl by Khazunga · · Score: 1

      Pick up the O-reily quick reference for almost any major language...
      You obviously never read Kernighan & Ritchie. Go pick it up at any local library. I wish every language had their own K&R.
      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    14. Re:Perl by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      let me rephrase that, it doesn't automatically include everything, but at the same time it doesn't automatically include stuff you don't need

      mmm... have you looked on cpan.org lately? Or in /usr/lib/perl5, or wherever it lurks on your machine? There is a hell of a lot of stuff Perl doesn't include by default, but you can import with "use".

      I have written a lot of perl applications where I didn't need regular expressions for example, but that library was included by default.

      Well... yeah. Perl is the Practical Extraction and Report Language. Regular expressions are at the heart of Perl. You could cut them out, but what would be the point? It'd be like taking Simula and hacking out all that unnecessary concurrency malarkey.

      Who knows how many things were automatically included that I didn't need beyond that?

      I'm sorry, but that sounds more like political scaremongering than an honest concern. If it runs fast enough for you (and Perl runs just fine on some old, old hardware), then the bloat isn't that much of a problem. If it's lagging (and Larry Wall would be the first to admit that Perl isn't the Answer to Everything), then use something else.

      This isn't "Highlander": There Can Be More Than One.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    15. Re:Perl by jstomel · · Score: 1

      Bah, if you want boat free go LISP. You can't beat a language that was originally specified in 1958 for efficiency.

    16. Re:Perl by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Turning that around:

      Why do I have to import Regular expression

      In Perl, why do I have to load regular expression handling even if I'm not going to use it? What if I want a different type of pattern matching - I have to load both? Python lets you load just what you want.

      or Strings in python?

      There is almost nothing in "string" anymore except for some constant definitions, which brings us to:

      or for that matter, just to get the command line args I have to import a freakin library?

      Consistency. Why does Perl have so many special variables in the default namespace? In Python, you don't get what you don't ask for.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    17. Re:Perl by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Let me clarify. When You include a command into the main language you think twice about it. You don't want to include a zillion variations on it since that clutters things up. I.e. bloat. When you compartmentalize things into libraries, the people who write these seem to think that means it carte blanch to have every possible function on that theme under the sun. Import "re" and you get a match function for strings at the beginning and a different one for string matches anywhere. import Strings and you get a left strip, a right strip, and the strip both all as separate commands. And so on. No attempt at parecemony. Sure perhaps there's some optimization advantages and some self documentation advantages. But it also means a shitload of stuff to memorize and you end up with many ways to do the same things. (e.g. want to convert strings to ints? well use localize library or string library or ....)

      This is bloat in a language.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    18. Re:Perl by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Basically I find it really annoying that to get even a fraction of the functionality of stock perl one has to import some library.

      And basically I find it really annoying in perl that that extra functionality is built in to the language via a disorganized mishmash of global variables with ridiculous names and extra operators.

      Why do I have to import Regular expression or Strings in python? or for that matter, just to get the command line args I have to import a freakin library?

      Why do I have to have those things present in the process and the namespace of my program if I'm not using them?

      And then why does it take a zillion pages in the quickref to explain it when it has less fearutes than stock perl.

      Clearly your metric of using oreilly quick reference docs to gauge language bloat is wrong.

      Once you learn perl you don't need a big set of reference books to explain every obscure library. Just the manpages or a quick reference will do. I hate language bloat.

      And once you learn python (or whatever language) and the libraries you need, you don't need reference books to remember what variables like "$]" means.
    19. Re:Perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFLMAO! So true. so true. and so useful!

    20. Re:Perl by diablovision · · Score: 1

      Well, when it comes to small footprint, it's hard to beat Virgil. A complete object-oriented and safe language that compiles down to machine code for microcontrollers with only a few bytes of RAM!

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    21. Re:Perl by Wizworm · · Score: 1

      any good optimizer would throw out that operation.

      --
      I always thought of Creationism as the Raving Right's version of the Loony Left's Anthropogenic Global Warming-brightmal
    22. Re:Perl by renoX · · Score: 1

      >Perl is my favorite unbloated language.

      A language which has by default regular expression is less bloated than one which has them as part of its standard library? Your definition of bloat is like Perl: twisted.

      >Once you learn perl you don't need a big set of reference books to explain every obscure library. Just the manpages

      Perl manpages are *big*, so that's not a very convincing proof! And personnaly when I'm using Perl, I'm always using books and google to try to make sense of that convoluted mess of a language.

      Smalltalk is a lean language, Perl isn't!

    23. Re:Perl by crustymonkey · · Score: 1

      Uh, actually, the reason you have to import things like Regular Expressions (and no, you don't have to import the string library, at least not anymore) in Python is to avoid language bloat. The idea, and Perl does a decent job of this as well, is to keep the base language as lean as possible and only import what you need, when you need it. In that way Python is actually leaner than Perl since, if you aren't going to need regular expressions (or command-line args, etc.) for whatever task you are doing, you don't load them. That's the idea behind *not* having a bloated language.

      --
      \033:wq!
    24. Re:Perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that the best way to generate elegant perl code is to simply pipe /dev/random into a text file and hope it compiles.

    25. Re:Perl by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You've got almost the whole Camel book in perldoc. I haven't read enough history to guess who borrows from whom, but I've found quite a few entries that were identical to several pages of the Camel book.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    26. Re:Perl by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

      Is there a language that, once learned, you need a big set of reference books? Is there a language that you need a big set of reference books?

      I know other coders that have reference books, but I've never understood what kind of information exists on those pages that I can't find faster in an online documentation. Or google when I want the nitty-gritty details that aren't in a book anyway.
      --
      I lost my sig.
    27. Re:Perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "Perl" isn't supposed to be capitalized. To THOSE of us who know this (most of us), when you keep capitalizing it like that, it reads funny. It's like listening to somebody TALKING and they occasionally just randomly scream one of the words at the top of their LUNGS .

    28. Re:Perl by Billhead · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you saying NaDa isn't a real program?

    29. Re:Perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FORTH: That's about as minimalist as you can go before assembly programming

    30. Re:Perl by entgod · · Score: 1

      Talking of minimal languages, have you tried brainfuck?

    31. Re:Perl by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 1

      First of all, Forth (unlike PERL) is not an acronym, so it shouldn't be written in caps. Second, it's much larger than either Pax or UnLambda. Even the versions for special Forth hardware are still considerably larger than either one. UnLambda has around a half dozen operations and only one data type (the function).

      Forth and assembly language are both fairly low level, but neither is (usually) particularly minimal. Obviously some assembly languages are more elaborate than others, but about the simplest of which I'm aware is the Xilinx PicoBlaze, which still has 57 instructions and 5 data types. A more typical RISC (e.g. ARM, PowerPC) supports hundreds of instructions and a dozen or more data types.

      In fairness I should add that the lack of minimalism in both cases is because they're intended to be useful, which Pax and UnLambda really aren't. Granted, both (along with dozens more like them, going all the way back to Intercal) are somewhat interesting, especially in how they manage to be minimal yet (Turing) complete. Nonetheless, none of them is really intended for practical use at all. Some are simply experiments while others are explicitly intended to be the as awful as possible.

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
    32. Re:Perl by rshondell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perl is not an acronym. Those of us who have spent time in the Perl community know this, and it's a fairly quick way to identify outsiders and newbies.

      http://faq.perl.org/perlfaq1.html#What_s_the_diffe renc

    33. Re:Perl by mzs · · Score: 1

      Perl not bloated!?

      Here is /bin/awk on a solaris box:

      $ ls -l /bin/awk
      -r-xr-xr-x    2 root     bin         85368 May 19  2006 /bin/awk*
      $ ldd /bin/awk
              libm.so.1 =>     /usr/lib/libm.so.1
              libc.so.1 =>     /usr/lib/libc.so.1
              libdl.so.1 =>    /usr/lib/libdl.so.1
              /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-4/lib/libc_psr.so.1

      I can almost always get away with an awk script instead of a perl script, sometimes gawk or nawk is better. Plus awk is great for few liners from the command line too. Awk and sed together are even better.

      Here is perl BTW:

      $ du -k /usr/perl5/5.6.1 | tail -1
      27935   /usr/perl5/5.6.1

      Yeah by vote for favorite unbloatware is awk. I have used it for unusual things like better hex dumps and pstree-like scripts.

    34. Re:Perl by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, but PERL was an acronym long before the FAQ tried to deny it. At one time Larry was quite open about it; claims to the contrary came a lot later.

      Then again, if it identifies me as an outsider, I'd probably capitalize it even if it wasn't an acronym. I certainly wouldn't want to be mistaken for a PERL user!

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
    35. Re:Perl by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to prepend !#/usr/bin/perl\n to the file. You have a much better chance of it working if you do.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    36. Re:Perl by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      er... typoed that. It should be #!/usr/bin/perl\n

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    37. Re:Perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I deal with the .Net framework. It's by Microsoft. You can imagine the API bloat it has. (The Win32 API is worse though).

      When it comes to language and library design (and, IMHO, program and OS design), I am reminded of the quote:

      "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." — Antoine de Saint-Exuper (source)

    38. Re:Perl by aj50 · · Score: 1

      Not sure, I sometimes find reading on the screen annoying. For a quick search, an electronic version is faster but for prolonged reading, I'd prefer a dead tree version.

      This does lead to the question of why I would read more than a page at a time of a reference book. I could see myself doing it to get a feel for what functions were available in a particular area or just out of an interest for nitty-gritty details.

      --
      I wish to remain anomalous
    39. Re:Perl by Alchemist253 · · Score: 1

      And I thought twisted was a Python framework...

    40. Re:Perl by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you saying NaDa isn't a real program?

      Nope, I'msaying it's the ultimate in bloat-free computing. Any smaller than that, though, and I don't think it should count.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    41. Re:Perl by rshondell · · Score: 1

      Then again, if it identifies me as an outsider, I'd probably capitalize it even if it wasn't an acronym. I certainly wouldn't want to be mistaken for a PERL user! And that's the beauty of Perl. The mechanism by which you can say you don't like Perl (slashdot) is powered by Perl. But it doesn't care, it loves you just the same. :)
    42. Re:Perl by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 1

      And that's the beauty of Perl. The mechanism by which you can say you don't like Perl (slashdot) is powered by Perl. But it doesn't care, it loves you just the same. :)

      It's exactly this sort of blithering nonsense that makes me want to ensure nobody mistakes me for a PERL user.

      First of all, I never said I hated anything.

      Second, most of the mechanism by which I expressed my opinion (the Internet) is "powered by" C and C++ a lot more than PERL.

      Third, PERL itself is (of course) written in C, so everything written in PERL is really powered by C.

      So, if you insist on attributing such things as love to an innocent programming language (even in jest) the real answer is that C loves me so much that even Larry and company can't screw things up, no matter how hard they try.

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
    43. Re:Perl by CMiYC · · Score: 1

      My fiance frowns when I take my computer into the bathroom with me.

    44. Re:Perl by autark · · Score: 1

      What was it an acronym for? Where did you get this information? The Perl lore that was handed down to me is that Larry just tried out words until he found something he liked. Almost called the language "Gloria", but that's his wife's name too, so he figured it would cause too much confusion.

    45. Re:Perl by BungaDunga · · Score: 1

      http://esolangs.org/wiki/Thue
      A language with one operator.

      http://esolangs.org/wiki/Unary
      One of my favorites; man is simply 56623 0s.

    46. Re:Perl by rshondell · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, and everything in C is ultimately powered by electrons, et cetera, et cetera. It was just a whimsical comment on a lazy Saturday, no need to get bent out of shape. Perl is just a tool, if you don't like it, don't use it. I was just hoping you'd spell it correctly, but if you choose not to, I can't do anything about that. So relax. Have a nice refreshing SCUBA dive, take in a LASER light show, or any other acronym powered fun that catches your fancy.

    47. Re:Perl by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, and everything in C is ultimately powered by electrons, et cetera, et cetera.

      I hadn't considered that, but it explains a lot. It's not really C that loves me, it's electrons that love me. I'm surrounded by a whole cloud of them! This is why people see me as so negative, even though I'm (obviously) very positive!

      In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not bent out of shape about anything -- I thought the comment about how much C loves me would have made it obvious I was joking, but I guess my sense of humor is a bit on the dry side at times. My apologies.

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
  69. VuePro and vi by gearloos · · Score: 1

    For Win...Vuepro is an amazing picture viewer. For *nix ....well, vi, of course. Maybe vim but vi does whats needed.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
    1. Re:VuePro and vi by fsmunoz · · Score: 1

      Maybe vim but vi does whats needed. Indeed, if what's needed is a beep.
  70. Rockbox. by maeka · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rockbox is my favorite piece of unbloated software.
    Great care is taken to keep the core as small as possible, while maintaining focus on the fundamental goal of being the best DAP firmware possible.

  71. you can't compare software for bloat by geekoid · · Score: 1

    with and application to application comparison. It's foolish and pointless. It has to be on a feature bases.

    I can write a mp3 player far more compact then winamp, does that mean winamp is bloated? No, it may mean that mine is a command line that only plays mp3, no other feature at all.

    So, when you have a piece of software that has all the features of iTunes, then you can compare for bloat. and I mean ALL the features, like being able to buy music, get podcasts, play TV shows, etc...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:you can't compare software for bloat by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      If a piece of software take so long to load that I get bored and kill it before it loads then it is bloated.... ... If a program has so many options visible that I can never see myself using then it is bloated

      Give a program that does one thing well, loads fast and has an "Advanced Options" checkbox .... VLC anyone ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  72. Everyone says PuTTY. by filterban · · Score: 1

    90% of responses above recommend PuTTY, which is a great program. However, if you're looking for the ultimate in bloat-free software that hasn't been mentioned:

    Microsoft Word 5.1a for Mac. Some say it is the greatest word processor ever made. I say it's close.

    vim. Easily one of the best editors for any platform. And sure, it's more bloated than vi, but it's so much more powerful and usable.

    --
    rm -rf /
  73. Old versions! by sootman · · Score: 1

    Windows 2000 & Office 97 run great on a well-maintained 1 GHz PIII.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Old versions! by gearloos · · Score: 1

      Well, we should go one step further and say Dos 5 or maybe back to 3.0 or 3.3. Or.. there's nothing like a good minix session hehe.

      --
      "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
    2. Re:Old versions! by sootman · · Score: 1

      Truth be told, I had an AT (XT? I forget) in college that went from power-off to a C: prompt in seven seconds. It ran Banner Blue Movie Guide (awesome searchable movie database program) and WordPerfect 5.1 just fine, thankyouverymuch.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    3. Re:Old versions! by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Actually, I ran Windows XP SP2 with OpenOffice.org 2.0 fine on a P-III 600MHz with 512Meg RAM. Plenty of other tools too. Ran fine, but the keyword here is "well maintained". Wouldn't dare to give such a machine to a computer newbie. It would be trashed withing 2 weeks.

  74. NC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good old netcat, convert sockets to pipes & pipes to sockets.

    Also, GNU tar (even bloated it weighs less than most things).

  75. ePrompter by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

    I don't use it anymore (I now use Gmail Notifier instead) but for a long time I enjoyed using ePrompter, a taskbar email checker and lightweight email client.

    You can set up as many as 8 email addresses, each with its own colour. When you receive an email the taskbar icon turns the colour of the respective email address and displays a number. If more than one email address receives mail the icon alternates colours. Double-clicking the tray icon brings up the small main screen which shows each account and the number of emails. You can open an account, read the email, and reply with the very streamlined and simple client. HTML email isn't supported so it's a great first line of defence against spam.

    The program is freeware. It used to be ad-supported but they've since removed the ads.

    http://www.eprompter.com/

  76. Ad Muncher by mmxsaro · · Score: 1

    Ad Muncher is quite possibly the best advertising blocker out there, hands down. I haven't seen an ad in years and it eliminates the need for an anti-spyware application as you'll never come across those annoying smiley banners again. It has a continuously updated filtering system that stops all the pop-ups and ads out there while not breaking websites. For a one-time fee of 25$, it's a steal.

    Oh, it doesn't steal any of your precious megahertz or RAM either. It's a well written program. Try the demo out for 30 days, you won't be disappointed.

    1. Re:Ad Muncher by Guanine · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. The reason it can accomplish so much with so little is that it's written in assembly. Quite a program. Needs to be disabled if you're a web developer, though, as it adds a hefty amount of ad-blocking JS to the headers of webpages. That's easy enough, though.

  77. I prefer mh by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    haven't been able to use it in awhile, but I miss being able to grep individual files for what I want.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  78. uTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff sa

  79. for a Windows pdf reader.. by fliptout · · Score: 1

    Try Foxit Reader, as it is so much faster than the Adobe reader.

    --
    A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
    1. Re:for a Windows pdf reader.. by treeves · · Score: 1

      Adobe Reader does have an advantage over that one: it's free (as in $0).

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    2. Re:for a Windows pdf reader.. by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      Yes, but newer versions of Acrobat Reader spam you with flashing graphics on the menu bar, just like any other shovelware.

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
  80. The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is, of course:

    main() {
                  printf("hello, world");
    }

    1. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      Or the mother of all bloat software?

      0 utility, therefore its 100% bloat. And it manages to be quite small while doing it.

      maybe you'd be better with true and false

      int main(){return 0;}

      int main(){return 1;}

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    2. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 4, Interesting
      printf("hello, world");
      Quite the contrary! You've used printf when all you really needed was puts. For that matter, even puts hides a big, complex buffering library. If you want it bloat-free, consider something like:

      main() { write(1, "hello, world", 12); }

      Even though I'm (at least mostly) joking, the difference is real, and at one time would have given serious consideration to doing things this way in real code. In reality, you've shown exactly how a lot of bloat really happens. Much of it stems from people using large, general-purpose libraries where they didn't really need them. In some cases (including this one) they didn't really even gain much from the library. The C stdio library provides buffering that can help speed when/if it reduces the number of times your program calls the OS write routine. In this case, the code calls write exactly once either way, so it's gained you nothing, but cost you extra memory usage and data copying, as well as making your program quite a bit larger.
      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
    3. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your version is still bloated -- you used a C string literal which includes a trailing '\0', but then you pass it to write() which doesn't care.

      Save a byte:

      main() {
        static const char msg[] = { 'h', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o', ',', ' ', 'w', 'o', 'r', 'l', 'd' };
        write(1, msg, sizeof(msg));
      }

    4. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without a '\0' size of will most likely return an incorrect number, so your solution fails too

    5. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't know how sizeof works...

    6. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither implementation takes any resources (measurably.) And the difference in the size of the executables is 4 bytes, but that works out to a whopping .02%. Granted I didn't link static, or optimize. I tried to do a static link, but it couldn't find crt0.o, and I instantly stopped bothering.

      <blockquote>
      ~/tmp/testCode>/usr/bin/time -lp ./hwWrite
      Hello Worldreal 0.00
      user 0.00
      sys 0.00
                        0 maximum resident set size
                        0 average shared memory size
                        0 average unshared data size
                        0 average unshared stack size
                        0 page reclaims
                        0 page faults
                        0 swaps
                        0 block input operations
                        0 block output operations
                        0 messages sent
                        0 messages received
                        0 signals received
                        0 voluntary context switches
                        0 involuntary context switches
      ~/tmp/testCode>/usr/bin/time -lp ./hwPrintf
      Hello Worldreal 0.00
      user 0.00
      sys 0.00
                        0 maximum resident set size
                        0 average shared memory size
                        0 average unshared data size
                        0 average unshared stack size
                        0 page reclaims
                        0 page faults
                        0 swaps
                        0 block input operations
                        0 block output operations
                        0 messages sent
                        0 messages received
                        0 signals received
                        0 voluntary context switches
                        0 involuntary context switches
      ~/tmp/testCode>uname -a
      Darwin nachos-macbook-pro.local 8.10.1 Darwin Kernel Version 8.10.1: Wed May 23 16:33:00 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.22.5~1/RELEASE_I386 i386 i386

      -rwxr-xr-x 1 nobody inacio 13344 Sep 8 08:28 hwPrintf*
      -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody inacio 100 Sep 8 08:28 hwPrintf.c
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 nobody inacio 13340 Sep 8 08:27 hwWrite*
      -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody inacio 105 Sep 8 08:27 hwWrite.c

      </blockquote>

      hwPrintf.c
      <blockquote>
      #include <stdio.h>

      int
      main (int argc, char *argv[])
      {
                      printf("Hello World");

                      return 0;

      }

      </blockquote>

      hwWrite.c
      <blockquote>
      #include <stdio.h>

      int
      main (int argc, char *argv[])
      {
                      write(1, "Hello World", 12);

                      return 0;
      }

      </blockquote>

    7. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 1

      Neither implementation takes any resources (measurably.) And the difference in the size of the executables is 4 bytes, but that works out to a whopping .02%. Granted I didn't link static, or optimize. I tried to do a static link, but it couldn't find crt0.o, and I instantly stopped bothering.

      First of all, you're measuring the wrong resources. Second, a program clearly needs to use some resources to do anything at all. Since your measurements show them all as zero, it's clear that it isn't measuring them with fine enough precision to produce meaningful results.

      Your last sentence is quite telling: what you did was perfectly sensible today -- but years ago, it would not have been, which was pretty much my point from the beginning. In fact, static linking was all that was available on most systems years ago. When you use dynamic linking, you're substituting a large complex system for even attempting to make your code as small as possible -- i.e. you're basically writing exactly the sort of bloated code that started this discussion.

      Now, don't get me wrong: I don't intend that as a personal accusation of wrongdoing, or anything like it -- it's a simple, practical and effective method of getting decent results with a minimum of effort. Given the cost of computer resources in general (low and dropping) vs. time and effort of programmers (high and rising), using extra machine resources to save programming time and effort makes good economic sense -- but back when computer resources were a lot more expensive, the reverse was true.

      Now, if you had bothered with static linking and such, you might have found a rather more substantial difference than the .02% you mentioned. As a comparison, I did a quick bit of compiling myself. Using static linking and optimization, the version using printf came out to 23,552 bytes. By eliminating the standard library and calling the system directly, I was able to reduce that to an executable of 752 bytes. That's a reduction in size of more than 30:1.

      It's obviously open to a lot of question whether that reduction is really worth the bother -- especially since it's much more difficult to get that kind of reduction for real code. OTOH, the basic point of the original article was that the author appreciated people who did bother.

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
    8. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree and disagree at the same time.

      You've got a good understanding of the difference between "puts" and "printf". Todays
      bloatware fanboys just put it off and say..hey..who cares what goes on behind the scenes.
      as long as it works...some of the time...

      While somewhat tedious, I could actually probably single-step through printf and see each
      processor step within a relatively short time. Also, I have seen several sources for printf
      and can comprehend what it's doing.

      The point I'm making is that it's within the realm of someone's complete understanding..and
      accountability.

      Todays bloatware is off the scale of human understanding. For example, imagine single stepping through
      500 million instructions..that's 1 second on todays processors. If you took 1 second for each instruction
      it would take 15 years to single step through it..and no one ever will.

    9. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Can't library incorporation be used so that only the relavant functions/classes be added to the code, to minimize bloatware? Or are compilers just too stupid to do this?

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    10. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by 00lmz · · Score: 1

      You've got a good understanding of the difference between "puts" and "printf"

      Actually, puts outputs a trailing newline...

  81. What is bloat? by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

    Bloat is simply a lot of extra features you don't use.

    Ex: I use EMacs a lot, but only for a few things that are hard to find conviniently together elsewhere. 90% of what it can do, I don't need. For me it's bloat, but for what it does, there's no replacement

    Arguably Opera and Konqueror are slimmer than Firefox, but I much prefer what I get with Firefox, so I don't consider it bloat.

    OpenOffice - All those features, nobody uses all of them, but it has what most people need. Bloated but useful for everyone.

    Bloat is very dependant not just on what is in the software, but what you want, and what you want is different from anyone else. There's probably bloat in any software, it's just variant on the individual using it, otherwise everyone would have their own personal program for every taks, and no one else would use that program.

    So... My list

    Non-bloat that I like
    XMMS
    KMail
    Firefox
    FreeBSD
    sh

    Hard to call non-bloat, but like it anyway
    OpenOffice
    KDE
    Windows
    Trillian
    Pidgin
    Emacs
    Python
    GCC
    bash

    --
    34486853790
    Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
  82. Amarok by FtheRIAA · · Score: 1
    I haven't loaded anything to my Ipod using Itunes since I started using Amarok. Its worth it to use Linux for Amarok alone. The fact that I don't have to have my entire library of music on my computer to load music to an Ipod and that I can take music off my Ipod just amazed me after using Itunes for as long as I did.

    I sure don't miss downloading a new ~60mB file every 2 weeks for an update for Itunes either.

    1. Re:Amarok by phreeza · · Score: 1

      imo amarok is pretty bloated, as is much of the standard KDE stuff. try quodlibet, it has all the features you need and a much leaner interface...

  83. UNIX commands by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    Wow, where have all the real geeks gone? Most of the replies are for Windows software. If you want bloat free stuff, look at grep, sed, tr, ls, true, false and their companions.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:UNIX commands by alienmole · · Score: 1

      They left Slashdot in the great geek migration of 2001. I'd tell you where they went, but then you'd just have the current herd of clueless Winewbies thundering over there and ruining everything with the pointing and the clicking and the overengineered APIs.

    2. Re:UNIX commands by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      Crap, I didn't get the memo.

  84. Rogue by pzs · · Score: 1

    Diablo in ASCII baby!

    Peter

    1. Re:Rogue by wandazulu · · Score: 1

      Is Rogue still being developed? I thought Nethack merged Rogue and Hack and was the only version still being (more or less) developed.

      But yeah, good times...a lot of hours playing those games on a VT102 in the comp sci basement....

    2. Re:Rogue by Bob+of+Dole · · Score: 1

      Bah. You got it backwards. Diablo is a half-assed attempt at rogue with graphics. :)

  85. Eclipse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love eclipse, it only needs a few hunderd megs to be functional, and the java runtime files are only about a hundred megs as well.

    To me, nothing beats the ability to have a fully functional 'compiler' in a 512Mb USB stick. It just barely fits, and takes 10mins to load the java engine, but WOW!

  86. forgot nmap by gearloos · · Score: 1

    In my previous post I forgot to mention nmap for *nix. Of course you could bloat it out by adding front ends etc.. but by itself it is perfect for everything I need.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  87. Some of my favorites... by buddyglass · · Score: 1
    1. Foxit Reader instead of Adobe's Acrobat Reader. The difference is ridiculous. This if far-and-away my #1 choice.
    2. TeraTerm Pro + TTSSH as a ssh client on Windows. Fits on a floppy. I prefer it to PuTTY.
    3. Command line "zip" instead of WinZip. Download here (along with other handy win32 ports of gnu tools).
  88. Lockjaw by tepples · · Score: 1

    Lockjaw is much less bloated than Tetris Worlds, Tetris Elements, or Tetris Zone. It's also much less broken if you set it so.

  89. Xvid vs. DivX by gc8005 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Xvid download: 628K, simple install DivX download: 22.5MB, loads of crapware, nagging reminders to upgrade, etc.

    1. Re:Xvid vs. DivX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that XVID ships just a codec, whereas in the DivX download you get actual applications including a converter and player with burning built in, and it also include the web player for Stage6.

      It's hardly comparable.

    2. Re:Xvid vs. DivX by cerelib · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that the DivX install includes all of the things you mentioned that some people would consider "bloat".

    3. Re:Xvid vs. DivX by trawg · · Score: 1

      Xvid is a possibly-patent-violating, open source, free application. Divx is like the "legal" equivalent (ie, they've paid all the patent licensing fees to the relevant licensing authorities) - so they need all that extra bloat to pay the bills :)

  90. Bloat doesn't seem to be a concern for devs. by erroneus · · Score: 1

    It seems the more any given project or product 'matures' the more it grows and bloats. It doesn't seem to me that many projects take size into account. Even my beloved Linux has failed to pay any heed to bloat... X.org + GNOME or KDE are requiring a lot more power and memory than ever before, for example, and can no longer be easily made suitable for older hardware. (Yes, I know there are distros that focus on maintaining a small size, but those projects themselves are evidence of how difficult it is to maintain functionality within smaller confines.)

    I remember coding for OS9/6809... mostly in assembler because I learned that before I learned C... I was always worried about that 64K limit and keeping code tidy. I think we're beyond seeing any such renaissance from ever happening; a cultural shift focusing on compact and efficient code. So I find myself just wishing without hope for some elements of "the good ole days" that have been lost.

  91. ePSXe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought the PlayStation Emulator "ePSXe" was a nice bit of software weighing in at 180 kilobytes for the linux binary.

  92. fsck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahaha... you dont know how to start a new thread!

  93. Print Shop Deluxe (90s) for Mac by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1

    Probably one of the best bloat free programs was PrintShop Deluxe for the Mac. The program is the daddy of card design programs (Print Shop for the Apple II is the granddaddy).

    It was coded back in the day when people wrote code in assembler so it was fast and until the introduction of the Intel Macs was usable on modern Macintosh's. While some can deride Apples HFS file structure Printshop consisted of 3 files for the program (print shop, documentation and exporter program) plus the graphic libraries. Very clean.

    It supported its own internal vector format - but also any of the graphics could be easily exported to Adobe Illustrator, EPS or PICT format with the included exporter program. Another nice thing was the graphic libraries were compiled in single files so instead of having 500 graphic files to deal with you had one large one with 500 graphics, very sensible.

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
  94. It was as if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you pulled out an enormous shlanger and a million little geeks started quivering in the corner with their puTTY candy wrappers.

  95. iTunes Player by no_pets · · Score: 1

    Thank you for mentioning iTunes Player as a bloated piece of ... software. I burn my own CDs to disk and used to really like iTunes but the most recent version kept stuttering and skipping during playback. I guess to Apple all their online store B.S. is more important than actual playback in a music player. It's too bad because it used to be a sleek player. And the podcast subscription ability was very nice.

    Although the player I use now is still (probably) bloated compared to other players, it will function fairly well and almost never stutters during playback.

    --
    "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
    1. Re:iTunes Player by omeomi · · Score: 1

      I particularly like Juice for podcasts...and it's FOSS.

    2. Re:iTunes Player by no_pets · · Score: 1

      I just installed it and will be trying it out. Muchas gracias.

      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
    3. Re:iTunes Player by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      I had the same experience when Quicktime upgraded itself to version 7.1. Somehow it needs more juice than I was willing to give it. Turn off any Equalization you may be running and increase the task priority to AboveNormal in Task Manager to work around this inadequate performance.

  96. Tradeoff bloat vs. functionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I get an old machine, I usually have to balance feature-rich against performant, and in most
    cases, there's different applications with differing bloatiness - and depending on the performance
    of the hardware, I'd then choose one.
    That said, nothing could make me use Evolution.
    So, for example:
    image viewer: xli, qiv (buggy w/ recent X11), edisplay (from the exactimage package), gwenview
    editor/IDE: vi, jmacs (aka joe), emacs [, netbeans, eclipse]
    mail program: mail, pine, kmail
    browser: lynx/links/elinks, opera, konqueror, firefox
    oh, and xchat (IRC client), gaim (AIM,IRC etc.) and mplayer (video,sound) are pretty un-bloaty too.
    I even use mplayer to play sound files. No need for a fancy GUI unless you don't know what music you want to hear.

    1. Re:Tradeoff bloat vs. functionality by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      No need for a fancy GUI unless you don't know what music you want to hear.
      In which case there's still no need for a fancy GUI:

      while [[ true ]]; do export CTR=0; for i in *; do if [[ "$(expr $RANDOM % $(ls -1 * | wc -l))" -eq "$CTR" ]]; then mplayer "$i"; fi; export CTR=$(expr $CTR + 1); done; done
      --
      ResidntGeek
  97. Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was someone above who mentioned Trillian, but by far my favorite pick is Pidgin IM (formerly Gaim)

    You avoid all of the bloat of AIM and MSN Messenger (which is now beyond ridiculous) plus you rid yourself of the need to install several messaging clients which further saves space and startup time plus it keeps your system tray (in windows) much cleaner. And the best part, it's available as open source for Windows and Linux!

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    1. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, Miranda IM. It's not as easy to use as Pidgin but its much smaller. I haven't checked memory usage but I assume that it uses less of that too.

    2. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      And for those of you that use a Mac, AdiumX is the equivalent project -- Pidgin isn't developed for mac, because Adium is based on the same engine, and does a better job of being mac like than any cross platform project could ever do.

    3. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Miranda is also open source and comes in at 1100KB verses 11MB for Pidgin.

    4. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by kievit · · Score: 1

      Hm. I tried pidgin, but I found it bloated in comparison to xchat. There may also be even leaner text-based clients, but I didn't try them, because xchat is just exactly right to my taste.

    5. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by nuzak · · Score: 1

      Miranda is a awful confusing hodgepodge of plug-ins that generally have poor documentation and even worse configuration UIs. It's a perfect example of the plug-in mentality run amok. I do use it myself -- it's actually a better Yahoo IM client than Yahoo's own craptastic client -- but I hesitate to inflict it in its raw form on the uninitiated.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    6. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by Verte · · Score: 1

      Wait, xchat does IM? What protocols does it support?

      If it does, I'd totally switch. I already use it for IRC. The best thing about it, I find, is that the list of people online is tied to the conversation window. If xchat does IM, then it has finally killed the silly separate contact windows introduced by Yahoo back before tabs became popular.

      --
      We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
    7. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by mushadv · · Score: 1

      Better yet, just use a public bitlbee server on IRC. Can't get more lightweight than an app that isn't using any resources whatsoever. At least none of your resources.

    8. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by Tyrion+Moath · · Score: 1

      I've found that many times Trillian actually has a smaller footprint than Pidgin. At least, with only the AIM and Yahoo! messengers enabled on both. Currently it's using 6,104KB, with 4 windows open. Peak usage is 26,220KB.

    9. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by etherlad · · Score: 1

      Trillian Astra (still in alpha testing) is decreasing the memory footprint all-around, and decreasing startup times. Can't wait to see it in action.

      --
      Soylens viridis homines es
    10. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by AusIV · · Score: 1
      Pidgin also ships with GTK libraries. While the download size is not trivial, it shares libraries with other GTK based software. The Ubuntu deb for pidgin is 1.6 MB.

      I'm not trying to knock miranda, I'd likely be using it if I were on Windows, but there is something to be said for shared libraries and cross platform compatibility.

    11. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by kievit · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I was mixed up. X-chat is only an IRC client, not an IM client. Sorry.

    12. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to knock miranda, I'd likely be using it if I were on Windows, but there is something to be said for shared libraries and cross platform compatibility.

      Yes, and it's basically this:

      It's really stupid to have to download an entire set of GTK libraries on an OS that comes with all that functionality built-in and could be avoided if the original developers had ported the program properly in the first place.

      I hate half-ported software. If you're going to port something, do it all the way or don't bother. (My major pet peeve: X11 software is not OS X software; port if you're gonna!)

    13. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by Verte · · Score: 1

      Ah, ok. I wonder if there are people out there trying to fit libpurple to xchat or something, that would rock. Xchat really would make a great IM client. It would certainly be more natural for SILC than pidgin is.

      --
      We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
    14. Re:Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by AusIV · · Score: 1
      I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.


      Part of the purpose of the GTK libraries is to be able to write cross platform software without having to spend a great deal of time porting the software for each platform. If a developer were trying to write software for several different platforms without a common library, they'd have to rewrite large portions of the code for each platform for each release. It would be a nightmare. I've got a pretty good feeling the Windows version of Gaim wouldn't exist if the developers had to port without cross platform libraries.

  98. TOS/GEM by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    And anything that ran on it.( Atari Writer anyone? )

    Or 1000's of dos apps, like Framework, Symphony.. Hell even Word for DOS wasnt bloated.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  99. JkDefrag by stedlj · · Score: 1

    JkDefrag free simple defrag for Windows!
    http://www.kessels.com/JkDefrag/

    It also has the added bonus of it has no install just run it. If you deside you don't want it? Just delete is and your done!

  100. because it's a broad question by General+Lee's+Peking · · Score: 1

    Because that question doesn't seem to exclude non-commercial, non-graphical applications, or specify particular operating systems, my response might be painfully boring (and just as painfully obvious) to some people, but I would have to say the original Berkeley vi and, of course, c-kermit. Sorry vim people, but with GNU Emacs available for extensibility, I honestly don't know why you would want to bloat something as lean, mean and beautiful as vi.

  101. Man I'm Old by Stevecat · · Score: 1

    XTree Gold. Those were the days. Yes it was for Dos.

    SmR

    1. Re:Man I'm Old by triso · · Score: 1

      XTree Gold. Those were the days. Yes it was for Dos.

      SmR ZTree is still available for Windows and Unixtree is for Linux.

  102. Vim for windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.vim.org - gvim.exe is the least bloated thing with the most useful features that just work - Win2k, Win2000, XP, and even Vista! They even got shell integration and a Visual Studio plugin!

  103. Paintbrush for me! by Andrew_T366 · · Score: 1

    I prefer Paintbrush (the Windows 3.1 incarnation) myself: It's the most usable pixel-arranging tool I've found thus far; with intuitive, scalable controls and the capability of moving the cursor around with the arrow keys, which is great for real precise movements.

    In an analogy similar to what has happened many times before or since, Paintbrush was licensed to Microsoft by a company called Zsoft, which seemed to conveniently disappear after that. I wonder what happened to them: An updated version of Paintbrush with a few more features would have been a fine thing to have.

  104. Miranda IM by Arathon · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's the only IM client that doesn't annoy me anymore. Amazing little program.

    A close second would be uTorrent.

  105. PuTTY by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

    A fully featured GUI SSH client in less than 200 kilobytes (when UPX'd). uTorrent also, of course.

  106. Only one choice for me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Windows Vista.

    Regards,
    Steve Ballmer

  107. OS? by Kenji+DRE · · Score: 1

    It will be easier for us to list the apps if you tell us what is your main OS. I assume Windows. Here's some that I use: -Media player classic -VLC -Opera -TreeSize -Auslogics Disk Defrag -HashTab Shell Extension (very handy when comparing file hashes) -Foxit PDF reader ..The rest of the software I use are bloated (by your standard and i don't care much since i have gigs of ram)

    --
    His exploit "just works". Apple fanbois everywhere implode in a self-collapsing vortex of cognitive dissonance. by jjack
    1. Re:OS? by Kenji+DRE · · Score: 1

      Oops sorry, forgot about the formatting.....hope you can makes sense out of it.

      --
      His exploit "just works". Apple fanbois everywhere implode in a self-collapsing vortex of cognitive dissonance. by jjack
  108. uTorrent by JohnnyBigodes · · Score: 4, Informative

    uTorrent (http://www.utorrent.com), hands down.

    219kb for an incredibly fast, RAM-efficient, full-blown, full-featured GUI Torrent client, with Web administration, scheduling, and all the stuff.

    Now if the whole world could only code as well as uTorrent's author...

  109. A really small program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    My personal favorite is tiny, a 45 byte ELF executable. As the creator says:

    Here, at last, we have honestly gone as far as we can go. There is no getting around the fact that the 45th byte in the file, which specifies the number of entries in the program header table, needs to be non-zero, needs to be present, and needs to be in the 45th position from the start of the ELF header. We are forced to conclude that there is nothing more that can be done.
    http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/ teensy.html
    1. Re:A really small program by nuzak · · Score: 1

      I love the hell out of that page ... but speaking of pages, it's too bad that anything you load is going to take at least two pages (at 4K each) anyway. Maybe one, if you can convince it to all run in one section. So all that effort to create a 45-byte file, which will still require the same 8K that the original C file would take up.

      Of course that wasn't really the point.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  110. You UBER GEEK Fucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, where have all the real geeks gone? Most of the replies are for Windows software. If you want bloat free stuff, look at grep, sed, tr, ls, true, false and their companions.
    When is the last time you used sed, awk, grep, instead of any of the bloated software mentioned in the original post? (iTunes or any media player)
    1. Re:You UBER GEEK Fucker by ettlz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When is the last time you used sed, awk, grep, instead of any of the bloated software mentioned in the original post? (iTunes or any media player)
      Any skilled "UBER GEEK Fucker" worth his or her salt would use these tools on a weekly to daily basis, since they allow much more flexibility than the "bloated software mentioned in the original post".
    2. Re:You UBER GEEK Fucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grep britney spears ./ubergeekmedia > pia -noaudio -novideo -nowindoze

  111. DigiDeck, by "Digital" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the early to mid 90s, an online compadre by the alias of Digital (in SubSpace) wrote an mp3 player called DigiDeck. One of the interesting things about it is that its executable size was around 32KB, smaller than the skins it used for its GUI. Or maybe it was the executable and skin together were 32KB, memory has gotten fuzzy. But it was a nice little mp3 program with some DSP processing in it that sounded better than all other mp3 players at the time, Winamp included, and consumed less CPU (on my AMD K5 100 back then, Digideck averaged about 3% to play a song, Winamp was around 5-6% for the same song).

    I still have it archived somewhere..

  112. Gnumeric by jeevesbond · · Score: 1

    Gnumeric for me. Had a CSV file t'other day that I needed to make a funky graph out of, it had approx. 2000 data points. Both OpenOffice and KOffice balked at even importing the data, finally managed to make a graph in OpenOffice but the user experience was like wading through treacle.

    Then I gave Gnumeric a try, it imported the data immediately, drawing a graph using those data points was instantaneous. It's very impressive, relative to the Free software competition anyway.

    Now if only the chaps who made it could be persuaded to make a full Office suite!

    --
    I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
  113. Some examples by dermoth666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Editors: PFE (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/steveb/cpaap/pfe/def ault.htm) is a featureful and very slim editor for Windows

    Encryption: TrueCrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org/) takes less than 2 megs to hold the main executable along with both 32 and 63bit XP/Vista drivers. The Wizzard is a separate program that can optionally be included.

    Browsers: Excluding text-only and phone browsers, Opera is a clear winner for the memory footprint. It's much slower on JS though, so I'm waiting to see which improvements they made with 9.5 on that.

    Operating systems: The same Linux OS that runs my highly-powered workstations also runs on my 200Mhz 8MB ram/4MB flash router. It's just a matter of what you compile in. For me this seems like a winner too. Just look for tinny distros (Slackware with custom install is my reference as full-featured yet tiny distro, but there are also much smaller ones too) of just do it yourself with LFS.

    1. Re:Some examples by RichardX · · Score: 1

      I'll second Truecrypt!
      When I was looking to encrypt a few portable harddrives I have, I searched through a LOT of software, and Truecrypt is far and away the best I've found.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    2. Re:Some examples by starrsoft · · Score: 1

      Wow!! I am impressed with TrueCrypt! It takes real skill to program 63 bit drivers!

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
    3. Re:Some examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mention mobile browsers, so I'll throw the question out there....has anyone seen anything similar to opera mini for PC? I've noticed that opera mini seems to apply some intelligent filtering to what it downloads, so it's about as fast as my home connection over legacy GPRS. It seems to me that my home connection could be rather faster if this logic could be applied to the desktop. Any bites?

  114. List.com - the greatest text file viewer ever by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    LIST.COM - it's a bit tricky to find nowadays, but it's probably the greatest pure text file viewer ever. Completely customizable, easy to switch between ascii/hex modes, supports LFN and any sized file, it's only a few kb.

    1. Re:List.com - the greatest text file viewer ever by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Take a look at V. I was addicted to LIST.COM in the DOS days, and V is an excellent successor.

  115. Hello World of course by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

    But seriously, my favorite, least bloated applications are those I write for myself using the korn shell.

    Mostly they are scripts to automate repetitive administrative tasks.

    --
    Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
  116. $$$ where my mouth is (donate to Free/Open Source) by Noksagt · · Score: 1
    I maintain a list of free/open source software that I've donated to. I'm a minimalist, so much of it is bloatfree. Highlights:
    • abiword
    • FileZilla
    • fluxbox
    • gnumeric
    • mrxvt
    • sy nergy
  117. foobar anyone? by friedman101 · · Score: 1

    foobar2000 is my favorite media player for windows. does one thing very well without any of the pointless eye candy. the installer is 1.6MB and it has some really nice plugins (.ape decoding and last.fm updater).

  118. Anything by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That can be merely copied to your drive(ala Mac) or even run from a thumb drive. That includes, but not limited to, Seamonkey, Filezilla, Audacity, Miranda, VirtualDub, TightVNC, Exact Audio Copy, Slax (or probably any liveCD). I generally try to avoid anything that actually requires installation, especially anything that places or replaces files anywhere in the system(Windows) directory. I don't care if I have duplicate dll's. I just want the convenience of being able to toss the program into the trash if I no longer need it.

    --
    What?
  119. Wianmp 1.90 and Notepad by Gates82 · · Score: 0
    I love Winamp 1.90, only uses a couple megs of RAM, nice simple flat interface, no calls home, stand alone executable, and it fits on a floppy diskette. Nothing needs to be said about notepad.

    --
    So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's sister?

  120. Colorforth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tiny! Colorful! Backwards! Efficient keyboard layout! Easier to program after ingesting LSD!

    http://www.colorforth.com/cf.html

    http://forthfreak.net/index.cgi?colorForth

  121. Linux software that can run on wrt and nslu2 by bzhou · · Score: 1

    These devices have very limited RAM and CPU, so anything that can comfortably run there usually are non-bloat. See optware for example. You can also look for packages in openembedded feeds and various wrt feeds.

  122. GRUB by krgallagher · · Score: 1

    A boot loader with a CLI that can be installed and run from a 720k floppy. You just got to love it!

    --

    Insert Generic Sig Here:

  123. Un-bloat is fun by athloi · · Score: 1

    You can run it on older machines, but the efficiency is impressive.

    http://www.editpadlite.com/
    http://www.crimsoneditor.com/

    And of course Opera

    http://www.opera.no/

    Can't go back to Firefox or IE after using this wonder.

  124. Konqueror by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    Konqueror is my favorite "slim" application. "What?", you say, "It requires half of KDE to run!" No. It re-uses half of KDE to run. All that functionality and almost all of it is pulled in from other components.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  125. Links browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Links iweb browser is not bloated and can display both in graphics and text mode. http://links.twibright.com/

  126. K3b & Ktorrent alternatives by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    i like K3B & KTorrent, both are great software, but they do more than i need,

    my alternatives are MyBashBurn for burning CDRs and Transmission for torrents...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  127. Tortoise CVS/SVN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Windows at least, TortoiseCVS and TortoiseSVN are great examples of CVS/SVN clients that are fast and just work, without using Java or some bloated user interface. I'd also have to go with PuTTY/PSCP; another piece of Windows software that's small, fast and just works.

  128. TextPad by kalirion · · Score: 1

    TextPad is no-nonsense Windows text editor with tons of functionality. Almost like a user-friendly vi for Windows. It won't replace an dedicated IDE (even though it has some configurable IDE-type functionality), but I use it every day for other tasks. One of the very few programs I've paid the registration fee for.

    1. Re:TextPad by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      yeah, I agree. TextPad totally crushes notepad and similar software. I love the ability to save it as unix or pc style txt file. And the ability to highlight perl commands is great. And the regex functionality is pretty good as well.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:TextPad by Artaxs · · Score: 1

      I
      Also, a lot of Windows apps were much smaller and had less bloat (and sometimes more useful features! WinAmp 2.666 ID tagging and WAV capture, anyone?) before they were "improved". Check out OldVersion.com.

      --
      Militant Agnostic: "I don't know, and damn it, neither do you!"
    3. Re:TextPad by Drantin · · Score: 1

      My one complaint with TextPad is the complete lack of unicode support. Even modern versions of NotePad can save in unicode...

      Whatever... I still registered for the few times I use Windows...

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    4. Re:TextPad by kalirion · · Score: 1

      The version of TextPad I have, 4.7.3, has gives the option to save in Unicode and Unicode (big endian). Just select from the "Encoding" dropdown in the save dialog. Or is there a bug with the functionality?

  129. A handheld computer with 4 MiB of RAM by tepples · · Score: 1

    I think we're beyond seeing any such renaissance from ever happening; a cultural shift focusing on compact and efficient code. This renaissance is already happening, on the Nintendo DS with homebrew accessories. You have a microSD card in the DS Card slot, and you have 4 MiB of main RAM and 656 KiB of VRAM unless you buy a special 8, 16, or 32 MB RAM card that fits in the GBA slot. Of course it runs uClinux.
    1. Re:A handheld computer with 4 MiB of RAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right, but uclibc is now almost a full drop-in replacement for glibc at a fraction the size. Stuff is getting smaller and faster. Take a look at the new features in the linux kernel that've been added for embedded systems. You can really strip the thing down these days and get something pretty lightweight, it's a bit bigger even still than say linux 2.0 was back in the day, but it's WAY faster, and has WAY more features.

      I ran basically my normal linux config on 200 MgHz arm with 32 Mb of ram. It ran okay until I started loaded up w3m, which has a huge memory leak in the image viewer, and gaim, which is just huge, at the same time. It still ran fine, but after reading say 50 pages of webcomics the oom-killer would fire up. Most of the time it would shoot w3mimgdisplay though, which doesn't affect the proper operation of w3m, the memory would be freed, and everything would keep working smoothly for me. I was running aterm with my normal hacked up fvwm config, nvi as my editor (normally I use vim, but I dont' use that many features anyway), w3m as browser, ssh and a full debian linux userland. I spent a bit of time stripping out some of the utilities that aren't that important and replacing them with busybox, but that was just to same on disk-space since I only had 1GB of disk and I wanted to fit more mp3's on it.

      I built a gentoo userland for my n770, but I STILL haven't gotten around to installing it. It's a straightup glibc userland that's not even compiled -Os or anything, but the whole thing is 112 megs now for the basic userland. I'm going to cheat and netmount the portage tree over nfs, then use distcc to get other systems to build for it. I crossed what I could, but you can't cross some packages easilly without horrible ssh hacks... see Perl for example. I'm going to x11-kdrive, gpe, xkeyboard, fvwm, urxvt, w3m, and latex, and a few wireless and network hacking/monitoring tools but the rest is there now.

  130. Star Raiders by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    Atari 800, 400 etc. 8k circa 1979.

    1. Re:Star Raiders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://atariarea.krap.pl/PLus/index_us.htm

      Circa 2007. ;-)
      Also several good equivalent emulators out there for the non-Windows crowd, but this is the slickest and fullest-featured I've seen.

      Bought an RS232-to-Atari serial cable, plugged in my still-functioning tank of an 810 floppy drive, downloaded a DOS-based Atari image ripper, and now have my entire 800 software library up and running on my Vista box. Plus it's very easy to download cartridge ROM's for all the old games, apps like AtariWriter, and programming languages.

  131. Transmission by frostilicus2 · · Score: 1

    Transmission is a very lightweight Bittorrent Client for Linux, Mac OS X, BeOS and BSD. It has minimal CPU, RAM or HD requirements and is very stable. There's even a tiny CLI version if you choose to be ultra-efficient.

    --
    Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
  132. GOM! Irfanview! IZArc! by fm6 · · Score: 1

    I've become a big fan of the GOM media player. Not only is it lightweight, but it's a lot smarter about dealing with codecs than any other player. Even plays Real formats.

    I used to like the VLC player, but it seems to have gotten buggy over the years. Locks up, screws up my system so I have to reboot, and always seems to get video colors wrong.

    Though it's hardly the most powerful graphics program, Irfanview is the only one I use about 99% of the time. It's simple, as does all the basic graphic file manipulation. Doesn't do serious editing, but it's nice to be able to easily browse a directory, convert formats, or crop a photo, without waiting for GIMP or Photoshop to finish loading.

    IZArc probably doesn't rate as "lightweight", since it has an absurd number of features. (Reads every archive format I know of, including RPM and ISO!) But it's a classic of "just works" software design. And what is lightweight is the program's elegant user interface and Windows shell integration.

  133. A Few Selections by neuromandw · · Score: 1

    Ztree, ISOBuster, utorrent, xxcopy, x-setup (not SO bloated, the "copy to" utility from the Windows95 PowerToys (not the later version), textpipe (fantastic utility), and WinRar (though 7zip is better, Rar seems easier to use, but I've not used it in a while)...also many of the Acronis tools are MUCH lighter than their Symantec counterparts (and work better!), and AVG.

  134. NOD32 and FoxIt PDF Reader... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talking about windows...

    Got rid of Norton Antivirus suite, using NOD32 instead. Much less bloatware....
    Got rid of Adobe PDF reader, using the free foxit reader instead. Got tired of the Adobe nagware every week...

  135. Irfanview by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Yep, that's the first thing that popped in to my head too. Just wish he'd include lossless crop for Jpegs.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  136. Opera by F�an�ro · · Score: 2, Informative

    Opera stays useable even with 512 mb of ram and a few hundreds of tabs, althought that is pushing its limits
    (you know you are addicted to tabs when...)

    Logitech mouse drivers on the other hands are memory monsters

    Still looking for a low-memory antivirus that requieres absolutely no user interaction. Grisoft AVG uses little memory, but keeps requiring occasional user interaction for updates, so I hesitate to install it on someone elses machine. Clamwin is worse in that department however.

  137. The one and only... by jalet · · Score: 1

    helloworld

    One of the fastest applications out there, and it's small !

    --
    Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
  138. PSPad! by xubz · · Score: 1

    I prefer PSPad editor, The best I could find. (It may look bloated, but its easily customizable and very light on resources! The only feature its missing is code folding)

  139. mpd by DaleGlass · · Score: 1

    Music Player Daemon. Plays music.

    As a daemon, it has no interface unless you connect one to it, with several to choose from (commandline, gtk, qt, web, etc). Can be controlled from another computer. Very easy to integrate it with IRC clients and similar.

    Really that's IMO how things should be. When you want to control it, you can easily. When you don't it stays out of the way without taking valuable resources with themes, visualization plugins and other junk.

  140. Phoenix by renelicious · · Score: 2, Funny

    I used to use a great browser call Phoenix, that was light and fast. Then it changed its name and changed its name again. I still use it because its still the best browser and by far my favorite, however I have trouble calling it light and fast these days.

    --
    "Luke, I am your node.parent();"
    1. Re:Phoenix by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      "Can you tell us about the light and quick software you use?"

      Well, I used to use a web browser software called Phoenix. Except it's not called Phoenix anymore. And it's not light and fast anymore either.

      Funny guy.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  141. Lua by peterpi · · Score: 1

    It's not a program in itself, but Lua is wonderfully slim.

    I just compiled liblua.a using gcc on cygwin. It was 204392 bytes at -O2, 170764 bytes at -Os.

    1. Re:Lua by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      I agree LUA is very cool. I first discovered it using DLS linux. Very cool. That said. perl gains a lot for each command it adds and it adds a lot less than things that use libraries do. Library organization tend to allow library writers to include every kitchen sink idea in the library rather than paring it down to the basics and putting it in the main language.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:Lua by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      I've found that Lua is also very elegant, and fun to program in.

  142. What about MS Office?? by neuromandw · · Score: 1

    It mostly still ships on 1 DVD...mostly.

  143. Re:MS Paint / No, Deskpaint by Zedcor by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    There was an app called Deskpaint, produced by Zedcor back in the mid 90's. It was small (30k or so), fast, and very useful with lots of tools. When I say fast, I mean that it was about twice as fast, on the same computer and doing the same thing, as PaintShop at the time; by now, you could make that 30x as fast. I used that software professionally throughout my career as a study guide prepublisher, and there was very little that I couldn't do with it. Nowadays, the author has some other different freeware out there, but it isn't nearly as good; and it is more bloated (though still pretty light on the bloat).

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  144. I can't believe no one's posted SQLite by wanorris · · Score: 1

    It's a database with full-on ACID transactions in 250K of SQL. I laugh in your face, Oracle.

  145. Comodo Firewall Pro by glpierce · · Score: 1

    As far as effective firewalls for Windows go, I've been quite pleased with Comodo Firewall Pro's simplicity and small footprint. It's free, too.

    --
    G
  146. Let's See Eclipse, Seamonkey, Emacs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft Office, Photoshop, Windows Vista, what am I missing?

  147. Is it just me? by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

    Is it just me? It just seems much easier to just buy more RAM and a bigger hard drive. Done.

    I mean, I guess if you're a tech geek with time on your hands (oh wait, this is /...), and want to climb that mountain just because it's there, then fine, but sure seems like spending a hundred bucks on some more RAM, or a bigger hard drive would take far less time (=money) and aggravation.

    --

    "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    1. Re:Is it just me? by swordgeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not just you--in fact, it's far too many of "you," and you're wrong.

      There are two reasons for bloat: Accidental (i.e. shitty programming) and deliberate (adding pointless features.) By buying into the "let's just throw money at it until the problem goes away" mentality, you're encouraging bad programming and endless marketing-driven upgrades. It's a hundred bucks on RAM now, another hundred on a new hard drive, and then next year it'll be a new CPU. You're going to end up spending about $500-1000 per year on maintaining the same level of productivity as you've always had. This is key!

      Windows 2000 required a 133MHz processor and 64MB RAM.
      Windows XP required a 233MHz processor and 128MB RAM. The ONLY FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between them was the thumbnail view mode. Everything else was eyecandy and toys, but it wasn't a huge upgrade cost.
      Windows Vista requires a 1GHz processor, 512MB RAM, a DirectX 9-compliant video card, and an internet connection. Oh yeah, and TEN TIMES as much disk space. Now what extra value does Vista provide to you, the end customer? What advantage does Vista give you over XP?

      Consider Office suites. Office 97 ran on a 486, with 12MB RAM for all features. Office 2007 now requires a 500MHz processor and 256MB RAM, and contains very few features that weren't already in Office 97. Moreso, only a tiny fraction of those features are actually used by any appreciable chunk of the population.

      The ONLY REASON to keep writing bloated software is to make you constantly spend more money staying exactly where you are, and your answer is to reward them by spending that money. Bloatware is capitalism gone wrong. It's forced consumption (and the forced aspect is getting worse with OSes now requiring online license activation and continued polling), and so much of the population is EAGER beyond words to consume while getting no value.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    2. Re:Is it just me? by eclectic4 · · Score: 1

      Office is the bloated app of our time, for sure, however I hope you aren't suggesting that we all still use our 15 year old $2000 (at the time) computers just to "force" the dev community to keep bloat to a minimum, because that just wouldn't make any sense. Computers do much more than they used to, hold more data (HD) and require more RAM to do all of these new things. It's how everything works and it's how it will continue to work, thankfully I might add. Suggesting that my purchase of a faster, bigger machine at the same price as I paid for the old one (if not cheaper) that also coincidentally does far more than that old computer is what is causing the dev community to be "lazy" (or purposeful bloat additions) is quite silly. They most likely do it because they can, in keeping with the faster, bigger, do more computer theme, again, thankfully. Besides, what would Microsoft gain by forcing this? They do not make computers...

      Now, if you wanted to, you could spend your life on top of a soap box in Redmond and bitch until they comply (not likely), or upgrade your old machine to handle to the new stuff. Office is the de facto Word Proc, and Windows is the de facto OS. There is little you can do about that unfortunately, so my point still stands. Now, I don't use Windows, but suggesting the you get the same level of productivity out of that older OS on that older Machine (slower) also makes little sense. In my world, suggesting that OS 9 is the same as OS X as far as productivity goes would get several laughs. (BTW, OS X has never been nor ever will require activation of any kind. You could literally install your OS X on a thousand machines without issue, outside of the law, and I don't think Apple would care as it's a hardware company). Not sure how it is on the Windows side I suppose...

      Also keep in mind that there are several, extremely useful, powerful applications outside of Windows and Office that actually do require bigger faster machines (do any video, audio, design work? Play games? try running iLife - amazing consumer level software - on my 500 MHz OS 9 machine... you get the point). So again, my point still stands. However, if you are someone who types emails, browses the Web, and not much more (and uses Windows), then yes, this may be a "pain", but for the rest of us, it makes perfect sense. Things get faster and can do more over time. Programmers develop for this for sure. It's their job.

      "What advantage does Vista give you over XP?"

      That I can't answer. Sorry.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    3. Re:Is it just me? by dannannan · · Score: 1

      You could literally install your OS X on a thousand machines without issue, outside of the law, and I don't think Apple would care as it's a hardware company). Not sure how it is on the Windows side I suppose...

      Interestingly enough, Microsoft tried to do something along those lines when it charged OEMs for a copy of Windows with every PC sale, even when the end user wasn't buying Windows. The antitrust suit ended all that, and how we have product activation instead.

      DDL

    4. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree with most of your points, just that I just had a chuckle at you reminiscing fondly over Office 97.

      I had a Pentium 60 with 16 MB RAM back then, and we used to use Office 95 which was fairly zippy. Office97 changed document formats, thus forcing the update on us, and was sluggishly slower, without bringing much new functionality to the board except for fancy animations in Powerpoint. Office97 was a classic thing that I'd point at back then to show people what bloatware was.

    5. Re:Is it just me? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Your point and mine aren't actually in opposition. I agree that computers getting faster and more capable is a great thing! However, what I'm saying is that bloatware is WASTING that advantage. Windows 2000 with Office 2000 run well on a 6-year-old computer, say 500MHz. Should you be using a 500MHz P3 as a result? Of course not--but if you run them on a modern computer, they will (a) run phenomenally fast, and (b) let you do tons of other stuff on that computer. Unfortunately, the newer and more bloated versions of the OS and office suite will unnecessarily consume as much of your modern computer as the older packages did of that 500MHz machine. Why do I call this unnecessary? It's because you're not gaining any benefit from the newer OS or the newer Office package--they're just consuming more resources on stuff you don't need, which means that you need to buy more gear to support the applications that should be consuming resources.

      Look at it another way. If I'm doing graphics editing, I can easily hold entire images in RAM now, because I can easily buy a machine with 2GB of the good stuff. This is wonderful--this is a HUGE benefit over paging chunks out, and is exactly how advances in computing should benefit me. Unfortunately, if I run it under Vista, I end up losing a big chunk of that lovely RAM to the OS, and the Office suite running in the background, neither of which are doing anything appreciably better than the ancient versions of them did.

      Bloatware isn't big software that needs to be big--it's poorly written, feature-excessive, pointless wastes of resources, which take them away from programs which actually justify them.

      As for OS 9 vs. OS X, that was a profound rewrite, and entirely justified as far as I'm concerned. There's probably some bloat in there, but it was long past time for Apple to move to a new core.

      "OS X has never been nor ever will require activation of any kind."
      All I can say is that 'ever' is a long time.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    6. Re:Is it just me? by bertok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hate this 'rule of thumb' that people keep trotting out that we only use x% of software, for some low value of 'x'. That's simply not true, so stop bringing it up like it's a valid argument for anything.

      I keep hearing this bullshit if from Unix zealots, from people flogging 'thin' or 'web 2.0' products, and from Luddites that are 'perfectly happy' running WordPerfect 5.1 on their OS/2 machine.

      Lets think of a simple scenario. Imagine a fictional company MiniSoft Software that makes a word processor. They advertise that their program has 100 features! Of course, you know that most users will only use about 10% of that most of the time, and maybe an occasional 1% rarely. So why have the other 89 features in there? Most users won't be using it!

      What this kind of oversimplified 'analysis' misses is that that '1%' extra is different for every user. Glenda in marketing might use the 'mail merge' feature once a month. The payroll officer might have to use the database integration feature. The warehouse manager might be using the barcode printing. The international sales office might use the Unicode multi-lingual features.

      Once you add up all of those '1%' pieces, all too often, you end up with... 100 features or so. This is why MiniSoft Office is so 'bloated'. Because somewhere, out there, there's someone who uses the macro functionality, or the right-to-left text input, or the dynamic forms, or... something. It's not bloat... it's what users expect from their software -- that the same consistent product be useful for all of the staff in an entire business.

      So to reiterate, just because YOU only personally use the "bold" and "italic" buttons on the toolbar doesn't mean that someone else can get by with only those two buttons.

      Get used to it, because software is only going to get bigger and more 'bloated', not less.

    7. Re:Is it just me? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      You could be right...but you're not.

      Users don't expect DRM, and they don't expect the most obscure features. Since auto-kerning and real-time font display came about, all word processors have had more features than anyone but professional typesetters would use.

      Let me be more blunt: There is no justification whatsoever under the Sun, moon, and God's green earth, that an OPERATING SYSTEM requires five hundred million operations per second. None. Period.
      Any supposed justification is simply apologist behaviour.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    8. Re:Is it just me? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So to reiterate, just because YOU only personally use the "bold" and "italic" buttons on the toolbar doesn't mean that someone else can get by with only those two buttons.

      But it does mean that I can get by with only those two buttons. And why shouldn't I?

      Get used to it, because software is only going to get bigger and more 'bloated', not less.

      The software I use is only going to get smaller and leaner. Do you have a problem with that?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Is it just me? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Your basic point is correct. 100 features are necessary because of expectations, however if you've played with MS Office 2007, you can easily see 'bloat' that are not 'features' relating to output or of efficiency of work.
      The other aspect of 'bloat' is training and management. MS Office 2007 only becomes efficient if:
      1. Everybody else has it on LAN VPN etc
      2. The rest of the world has it.
      3. AND you or your organization adopts the best practice policies that comes with the new business management overhead that needs to be implemented for this piece of 'wonder' to work.
      Just reading some of the rss crap that comes in automatically with Outlook 2007 of 'How To' shows pretty much immediately that you have to adopt a new regime of 'workflow' to get the most of MS Office 2007.
      This is an incredibly wasteful cycle of adoption-training-peer assistance-retraining and so on.
      MS should be admonished by trying to force corporations, students, educators (read Trainers), and everyone else to adopt this schema.
      I really think that MS thinks that they own computing and computer literacy. I suppose that's one reason for why there is so much angst against MS. They define the rules, procedures, policies and business models. What right do they have to do that???

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    10. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just you.

      Fact is they are hopeless. They'll never get it. They will wreck most
      projects that they are involved in, and will try and get out before
      any accountability takes place.

      Ever see this?

      http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/The_Evolution_of_a_P rogrammer.html

    11. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right...and because Bonnie would like to have the MiniSoft wordprocessor automatically record Oprah
        and be able to send it in an email to all the people in her address book as a shockwave app, the other
      250 million "unix zealots" and "luddites" ought to applaud the mandatory 1 GB internet
      connection required and stop complaining. I mean the new version has I-phone support!

      Did you hear about that one stupid guy complained that all he wanted to do was write a letter requesting
        a well drilling apparatus for the refugee camp in darfur but couldn't because he only had a 10 mb connection?

      I mean..I-phone support is really important! without the new version I'd only have like 1 measly ringtone..
      and my dancing 3d office stapler would be super lame without surround sound. Screw the stupid
      darfur idiot.

      we might miss whats really important about writing a letter..but hey..who reads letters anyway. Thats
      for dorks without the new iphone-ringtone and autosync features. Did you hear about the new eco-friendly
      iphone? It's like the old iphone, but it's dyed forest green. I can't wait to throw away my old iphone
      and get the eco-iphone. That'll make the environment a better place and that's what I'm all about. Making
      the world better.

    12. Re:Is it just me? by LuSiDe · · Score: 1

      I hate this 'rule of thumb' that people keep trotting out that we only use x% of software, for some low value of 'x'. That's simply not true, so stop bringing it up like it's a valid argument for anything.

      Thats why my hardware is either 99% idle or ancient while yours is working its ass off. Thats why I'm not distracted by all kind of bells and whistles. Its also why sometimes I lack compatibility because my non-bloated apps aren't in sync with the popular, bloated apps.

      I keep hearing this bullshit if from Unix zealots, from people flogging 'thin' or 'web 2.0' products, and from Luddites that are 'perfectly happy' running WordPerfect 5.1 on their OS/2 machine.

      Don't you ever get in contact with people who used an Amiga. Don't. Ever.

      Lets think of a simple scenario. Imagine a fictional company MiniSoft Software that makes a word processor. They advertise that their program has 100 features! Of course, you know that most users will only use about 10% of that most of the time, and maybe an occasional 1% rarely. So why have the other 89 features in there? Most users won't be using it!

      If the mere option to have the 89 features isn't neccessary, MiniSoft Software would be wise to make a lite version of their word processor for 1) less cost (for non-FLOSS) 2) less bloat. This means more happy customers. Their software runs faster, requires less hardware, and it costs less too. They will probably sell more licenses (depends a bit on the market etc), and customers might later upgrade to a more full-fledged version (which upgrade MiniSoft Software provides in a slick way, ofcourse)

      Glenda in marketing might use the 'mail merge' feature once a month. The payroll officer might have to use the database integration feature. The warehouse manager might be using the barcode printing. The international sales office might use the Unicode multi-lingual features.

      They might? No, at work, they either should or they should not. If they should its part of their job and they have the feature in their software (or hardware). If they should not the feature doesn't need to be there either. They don't decide; their employer does. And if you're self-employed and always wasting money/time on new bells and whistles or 'because they might be useful' then you're not doing a good job no matter how much you earn.

      Mind you that 'because they might be useful' is different than an analysis on whether they'll be used after which its decided to include or exclude. Others do this for us (software corporations, OEM vendors, heck even hardware manufacturers e.g. prime example: mainboard manufacturers) but not always correct (MS Office...). When was the last time you used LPT1 or RS232 on your current mainboard? Here the reason is backwards compatibility; a common reason for bloat.

      This reasoning is not limited to software.

      Once you add up all of those '1%' pieces, all too often, you end up with... 100 features or so.

      No, its due to indecisiveness. "Oh, this may be useful." "Hey, lets add that people might need it." Go read any usability analysis and you'll see users don't need features they don't... *gasp* need and too many options are intimidating. Give users a bloat-free, fast introduction and allow them a very good manual and learning curve to the 'advanced' features. Its similar as growing up, you know? Or did you start writing thesis at age 2? No, first you learned to cry, shit, walk, blabber, read, write, maths, language, and so on.

      Because somewhere, out there, there's someone who uses the macro functionality, or the right-to-left text input, or the dynamic forms, or... something. It's not bloat... it's what users expect from their software -- that the same consistent product be useful for all of the staff in an entire business.

      Hegemony (and backwards compatibility; which you failed to mention, and

      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
    13. Re:Is it just me? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Heh. I didn't mean to wax nostalgic too heavily over Office 97, but from my bleary memory, it was the first version that had auto-kerning and 'live' font display. I was doing a lot of publishing-quality work at the time, and those were the features I was missing up to that point. Since then, there hasn't been a feature I've seen the need for which wasn't in that version, bloated and slow as it was at the time. (Manual kerning was painful, but made a significant difference in making a product look professional.)

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    14. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a Compaq Pressario (486 sx2/66 with 8MB of RAM). Since I only had a 120MB harddrive, I had to use disk compression to have room for my software/games, so that also added extra CPU time.

      The funny thing is that I could actually use this computer with Windows 95 and Office 95. Internet Explorer 4.0 also worked perfectly (much better than the bloated and slow Netscape 4).

      But people with Pentiums complained that Microsoft produced bloated software...

    15. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to correct a small, but not insignificant typo. I had a 420MB hard drive, not 120MB ;-) But the computer was an SX2, and not a DX2, just in case someone thinks that was a typo too.

    16. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 2000 required a 133MHz processor and 64MB RAM.
      Windows XP required a 233MHz processor and 128MB RAM. The ONLY FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between them was the thumbnail view mode. Everything else was eyecandy and toys, but it wasn't a huge upgrade cost.

      Not really, XP had a lower latency kernel which made it better for audio production, along with other improvements. So yeah, on the surface it only looks like XP had superficial improvements over 2000, but that's only because it's all you care to find out about.

    17. Re:Is it just me? by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Windows Vista requires a 1GHz processor, 512MB RAM, a DirectX 9-compliant video card, and an internet connection. Oh yeah, and TEN TIMES as much disk space. Now what extra value does Vista provide to you, the end customer? What advantage does Vista give you over XP?

      Vista doesn't "require" any of that. If you want to run Glass, you need DX9, but you need similar graphics capability to pull the same kinds of tricks in Linux. Vista doesn't require an internet connection (maybe a little help from some third party tools, heh). I'm running Vista right now on a laptop that barely does DX8. The parent is posting FUD and the slashdot community loves it.

      Vista isn't a spectacular improvement over XP but it is an improvement. There are dozens of little advancements in the UI and so on that make day to day management of the desktop much easier. Do you need Vista? No. Do you need XP? No. Most people would probably get by just fine on 2000 or Linux. That isn't the point! Does anyone here honestly believe that people only ever upgrade software because of one specific new feature they need? Or has anyone here upgraded simply because a product is "newer"?

      The ONLY REASON to keep writing bloated software is to make you constantly spend more money staying exactly where you are, and your answer is to reward them by spending that money. Bloatware is capitalism gone wrong

      WRONG. Firefox and even some distros of Linux are considered bloated by many. Are these products wholly a result of capitalism gone wrong? I don't recall constantly spending money so I can put a new version of Firefox on my desktop...

      So, 10/10. Most of the community seems to have taken the kool-aid on this well crafted troll.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    18. Re:Is it just me? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      This certainly deserves a response.

      My 'requirements' for Vista are based on what Microsoft states, as were my requirements for all other products. I'm not sure how you can activate Vista legally without an internet connection, but Microsoft doesn't seem to think it's possible according to their website. Ditto for DX9.

      Perhaps you didn't read my previous post, which would have clarified this statement:
      "The ONLY REASON to keep writing bloated software is to make you constantly spend more money staying exactly where you are, and your answer is to reward them by spending that money."

      In fact, I made it clear previously that incompetence was also responsible for bloated software (and incompetence can appear in the coders or the project managers). I should have said, "the only reason to deliberately keep writing bloated software..."

      "Vista isn't a spectacular improvement over XP but it is an improvement."

      Well first of all, I'd disagree strongly with that. Secondly, I'd point out that consuming ten TIMES the resources for "...dozens of little advancements in the UI..." is a perfect example of complete incompetence or deliberate maliciousness. Coming from Microsoft, I'm assuming the latter--especially when one looks at how much of it is DRM-related and privacy related.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    19. Re:Is it just me? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      P.S. Love the GIR quote. :-)
      "I'm gonna sing the Doom song now."

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  148. WinMerge by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    WinMerge may actually be my favorite developer tool. I use it as a replacement to TortoiseDiff that comes with TortoiseSVN. I always liked being able to use ALT+arrow keys to quickly navigate down and selectively merge changes with ease. Being able to compare directories is also a great feature.

    http://winmerge.org/index.php

    --
    We'll make great pets
  149. If Only ITunes Had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drag and Drop to After Effects!

  150. notgnome, notkde, xfce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kde and gnome apps are often linked to kitchen sink libraries.

    That's why I prefer pure GTK apps. Running on XFCE helps prevent running apps dependent on a magic kde or gnome service.

    I suppose QT without KDE is ok too, though it's non-standard-not-quite-c++ language is disturbing.

  151. Farbrausch by orbitalia · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think Farbrausch are the gods of fitting the most into the smallest space.

    check out some of their 4k and 64k demos and prepare to be amazed. fr-30 candytron is particularly good. or fr-025 the popular demo.

    You can download their stuff here

    1. Re:Farbrausch by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      It's not 64k, but their fr-041: debris is amazing. I wouldn't really call 180k bloated when it does as much as that one.

    2. Re:Farbrausch by synth7 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Popular Demo is much larger than the rest of their demos. Might have something to do with actual digitized music tracks being in the mix there.

    3. Re:Farbrausch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its too bad that farbrausch productions are so fucking boring objectshows that my head wants to explode.

      agree about their sizeoptimization skills tho.

  152. Any non-bloat backup file copy software? by brxndxn · · Score: 1

    All I want is a small piece of software that lets me copy like explorer.. but quickly, more reliably (skip errors, resume, etc.) and it lets me schedule when to make backups.. A bonus would be able to see how fast things are copying..

    This is for windows xp, btw.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:Any non-bloat backup file copy software? by graphicsguy · · Score: 1

      What I would like is a simple and elegant "lazy Susan" style spice rack for keeping my cooking ingredients organized. It should also cook me dinner in time for my arrival at home after work. :-)

    2. Re:Any non-bloat backup file copy software? by ppz003 · · Score: 1

      Syncback

      Try the free version in the download page.

  153. My favorite by ceroklis · · Score: 1

    The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything... in 45 bytes.

  154. twm by graphicsguy · · Score: 1

    Nice and light.

    1. Re:twm by Nimey · · Score: 1

      And eye-bleedingly ugly, at least until you change the default color scheme (can you?).

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:twm by graphicsguy · · Score: 1

      And eye-bleedingly ugly, at least until you change the default color scheme (can you?).

      Easy: .twmrc

  155. OS/2 by lwriemen · · Score: 1

    I haven't had a performance reason to upgrade my 700MHz 512MB RAM 9GB HD system. (I actually was pretty happy with the 300MHz before that.)

  156. Firefox started out well...but burned out horribly by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1
    I would love a lightweight browser with some of the capabilities of firefox, in this order:

    • Security
    • Stability, Speed
    • Lightweight resource usage in terms of memory, cpu, network bandwidth
    • Adblock, flashblock, noscript (full blown regular expression support needed!)


    The spellcheck, the anti phishing features and shit like prefetch that I don't need and can't even remove (I can disable though) just add unnecessarily clutter. Make the spellcheck an officially supported default-on extension. Same for anti phishing, so that I can remove them.

    Persinally I tink speelcheck isa bad idea, but now seriously it is almost completely useless: it recognizes very few of the words I commonly use in IT and it is absolutely useless against for example the "loose" vs. "lose" misspelling cases. It is more than an annoyance for me than help.

    I realise that my needs might not match the users' needs, but what I listed as top priorities, Firefox only delivers on the security and extensions part. Users in a lot of cases don't know what they need, they can be easily distracted with shiny "cool" stuff, that ends up snowballing in a Katamari way to a big pile of stinking bloat (enjoy the image!).
    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  157. Sysquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sysquake, a Matlab clone which has a version running on Palm (with svd, riccati etc.). Its benchmark hints at a version for Atari 1040ST.

  158. Honorable mention: BeOS by sootman · · Score: 2, Informative

    The last computer I had it on took X seconds to get to a POST beep and Y more seconds to get to a BeOS desktop, and X was greater than Y.

    Unfortunately, there wasn't a whole lot to do with it but marvel at its boot time and launch a bunch of QuickTime movies. ArtPaint gave me a glimpse of how fast Photoshop could be, but of course a port never came. (Plus ArtPaint crashed a lot.) The 3D music editing demo app was great but it, too, crashed a lot. I'm glad Apple went with NeXT for the basis of OS X because it's more of a "real" UNIX as compared to the single-user BeOS, but I'd probably just as happy in most ways and happier in some if JLG hadn't been so greedy. Of course, no NeXT means no Steve, and no iMac, iLife, iPod, or iPhone--just freakishly fast beige boxes and probably no market share.

    OK, got a little off topic here, but the point remains--if you don't want bloat, check out BeOS. (And get a time machine.) Or QNX--they used to have a demo version that fit a GUI, browser, and web server onto a 1.44 MB floppy.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Honorable mention: BeOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or check out Haiku, an open source BeOS replacement in development. http://haiku-os.org/

    2. Re:Honorable mention: BeOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Honorable mention: BeOS by ajedgar · · Score: 1

      It isn't just a GUI, browser and web server on that 1.44MB floppy. It's: boot loader, QNX real-time micro-kernel, process manager with full Unix/POSIX semantics, device manager, network manager, Unix filesystem, TCP/IP stack, ramdisk, auto hardware detection, XVGA graphics drivers, full windowing GUI, 3D vector graphics, web browser, web server, and demo applications. And with a little hacking you can open up a shell too. All in 1.44MB. Yes. Really.

      Here's a link to the original demo:
          http://toastytech.com/guis/qnxdemo.html

      Here's the slashdot article on it:
          http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/06/073421 3

      And to all those Amiga folks who will jump in and say, "The Amiga could do that too!", no the Amiga had most of the graphical stuff in ROM...

      Cheers,
      AJ

  159. STP MP3 player by marquis111 · · Score: 1

    STP.exe, a single 209KB file that can play MP3 and WAV files, and CD's, and it understands M3U and PLS playlists. Works in Windows 95-on and minimizes to the System Tray.
    http://www.governmentsecurity.org/archive/t3767.ht ml

  160. WinAmp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WinAmp 2.91, as it were, because everything since then has been a bloated piece of crap. ;)

    Honestly, I can't think of much else, even though that shouldn't really count, since it's an ancient version. What is there?

    I despise OO, and it's bloated anyway. The GiMP is bloated; it can't help it, it's a massive image editting package. FireFox? FireFox has been doing nothing but sitting back, eating donuts, and getting fatter than President Taft.

    Linux distributions? RedHat is getting better at packaging things so that you don't need sixty billion flaming pieces of crap to run a basic install. If you manage to get Gentoo bloated, it's your own fault. And I can't stand the rest of Linux distributions, so... :P

    VI? If VI ever becomes bloated, a crusade will be launched to purge and cleanse the Earth.

    Emacs? Emacs isn't bloated, it's fairly light weight for being an operating system.

    1. Re:WinAmp. by flewp · · Score: 1

      I'm all about musikcube

      Very lightweight, and fast, but unfortunately Windows only. Highly recommended though.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  161. Old Favorites by yakmans_dad · · Score: 1

    dr, dirmagic, lview, grep, awk, and zoo
    I quit paying attention to software a long time ago (as obvious from my list). Hardware advances made good design "quaint".

  162. Most Acorn software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Off the top of my head, and without being in a position to check . . .

    Zap and StrongEd - under a Meg each, compare very well with UltraEdit

    Thump - nice slideshow image viewer. About 700k

    InterGif - gif compression tool. Produces the tiniest animated gifs. Under 200k IIRC.

    Artworks and Draw - vector graphics apps. ArtWorks is the progenitor of Xara Studio, as it happens.

    Translator and Creator - image conversion tools. About 2Mb between them. Between these and ChangeFSI (~300k, bundled with the OS) there are very view image formats you can't read and convert.

    NetSurf - my preferred Web browser. About 3Mb.

    DigitalCD - multiformat music player. Compares very favourably to WinAmp and XMPlayer (if I've remembered the name right), in terms of sound quality and formats supported. Still under a Meg in size, I think.

    Bookmaker (hotlist and address list manager) Under a Meg.
    Organiser (calender app) Under a Meg, I think.
    Messenger (email and news) Uner two Meg, I think.

    Yadda yadda. There's lots of other goods ones, equally titchy.

    In fact, the core components of RISC OS fit in 4Mb of ROM.

    On the PC I think I'd give an honourable mention to Putty, a nice secure telent client, WinAmp (although I dunno what recent versions are like) and UltraEdit which has already been mentioned.

    BTW, how big is the ROX desktop for Linux? That's probably nice and tight, because it follows the same design philosphy used by most RISC OS applications.

    1. Re:Most Acorn software by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      Rox would be a great (lightweight) alternative to Gnome/KDE except...

      it relies on 0install, which is horrible. The Rox filer works fine as standalone, but I wish they'd get their act together and make a decent installer. Not everyone has continuous Internet access! (Especially the machines that actually need memory conservation.)

      Xara Xtreme still clocks in at just over 6MB---not too bad. (Plus another 6 in DLLs.)

  163. Torrent by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 1

    Small, yet fully featured. (fnar-fnar)

    --
    "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
  164. Steve Gibson Says "Small is Beautiful" by loxfinger · · Score: 2, Informative

    Steve Gibson of SpinRite fame has this page: http://www.grc.com/smgassembly.htm

    Of course, he programs directly in assembly in his quest to keep things small and fast.

    1. Re:Steve Gibson Says "Small is Beautiful" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Gibson is also a monumental fuckwad.

  165. FoxIt Reader for PDFs by phasm42 · · Score: 1

    I love installing FoxIt Reader after installing Acrobat for years. Acrobat downloads some huge bloated reader that takes forever to even begin thinking about installing, let alone the actual installation. FoxIt is far smaller and installs pretty much instantly, and starts up about as fast too.

    --
    "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
  166. Microsoft Office by aynoknman · · Score: 1

    You pay a major hit for the basic (dys)functionality, but the bloat comes free!

    --
    We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
  167. fvwm instead of GNOME or KDE by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    GNOME and KDE are bloat, give me fvwm instead.

    vim is also bloat, give me nvi or elvis.

    Why run Linux 2.6 when Linux 2.4 is much smaller and has the same hardware support?

    I bought 4 gigabytes of ram (only $180) to use it, not waste it on fat bloated programs.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:fvwm instead of GNOME or KDE by scottied · · Score: 1

      Yes, the new developments in KDE and Gnome only require more resources and power. I feel more at home using a tweaked WM myself. Fvwm is pretty old school, and XFCE is a good compromise. Enlightenment17 is the most elegant and responsive WM that I know of.

  168. aria2! by ant_tmwx · · Score: 1

    aria2 is a lovely light weight command line BitTorrent/Metalink downloader.

  169. GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Using GIMP, did you ever look at the setting called "Tile cache size" in Preferences / Environment? This sets the maximum amount of RAM that GIMP can use before it starts to swap some parts of images (tiles) to disk.

    You can set this value to 4 GB and GIMP will happily use as much memory as you have. And it will be much, much faster when working with large images. As a rule of thumb, you should set this value to around 80% of your available memory.

    1. Re:GIMP tile cache size by fossa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there a compelling reason that the default behavior is not 80% of your available memory?

    2. Re:GIMP tile cache size by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Why can't the GIMP query for the available memory size and set the tile cache size to 80% automatically, while providing that setting as a manual override? Photoshop has no problem doing that.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    3. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Raphael · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is there a compelling reason that the default behavior is not 80% of your available memory?

      There are several reasons, some of which are historical:

      • GIMP was designed 10 years ago for UNIX systems. Many of these systems were shared by multiple users from remote displays. On a multi-user system, you do not want any application to consume 80% of the memory shared by all users.
      • It is very difficult to have a portable way to know (or even guess) the amount of memory available on a machine. You need different bits of code for each operating system, and sometimes you even have to run external commands and parse their output because a non-privileged application is not allowed to get this information from the system.
      • What is "available memory" anyway? It this your total amount of RAM, the amount of RAM still unused after you boot your OS, or what is left after you start your browser and some other applications? In many cases, only the user knows in which context GIMP will be used.
      • Nobody bothered implementing good heuristics for setting the tile cache size automatically. I am sure that a patch improving the default behavior would be gladly accepted.
      --
      -Raphaël
    4. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      GIMP was designed 10 years ago for UNIX systems. Many of these systems were shared by multiple users from remote displays. On a multi-user system, you do not want any application to consume 80% of the memory shared by all users.
      It is no longer 10 years ago. There are valid reasons to preserve 10-year-old design decisions, but not to preserve 10-year-old default settings! The number of people wanting to install GIMP on single-user desktops is vastly greater than the number installing it on multi-user servers; it is silly to expect the majority to reconfigure a setting chosen for the benefit of a minority.

      It is very difficult to have a portable way to know (or even guess) the amount of memory available on a machine. You need different bits of code for each operating system, and sometimes you even have to run external commands and parse their output because a non-privileged application is not allowed to get this information from the system.
      There are lots of things it's difficult to do on some platforms. That's no excuse for not doing it in cases where it's easy. Even just implementing this for Linux and Windows would solve the problem for the vast majority of GIMP users, and put a framework in place for users of more obscure operating systems to contribute solutions for their platform.

      What is "available memory" anyway? It this your total amount of RAM, the amount of RAM still unused after you boot your OS, or what is left after you start your browser and some other applications? In many cases, only the user knows in which context GIMP will be used.
      Now you're getting silly. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will assume that "available memory" is the amount of memory that is available, not your total amount of RAM. In other words, the amount of memory that is not being used by any other programs at the time that you start GIMP.

      Nobody bothered implementing good heuristics for setting the tile cache size automatically.
      Laziness is no excuse for making a program that appears, to new users, to perform much worse than it really does. Plus, I thought the whole point of this thread was that a good optimum setting (80% of available memory) is known, and the program merely stupidly defaults to a much smaller setting?

      I am sure that a patch improving the default behavior would be gladly accepted.
      I envy your optimism. Given the GIMP team's less than admirable record at accepting any attempt to improve their program (i.e. they think it's perfect already, and anyone who dares suggest an improvement is flamed to death), I sadly am unable to share it.

      No, they would merely reject any patches on one of the spurious grounds you have noted above: that the submitter had not fixed the problem on Irix (so they would refuse to fix it for 99% of users), or the patch would make things worse on multi-user systems (so they would refuse to fix it for 80% of users), or the submitter had not proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he had found a completely optimal strategy (so they would refuse to make it considerably better). Let's be honest - the GIMP developers do not care about end users, they only care about massaging their own egos and pretending that GIMP is a serious competitor to Photoshop.
    5. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why can't the GIMP query for the available memory size and set the tile cache size to 80% automatically, while providing that setting as a manual override? Photoshop has no problem doing that.

      why can't you write a script like all other unix geeks, or check userscripts.org and quit whining about it.

    6. Re:GIMP tile cache size by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I can compensate for my software's shortcomings, but that doesn't excuse those shortcomings.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    7. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If indeed Photoshop can do some stuff that GIMP can't, that's no problem:

      1) 99% of us can do 99% of the same stuff in GIMP 99% of the time.

      2) If not, then email the file to [a / the] guy with Photoshop.

      3) Receive file back after being "Photoshopped" for a small fee.

      4) ???

      5) Profit!!!

    8. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      because a huge number of people use GIMP for small things like icons, avatars, wallpapers and other things that would piss people off if it tried to eat up all the RAM, even if enough individual images were open to fill the RAM.


      also last time i installed GIMP does ask you during install how large to set tile cache.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Trogre · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      *applause*

      I think you've really hit the nail on the head there. Too many open-source projects suffer from this silly political correctness. Because one obscure target platform doesn't support feature, no one can have it.

      It's a bit like designing a work of art whilst using only inks that are distinguishable by colour-blind people.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    10. Re:GIMP tile cache size by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      "Small things" by definition don't consume much RAM. The only true concern is large things which you are willing to process slowly in order to leave more RAM available to other applications, in which case the memory manager should be clever (or manipulable) enough to allocate in the general case, so individual apps don't have to work around it.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    11. Re:GIMP tile cache size by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      Laziness is no excuse for making a program that appears, to new users, to perform much worse than it really does. Plus, I thought the whole point of this thread was that a good optimum setting (80% of available memory) is known, and the program merely stupidly defaults to a much smaller setting?

      I don't think you've ever installed Gimp, or if you have then you blew right past the setup screens. One of the final screens you see during setup asks you if you want to change certain things including the hotly debated tile cache size. It even explains to you the trade-off between a larger cache with better speed vs. less RAM used and a slower speed. It doesn't "stupidly default" at all; it allows you, the user, to stupidly blow past the settings screens and if so, it sets some conservative defaults.

    12. Re:GIMP tile cache size by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

      All that is being said is, when presenting some conservative settings, why it presents a hardcoded value and not, say, 80% of the available memory?

      It is a fact that when presented with default values with terms like "Tile cache size", 99% of users will click it away in fear of changing the "default" behaviour. It is unreasonable to expect users to know this value.

      Presenting a dialog box with values that are not sanely determined for your system as default on first-run only amplifies the problem.

    13. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Bipoha · · Score: 1

      Let's say it chose 80% of your available memory by default.

      Scenario 1: You need gimp to edit something you just rendered in a 3D animation package. The 3d animation package, which you're still using, is already taking up 80% of your available memory. Gimp's view of 80% would be much smaller than any of us would want to allocate to it. (You'd probably end up tweaking your 3D software's settings, since it brilliantly predicted that you weren't going to run any other programs simultaneously.)

      Scenario 2: You don't have anything else open, and have the most memory you'll ever have available in your operating system at any given time. Picking 80% of the available memory turns your machine that can run gimp, with barely enough room for anything else without closing gimp every time you need to run another memory-intensive application.

      Gimp works with 256MB of RAM. I use gimp a lot, and have never had any problems with the default settings. Like any good program, there _is_ a setting that you can change. Just set it. I'm sure there are settings in photoshop that people tweak depending on their needs. Why should gimp be any different, or the developers derided for it?

      You can't expect a program to know your average available memory during typical computer usage upon start-up, when it can't predict other applications that may be launched while it is running. Just like your car doesn't try to predict when you're turning and enable your turn signals.

      Bottom line is the default settings are "sane" enough for anyone wanting to try out gimp. It runs perfectly fine with 256MB of RAM, and if someone is serious about giving gimp a try for the long-haul, they'll read manuals, poke around through the settings, and actually READ the installation windows. People who have already decided to hate something make mountains out of mole hills.

      I wonder how many people complained when their brand new TV defaulted to channel 3, and they couldn't see anything without having to hit a button or turn a knob. How annoying that must have been to have to choose the channel that gave you the shows you actually WANTED to see.

    14. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with you. I think EVERY program ought to use 100% of the resources. I mean,
      that way, every program would be as fast as possible! If those idiot gimp programmers could
      just stop trying to use memory carefully and just grab all of it, then gimp would be faster!
      Duh..And the same with other programs too! I mean, if the web browser took 100% and
      the disk cache too 100%, and the compiler and debugger and word processor and spreadsheet
      could just optimize themselves...the OS..heck everbodys win!

      You are obviously a genius.

      And another thing. It turns out nearly 50% of everything is below average. We must
      do something. Perhaps you might have some useful suggestions here too.

    15. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Fluffy+the+attack+ki · · Score: 1

      The default setting should be one that works the best for the majority of users. Those users running a non-standard configuration are more likely to know what settings should be adjusted for best performance as problems may have popped up in the past. Therefor we should assume that a user with a totally ordinary configuration isn't looking as closely for mistakes during setup.

      So, let us look at two scenarios and decide which is worse.
      Small cache:
      1. User wants to apply a filter to the high resolution digital photo or scan he just took.
      2. GIMP lags, User is annoyed.

      Large cache:
      1. User applies filter to the high resolution photo or scan he just took.
      2. User saves a smaller version for posting online, leaves original image open GIMP.
      3. Opens Firefox, the dozen MySpace pages that User had open last time he used Firefox all try to load at once.
      4. Firefox lags, user is annoyed.

      User gets to annoyance faster with the overly conservative default and they're annoyed at GIMP directly, not Firefox, or iTunes, or whatever other program suddenly wants lots of RAM. Just my thoughts on the subject.

    16. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Adelle · · Score: 1

      >>What is "available memory" anyway? It this your total amount of RAM,
      >>the amount of RAM still unused after you boot your OS, or what is
      >>left after you start your browser and some other applications?
      >>In many cases, only the user knows in which context GIMP will be used.
      >Now you're getting silly. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will
      >assume that "available memory" is the amount of memory that is
      >available, not your total amount of RAM. In other words, the amount
      >of memory that is not being used by any other programs at the time
      >that you start GIMP.

      Next time I'm using your operating system, remind me to start all
      of my applications in the correct order, based on how much RAM
      I want them to use.

      Adelle.

    17. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is no longer 10 years ago. There are valid reasons to preserve 10-year-old design decisions, but not to preserve 10-year-old default settings! The number of people wanting to install GIMP on single-user desktops is vastly greater than the number installing it on multi-user servers; it is silly to expect the majority to reconfigure a setting chosen for the benefit of a minority. You're right, that is silly. THAT'S WHY THEY GIVE YOU THE FUCKING OPTION TO CHANGE IT WHEN YOU INSTALL!!!

      There are lots of things it's difficult to do on some platforms. That's no excuse for not doing it in cases where it's easy. Even just implementing this for Linux and Windows would solve the problem for the vast majority of GIMP users, and put a framework in place for users of more obscure operating systems to contribute solutions for their platform. If it's so damn easy, why don't you do it. I have a feeling that you're sick and tired of hearing about GIMP because someone told you about it, after you paid retail price for Photoshop. And can you explain what problem needs to be solved for the "vast majority of GIMP users"??? And can you name a few "obscure operating systems" that you can run GIMP on??? How about one?

      Now you're getting silly. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will assume that "available memory" is the amount of memory that is available, not your total amount of RAM. In other words, the amount of memory that is not being used by any other programs at the time that you start GIMP. No, now you're getting silly. Who uses 'common sense' and 'assume' in the same fucking sentence? So now all other programs and the OS, need to start memory managing according to GIMP? If not, is GIMP going to say "Oh no! Memory is being used by newly started program, I need to reassess my memory needs! I need to calculate 80% of less memory than I had earlier!" How fucking stupid is that? I guess I need to get another computer, just to run GIMP. So much for running FREE software. Sure can't afford that new VEESTAH shit!

      Laziness is no excuse for making a program that appears, to new users, to perform much worse than it really does. Plus, I thought the whole point of this thread was that a good optimum setting (80% of available memory) is known, and the program merely stupidly defaults to a much smaller setting? Who the fuck said 80%??? Where did they get that from??? Why is that a good optimum setting??? My god, man! Let me introduce you to my little friend the search engine! Look what he found for me (this one's a freebie):

      http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-using-setup-tile-cach e.html
       
      If you have a modern computer with plenty of memory-say, 512 MB or more-setting the Tile Cache to half of your RAM will probably give good performance for GIMP in most situations without depriving other applications. Probably even 3/4 of your RAM would be fine."
      But it doesn't say 80% is optimum, does it???

      I envy your optimism. Given the GIMP team's less than admirable record at accepting any attempt to improve their program (i.e. they think it's perfect already, and anyone who dares suggest an improvement is flamed to death), I sadly am unable to share it.

      No, they would merely reject any patches on one of the spurious grounds you have noted above: that the submitter had not fixed the problem on Irix (so they would refuse to fix it for 99% of users), or the patch would make things worse on multi-user systems (so they would refuse to fix it for 80% of users), or the submitter had not proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he had found a completely optimal strategy (so they would refuse to make it considerably better). Let's be honest - the GIMP developers do not care about end users, they only care about massaging their own egos and pretending that GIMP is a serious competitor to Photoshop. Damn, I wish I was as smart as you! Why don't you shut up and go start your own project, ya fucking crybaby!
    18. Re:GIMP tile cache size by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      99% of users will click it away in fear of changing the "default" behaviour.
      I'd love to visit the poll where you got that number. Oh? There is no poll, you just pulled it out of your head? It's nice to know that you can intuit what 99% of all computer users are thinking and doing.

      It is unreasonable to expect users to know this value.
      Not when it is explained right there on the setup screen, as I already stated. That being said, it may be unreasonable to expect a few users out there to be able to understand what it means by RAM usage and such, but I'd argue that those users would be better off using something simpler like Paint. I understand what you're getting at, really I do. You want the program to have a default based on a percentage instead of a hard number. Well, not to sound like a parrot, but it's open source. You'd think that if your wants were commonplace among the users, someone out there would have submitted a code patch to address this very issue. Just because you think the world will benefit from something doesn't mean the world wants or needs it. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of Gimp users either set the tile cache appropriately during setup or they find the setting later on and fix it then. If you're using Gimp, it's probably because you are aware of and accepting of open source software and therefore a bit above the average computer user's intelligence quotient.
    19. Re:GIMP tile cache size by baryon351 · · Score: 1

      Using GIMP, did you ever look at the setting called "Tile cache size" in Preferences / Environment? This sets the maximum amount of RAM that GIMP can use before it starts to swap some parts of images (tiles) to disk.

      We did, and had the same good advice from Gimp's mailing dev mailing list too. While they couldn't help us get it up to speed, apparently it's an issue that will be fixed with the move to GEGL.

      No malice intended towards Gimp or its developers, but it's a very good practical example from my experience that demonstrates the big point - that the hardware is there to use, and ignoring performance (the real metric) for a potential indicator of performance (namely lightweight resource use) when judging an application is like buying a luxurious suede lounge that's oh-so-comfy to sit on, but always using it with a vinyl cover to protect it. It sort of misses the point...

    20. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can write a process scheduler that has 0 overhead, and a (disk) pager that has 0 overhead, then by all means...

    21. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you're getting silly. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will assume that "available memory" is the amount of memory that is available On a multi-tasking, multi-user OS, you just *CAN'T* know how much memory is available. Unless you take the OS hostage (can be done on classic Mac OS, Windows 9x/ME or if you're running as root).

      If you find a way, and include a way to know what's going to happen (because when you measure the amount of memory and then try to take it, it could have been allocated and even been used already), please post it somewhere!
    22. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Trogre · · Score: 1

      To the person who moderated this Flamebait, I ask why???

      Do you think I'm trying to get a bite by pointing out this flaw in many OSS projects? It's there and it really is a problem.

      Maybe my analogy was un-kind to colour-blind people. Okay, how about this:

      It's a bit like disallowing power tools at a building project, because children can't use them. *shrugs*

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    23. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Oh oh, I've got a better one!

      How about:

      It's a bit like prohibiting car exports to Africa due to there being some communities there that wouldn't know what to do with them.

      or even:

      Banning ABS brakes since some old cars can't be retro-fitted to take them.

      Okay I'm done now. Mod me down further please.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  170. utorrent by skifischer · · Score: 1

    utorrent of course, they pack a ton into 214kb

  171. My Windows tools are: SIW, Putty Portable, Notepad by Xanthvar · · Score: 1

    My Windows tools are:

    SIW: a freeware computer inventory tool. It is only one executable, and doesn't need to be installed on the PC. With it I can get the MS activation keys, to make sure that we aren't exceeding our action pack subscription. While there are other tools that let you do similar things, SIW is one of the best tool boxes you can carry on a USB drive, all by itself.

    I also use Putty (I prefer the portable version, as it doesn't need to be installed, and doesn't leave anything in the registry), and good old Notepad for doing text edits.

  172. MicroEMACS 3.12 for Windows by kmsigel · · Score: 1


    It's 190k and provides all that I need in a programming editor. I've been using it for about 13 years and not once has it crashed or done anything to lose my work.

  173. mac classic by zogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    on the older classic OS, I always liked iCab browser and Soundjam MP3 player. Small, worked very well, I still use them on the odd occasion I have to use my old powerbook.

    On linux, the mini OS distros,damn small, puppy, slax, austrumi, etc. proving you can have a decent functional desktop with a variety of useful applications in only 50 megs of space. You don't need hundreds of megs on a CD or an entire DVD with gigs of stuff, most of which most normal users will never use anyway. Browser, chat, email, media player, some sort of text editor, done.

    Windows, no idea, haven't used it since 98se, which could run on some pretty marginally specced machines.

  174. Process Explorer by Traa · · Score: 1

    I like Process Explorer as a replacement for taskmanager. It's almost the opposite of what this thread is about, it looks like a bloated taskmanager, but it really does manage to show you simple process info without going crazy. Comes without an installer (yeah!).

    Best feature, right click a process and pick "Search Online".

  175. the word 'bloat'... by FunkyRider · · Score: 1

    Bloat-Free? there'r many the word 'bloat' instantly reminds me Vista...

    --
    just wonder why there are so many anonymous cowards in this world....
  176. metapixel and llgal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best two programs for image manipulation I know of: metapixel - is a command line mosaic generator, that does an incredible job despite being just "148" in size (what does that mean? i just did a 'apt-cache show metapixel', and it shows no sign of unit name)
    llgal is an online gallery generator, and it's just "380" instaled size.

  177. Here's some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Winamp 2.x.x for music (before it tried to play everything multimedia like windows media player)
    Clamwin antivirus with all autoscan/autostart options disabled
    Foxit reader for pdf reading
    VLC for video
    Utorrent for bittorent
    Phex for gnutella (ok it's in Java but it's usable and adware/spyware free)
    Miranda IM for msn/icq (i just delete all other plugins)

    The only thing i wanted to replace but couldn't was skype. There's open wengo but i was pretty unimpressed the last time i tried it.

  178. Fluxbox by Captain+Jack+Taylor · · Score: 1

    I'd say my favourite low-bloat software would be Fluxbox, the greatest speedy window manager ever made! :D

  179. Re:TextPad and Hextreme on Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must say I'm a bit disappointed with the new version of textpad, though. I don't use it to edit code much, so I'm not too familiar with some of it's advanced features, but I still like the old version (4.7.3) better.

  180. Desktop software doesn't matter as much by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    Don't get too anal retentive over bloated vs. slim sofware because it's an unusual preference depending on the circumstance. If you're running desktop software (only affecting yourself) run as much bloat as you like (or don't run as much as you dislike) -- just throw some more cheap RAM or HDD space at if you needed. You can be happy running your select slimming desktop software to the degree that the rest of the world progresses around you and leaves you in the dust, or you can take a balanced approach.
    The guy who establishes unbloated software as priority #1 above any other software factors is unrealistically skewed.
    I don't care, I'll run Winamp + Windows Media + Foobar whatever all at the same time on my desktop at times if the various media files want to launch them.

    However if you're running a server you might choose slimming software to reduce resource usage because it affects multiple users and is more costly to maintain as a result. This is where hypersensitivity to bloatware makes more sense.

  181. Billy-MP3 Player that handles large playlists well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lately I've been using Billy to play my mp3 collection. Billy uses less than 2MBs of RAM even with tens of thousands of entries in a playlist. Billy can scroll through large playlists without any lag, skipping or waiting.

    Billy starts instantly (even with large playlists) and sits unobtrusively in my system tray. It does what I need it to do, uses almost 0 resources and it stays out of my way. What more can you ask for?

    I don't have anything to do with Billy, other than being a very happy user.

    I hear that there is an actively maintained app that is similar to Billy, but has more features (including scrobbling) callled DéKiBulle. I haven't used it much, but it was nice enough when I used it.

  182. Xtree Gold by QX-Mat · · Score: 1

    Far more efficient than fileman was - you could tag files and perform any operation on a tagged set at a later time.

    Ran in DOS 5 all the way up to 6.2x... Until I started using drvspace/doublespace and had less need to delete parts of the OS I didnt use and apps I installed and didnt need (like WinG... and dashboard... and afterdark... and and and etc)

    MC / NC are close, but still no cigar... they're not GOLD!

    Matt

    1. Re:Xtree Gold by rleibman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Man, I thought the same thing. It took me a long time to understand why anyone would want windows when you had XTree gold. It was a beautiful application. Capable of reading all kinds of files (even autocad dwg!), searching was powerful. You could tag a bunch of files based on name, grep those files for some text, untagging the ones that didn't match as it went and reducing your search.

      Pure Beauty, I haven't used it in many, many years, but I bet my fingers would remember the keys in 5 minutes of using it again.

      I also remember the things that finally killed it for me. Lack (or late) support for long filenames, and the terrible windows port... man, those people should *have* written windows!

      Is there a linux port?

  183. NOD32 by GreenEnvy22 · · Score: 1

    I love this Antivirus package, especially compared to the bloated mess that is Norton Antivirus. NOD32 is relatively small, VERY FAST, consumes very little resources. I usually tell people who have Norton installed it's worse for their computer then any virus ever could be. I usually uninstall it and put on NOD32 if they are willing to pay for a subscription, or AVG for the freebie folks.

  184. SciTE by rev_dru · · Score: 1

    Textpad always seemed good, but it's not free software, and it had nag screens, IIRC.

    On Windows I really like SciTE for text editing. I keep a copy on my flash drive. It's free, it's like a meg and a half, it's configurable, and it does syntax highlighting for a ton of languages.

    Most people will need to switch it to use monospaced fonts by default, but otherwise it's pretty nice.

    1. Re:SciTE by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      Personally, I like Notepad++ for Windows, but it is definitely bloated. Textpad is much more lightweight, but not free. I'll give SciTE a shot...

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    2. Re:SciTE by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Scite for the win!

      Meanwhile, I generally use the half-meg sc1.exe version.

      I just wish it was available for OS-X, for those times when I inevitably need to use a mac.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  185. NASLite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy one, NASLite, who else has a samba server on a floppy disk!

    http://www.serverelements.com/

  186. Remind by dskoll · · Score: 1

    I wrote it so I'm biased, but Remind is the smallest (about 120kB) but by far the most flexible personal calendar tool I've seen.

  187. Meow by Mr_Perl · · Score: 1

    cat

    ls is too bloated though.

    --

    My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
    1. Re:Meow by epl · · Score: 1

      Thats why I always use "echo *" instead.

  188. VisiCalc! by rickkas7 · · Score: 1
    Who needs that bloated Excel program when you can still use the VisiCalc spreadsheet?

    It's missing a few features of "modern" spreadsheets, but at 26.9 Kbytes (for the version that runs in a DOS command prompt), there probably isn't anything smaller.

  189. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  190. DIRMS by Selivanow · · Score: 1

    It is a Windows defrag program. The download is about 300KB and it works great! They also have a background defrager called BuzzSaw that is also about 300KB
    http://www.dirms.com/

    --
    -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
    1. Re:DIRMS by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Why would one need to "defrag" a hard drive partition?

      Isn't your FS driver intelligent enough to do best-fit calculations?

      --
    2. Re:DIRMS by Selivanow · · Score: 1

      Ummm...No...have you looked at an NTFS or FAT partition lately? Mine fragments all of the time. Maybe someday they will get it right....when they stop writting their own...mayhe.

      --
      -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
  191. WordPerfect 5.0 for DOS by whuddafugger · · Score: 1

    still use it from time to time on my slackware box running under FreeDos/DOSEMU.

    --
    http://www.whuddafug.com
  192. Firefox! by coldfusionjn · · Score: 1

    My favorite is Firefox with as many useless add-ons as possible....oh wait you said bloat-FREE never mind.

  193. AVI EDIT - powerful video tool for free by j-stroy · · Score: 1

    Most cheap / free video editors have lots of what you don't need, and miss features which I go to a higher end package for. AVI Edit strikes a great balance. The workflow is straight forward, but not always completely intuitive. It is essentially file based.

    It is great for taking a sequence of still frames (ie stop motion animation done with a digital camera.. kids love that!)

    It is also good for format work, and as a general video swiss army knife. AVI Edit Homepage - Thank you Alexander Milukov!!

  194. Notepad++ by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

    I put it on every machine I work on.

    --
    I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
  195. Re:MS Paint vs. Paint.NET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "almost just as light"? You must be joking. You forgot to include the 200 MB of .NET installation and various updates that are required before you can even start running Paint.NET. And when you run it, look at how much RAM it uses compared to MS Paint. Oops! No, that's not really bloat-free...

  196. Bloat-free software? by Agermain · · Score: 1

    > Here's my list: OpenOffice, e-Sword, Firefox, Google Desktop...
    This comment deserves to be rated 5, Funny. :D
  197. winscp by werschi · · Score: 1

    So many mentioned putty but no one winscp? It's the best if you need scp/sftp on Windows.

    BTW, does someone know a good graphical opensource/freeware norton commander clone? (something like SpeedCommander/Total Commander but freeware)

    1. Re:winscp by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I like krusader, but it depends on kde. So YMMV.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  198. Notepad++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  199. WM: Joe's, and distro: Zenwalk by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    I learned of jwm from Puppy Linux. Pretty light on features (like, no way to edit the menus from the GUI), but simple, light, and it looks and acts much like Windows.

    For Linux distros that aren't crippled for the sake of minimalism, I've been using Zenwalk Linux. Zenwalk is one of the mainstream distros that still fits on one CD, and keeps the cheating (downloading of crucial features after supposedly finishing an install) to a minimum. Vector Linux is supposed to be light, but it takes 2G when installed-- too much for an old laptop. Zenwalk is lighter. I looked at KateOS briefly. They have a page on why Kate is better than Vector, but didn't have some things I was looking for, so didn't try it. And I had been using Slackware (that's where I put jwm), but have given up on it.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  200. Windows Programming with Jen's FIle Editor by grilled-cheese · · Score: 1

    I love a piece of abandonware for use while programming. I don't like the bloat and confusion of normal IDE, so I started using notepad and gcc. I hated that notepad was so basic it was hard to code with, so I found this tiny, fast, programming aware version of notepad. It can do important tasks such as line numbering, syntax highlighting, and indentation fixing. http://student.acu.edu/~jhg03a/jfe.exe

  201. Quintessential Player: squishes winamp by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    Quintessential Player is a GREAT little music player. It's got skins, it's got fanciness, but at the end of the day it's small (2.2MB download) and fast--on my ancient laptop (P2-233) I started using it because it was the only thing that would play audio without skipping and with less than 100% CPU. (In fact, it normally consumed about 20% CPU.)

    There's also a media player with a comprehensive library and all of the bells and whistles in development. Bigger, but still fast and light to run.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Quintessential Player: squishes winamp by daddyrief · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I searched 'Quintessential' to see if anyone else used this nifty little player. It's got a ton of community skins, from minimalist to full blown, (for the older version QCD) and a newer player version which is more similar to a WMP type of media player. I like the low memory footprint; it has a couple of quirks, but overall its pretty stable and customizable, the other two qualities i look for besides 'lack of bloat.' I like it better than winamp.

      --
      "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
  202. OpenOffice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it runs blazingly fast too

  203. srsly U gais! by z0M6 · · Score: 1

    Apps that use little hard disk space or have a small memory footprint is fine and all, but does it really matter? Sure this is great for older systems, but I have a fairly new system so that these criteria are not an issue. I haven't used any of the swap space ever. I think usability is much more important than how much ram it uses.

  204. PDF Creator by knisa · · Score: 1

    PDF Creator is great for making your own PDFs. It's not terribly large (installs as a Windows printer) and is a ton cheaper than Acrobat Standard or Pro.

    --
    This space for rent.
  205. Busybox? by mattgick · · Score: 1

    Small, does everything... bloats depending on your needs :)

  206. Smaller is better... by zerhackermann · · Score: 1

    ..usually. As another poster..posted, I dont mind software that makes *wise* use of resources. That said, as a Software QA dude (and Power user for far longer) I have noticed that the rapid expansion of cheap hardware resources have made developers and the programs created very lazy. Hard drives are littered with unnecessary files, memory efficiency is unheard of, etc. Every program acts like it is the only app being run. Most programs I encounter are like bad roommates. They consume resources they don't need or own (like a roommate drinking your last beer), they collide with other apps (like bad roommate arguing with your visitors and friends) and they dont clean up after themselves unless ordered to at gun-point (like...well yeah you get the idea) IMO, there would be far better quality in applications if devs had to make them work within a much smaller resource set *before* they were permitted to expand and use more resources. But then I wouldnt have so much fun detailing how a developers app/feature is "teh suck"

  207. iTunes isnt bloated... Its FUCKING FAT! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Apple cant program. That is what i get from iTunes. IF anything would inspire me to not buy a mac, it would be iTunes on the PC. There isnt a 64bit native version, and the 36bit version is so ridiculously slow that i cant imagine how any pc before a QX6700 could run the dam thing :)

    Sometimes i wonder how the hell i could run 3dsmax on 16megs of ram in NT351 years ago. It cant for the life of me see how computing has improved when all i see is applications getting fatter and slower. Are CPUs really getting faster? hehe

    1. Re:iTunes isnt bloated... Its FUCKING FAT! by crustymonkey · · Score: 1

      There isnt a 64bit native version, and the 36bit version is... Wait a sec, I didn't realize there was a 36 bit version! I'll finally be able to play music on my "Non Existent Computer"!

      --
      \033:wq!
    2. Re:iTunes isnt bloated... Its FUCKING FAT! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      TYPO ATTACK!

    3. Re:iTunes isnt bloated... Its FUCKING FAT! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Wait a sec, I didn't realize there was a 36 bit version! I'll finally be able to play music on my "Non Existent Computer"!

      Yeah, I'm still trying to get iTunes going on that old DEC!

  208. MS Calc by Corf · · Score: 1

    That little Calculator ap. A cousin of mine, Craig Brockschmidt, wrote it and pretty much retired. His name dropped from the "About..." menu ca. Win3.1, but I can't tell that it's otherwise changed since then.

    --
    The pain was excruciating and the scarring is likely permanent, but that just means it's working.
    1. Re:MS Calc by PoopDaddy · · Score: 1

      I've always liked Calc. It gets my vote.

    2. Re:MS Calc by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but wrong. When your cousin wrote the arithmetic engine, he used the standard IEEE floating point library. That was rewritten from scratch for Windows XP to use an arbitrary-precision arithmetic library. Apparently, "this was done after people kept writing ha-ha articles about how Calc couldn't do decimal arithmetic correctly, that for example computing 10.21 - 10.2 resulted in 0.0100000000000016". (source)

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    3. Re:MS Calc by IndieKid · · Score: 1

      Yes! I completely forgot about MS Calculator, I probably use that ten times a day without even thinking about it! My logitech keyboard has a dedicated keyboard button for opening Windows Calculator just above the Numeric Pad, so someone else obviously thinks it's great too.

      (Yes I know that button could be re-mapped to any other Calcuator application, and there's probably a better calculator on Linux/OSX blah blah blah)

  209. my favs by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    truecrypt, daemon-tools, md5summer, KMP media player (it's bloated with features that seemingly need no resources), RealVNC

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  210. Good question! by streepje · · Score: 1

    I never thought the day would come but my vote goes to emacs.

    I've been using it for over 20 years, from back in the day when it was considered enormously bloated. These days it has a tiny footprint by comparison. Mine's running in 10MB just now and I use it as file editor, IDE for a dozen languages, mail reader, browser, calendar, diary, etc.

    That's a lot of bang for your megabyte.

  211. Who cares? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    100 meg of disk space costs a few pennies. Just use the application that gets the job done, and don't worry about conserving a resource that is almost free.

    1. Re:Who cares? by Entropius · · Score: 1

      RAM, however, is considerably more expensive.

  212. Minimalist software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhm OpenBSD as a server vs. Windows Server lawl

  213. Graphic Converter by anphilip · · Score: 1

    For those on the Mac I find that Graphic Converter does a nice job on small photo-edits. Its surprisingly powerful for a little program.

  214. Calendar.com - 896 bytes by cmd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Calendar.com -- 896 bytes, displays the calendar for any month.

    C:\Bin>dir calendar.com
    Volume in drive C is XPPro
    Volume Serial Number is 5851-2646

    Directory of C:\Bin

    10/13/2006  11:46 PM               896 Calendar.com
                   1 File(s)            896 bytes
                   0 Dir(s)  23,780,888,576 bytes free

    C:\Bin>calendar

           September 2007

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

                             1
    2   3   4   5   6   7   8
    9  10  11  12  13  14  15
    16  17  18  19  20  21  22
    23  24  25  26  27  28  29
    30

    C:\Bin>calendar nov 1963

            November 1963

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

                         1   2
    3   4   5   6   7   8   9
    10  11  12  13  14  15  16
    17  18  19  20  21  22  23
    24  25  26  27  28  29  30

    C:\Bin>

  215. 4% is bloated? What planet are you on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iTunes uses 4% of my RAM, 0.04% of my disk space, and 1.5% of my CPU on my laptop. Is that "bloated"?

    That's not even worth thinking about. Who cares if another program uses 1/10th as much? 4% is just not relevant unless you're pushing your machine to the absolute limit and then you wouldn't be running an MP3 player anyway.

    Besides, almost anything you're doing will be disk-bound anyway, so it doesn't really matter unless that extra 4% of RAM allows you to cache your whole data set.

    Maybe this was relevant 10 years ago when listening to music while working was a challenge for a computer, but not anymore.

    1. Re:4% is bloated? What planet are you on? by Nos. · · Score: 1

      If you only have 64MB of ram, that's 2.56MB... great! If you have 4GB thats 160MB, which is awful. Giving percentages as your only measurement is pretty much useless.

    2. Re:4% is bloated? What planet are you on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's exactly the right measurement assuming most computers are comparable (which most plausibly are). The basic premise of this thread is misleading because it somehow assumes that absolute measurements matter. I don't care if a word processor is 10MB or 1000MB. I've got plenty of space; I won't notice either. Everyone has plenty of space, in fact. (And this is coming from someone who reads daily disk quota reports for his cluster.) What I care about is if it starts taking up 50% of my space. That would be a problem. So for an average machine, a program that uses 4% today uses 90MB of memory. That may seem like a lot for a machine 5 years ago, but today it's only 4%, and so I'd argue it's negligible. If iTunes used 40% of my memory on a machine today it would be a problem unless my data was really that big.

  216. Comparisons by Foldarn · · Score: 1

    You're comparing iTunes to Winamp and Foobar. You also compare WMP to VLC and MPC. iTunes is the primary interface for an iPod/iPhone. WinAmp is DESIGNED to be a media player. Windows Media Player not bloated? The install package is pretty hefty, VLC is both portable and includes all of the codecs you need. MPC has the same handicap of requiring the DLLs to be installed on the host machine as well. VLC can only be compared to MPC and WMP if you think of it in terms of WMP+Codecs and MPC+Codecs.

    1. Re:Comparisons by Foldarn · · Score: 1

      Correction, requires the same CODECs, not DLLs. My mind is on work too much atm...

  217. Shiira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a lightweight version of Safari. It's fast and not a memory hog.

    shiira

  218. Squid, SQLite by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

    I downloaded and installed Squid the other day on my home server. I had done this once before in the past, but I had completely forgotten how tiny it is.

    Then there's SQLite. It's a surprisingly powerful and astonishingly fast SQL server. Not enterprise grade, mind you (it lacks any real security and can't handle data being updated while there is an open cursor on it), but great for a lot of simple tasks.

    If you program in Perl, the DBD::SQLite module actually contains the entire SQLite engine. No server is needed (there is no daemon). It stores the entire database in one file, which makes for easy replication, archiving and compression.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
    1. Re:Squid, SQLite by smartr · · Score: 1

      SQuirreL SQL Client is nice and rather unbloated for the tasks it performs for managing your db. http://www.squirrelsql.org/

  219. Re:Oh! - I love this quote by kwabbles · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
    Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
    message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
    and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!"

    --
    Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
  220. In case anyone wonders by Wolfier · · Score: 4, Informative
    AD 30 C0: LDA $C030 - loads the content of the address $C030 to the Accumulator. $C030 connects to the beeper line, this line produces a "click" through the speaker.

    20 FD ED: JSR $FDED - prints the content of the Accumulator to the screen - since what you read from the speaker line is technically random, it prints a random character to the screen - potentially including arrow keys and bell characters...

    4C 00 03: JMP $0300 enough said.

  221. Subject by Z0z · · Score: 1

    grep sed and cut (awk is too bloated)

    --
    P.S. Any misspellings or faults of grammar you think you detect are mearly transmition errors, and probably your fault a
  222. More Acrobat crap by sconeu · · Score: 1

    In addition, Acrobat leaves AcroRead32 processes hanging around, especially when used as a browser plugin.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  223. Don't Judge Me by Hercules+Peanut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    PICO!

    For one thing, it's the fastest way to end a vi vs emacs argument. I've never seen two warring parties unite against an aspiring geek so fast.

    1. Re:Don't Judge Me by Michael+Wardle · · Score: 1

      I would happily use Pico or Nano, if only they had undo! I also don't quite get the shortcuts (for example Ctrl+G = help, Ctrl+W = search), but I could quickly learn them.

  224. Good Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some people complain of bloat as what they think are useless features. Others think of bloat in terms of memory footprint, disk usage, or performance and their priority often depends on the task ahead.

    One example I can think of is Opera VS Firefox. If you read the comments around any Opera story around here, you'll notice how some FF fans will say that Opera is bloated despite its speed and smaller footprint. At the same time, those who use Opera will complain about FF's memory leaks and its bugging down with huge pages.

    Among the examples cited by the story's submitter, I prefer Media Player Classic because it's faster while providing better image quality. There's also Notepad++ as an alternative PHP/ASP.net/HTML editor and XnView for image management and conversion. I also like Amarok and WinAmp. Although they're not light applications, I prefer them over iTunes.

  225. 45 bytes by dannannan · · Score: 1

    I came across my favorite piece of bloat-free software while learning about Linux's ELF file format. It's only 45 bytes, and quite educational. :-)

    DDL

  226. AmigaDos by teknopurge · · Score: 1

    Workbench 1.2 - 720k

  227. My smallest program by ZwJGR · · Score: 1

    An example to you all...
    A program I wrote (a long time ago) when I was having unreadable-screen problems when debugging VESA-mode DOS apps, on win9x.
    No bloat here!
    (Although I daresay the mov al and mov ahs could be coalesced into one instruction (mov ax) ).

    If only all software could be this compact...

    B400 mov ah,00
    B003 mov al,03
    CD10 int 10
    B44C mov ah,4C
    B000 mov al,00
    CD21 int 21

    --
    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
  228. What's bloated about iTunes? by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 1

    If anything, iTunes is stripped down. I don't get it. It's not like it has three rows of MS Office toolbars.

    And why is Ask Slashdot always such goofball stuff?

    1. Re:What's bloated about iTunes? by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      My guess is they are talking about the PC version of iTunes, which is not nearly as elegantly integrated with the system as the Mac version (for obvious reasons). I can't stand iTunes on my pcs, because it doesn't run well. Part of that problem is not much stuff runs well on my PC when compared to the same things on my Macs.

      But I agree, iTunes is NOT bloatware.

  229. No mention of PopCorn? by MollyB · · Score: 1

    When I was windows-bound, this was my favorite emailer. Can't get burnt with text-only.

  230. NOT bloated by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

    Here's my list: OpenOffice, e-Sword, Firefox, Google Desktop, TightVNC, Thunderbird, Picasa, AVG Anti-Virus, GIMP, IrfanView, VLC Media Player, FileZilla, 7zip

    Not bloated? Christ, that list makes Rosie Odonnell look anorexic!

  231. Duke Nukem Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't take up ANY room on my hrrad drive and never slows down my system...

  232. Lua by Kz · · Score: 1

    Once you learn perl you don't need a big set of reference books to explain every obscure library. Just the manpages or a quick reference will do. I hate language bloat.


    if so, check Lua. the whole language fits in your CPU cache, and thanks to it's squeaky-clean language design, the reference is really small too. Also, according to all shootouts, it has the fastest non-JIT VM (there's also a pretty good LuaJIT too, but it's (still) not as fast as Java's)

    i'm serious, not even Scheme comes close to Lua's cristalline simplicity and efficiency
    --
    -Kz-
  233. I question the premise by Infonaut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I prefer software that takes as little hard drive space and RAM as possible.

    I'm not really sure what this means. Do you prefer as little hard drive and RAM use as possible because you're running your life on a hacked Apple IIe? Or do you prefer hard drive and RAM efficiency because you use a honkin' desktop machine but like to keep a dozen apps open and working at once? Or is it really just an aesthetic preference, a form of minimalism ("I wear a loincloth, but I draw the line there. Sandals are for whimps.")?

    Personally I'm less interested in RAM or hard drive use per se, and much more concerned with operational efficiency. At the human interaction level, does an app let me do what I need to do easily and intuitively, without getting in my way? Does it force me to learn its intricacies, which are then not transferrable to other apps? Or does it anticipate my needs in a non-intrusive way? To me the most efficient apps are the ones where I think, "Hmm.. I wonder if it does *this*?" Sure enough, it does.

    My preference is for small, sharp apps that only do a few things, but do them well. They execute quickly, are a pleasure to work in (without calling attention to themselves), and are intuitive to use.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  234. Desktop search by baresi · · Score: 1

    Snowbird at 22KB

    --
    RGdot.com
  235. GAWK (the GNU awk) by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    The original awk cannot parse fixed-field data, which makes it nearly useless outside of academia (where inputs can be controlled, and profits are not an issue).

    GNU awk, as maintained and extended by Arnold Robbins (author of Unix in a Nutshell, etc.) not only handles fixed fields reasonably elegantly, it also has socket I/O and numeric base manipulation functions. It's like a smaller, faster perl with a cleaner syntax - so clean almost anybody can learn it in two weeks or less (2 days for an expert programmer).

    The only major thing wrong with it is the same thing that's wrong with all awks - it uses the space character as the string concatenation operator, which is a really stupid idea.

  236. email client by unger · · Score: 1

    sylpheed is a cross-platform email client that is lighter-weight and more stable than thunderbird.

    http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/

  237. As a Mac user I vote for .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Picasa. It's incredibly small and is about 100x smaller than iPhoto. Albeit without all those templates, still it's a small effective program.

  238. Add notepad to that! by xtracto · · Score: 1

    When I am working in Windows, I usually have on instance of Notepad and one of Paint opened. They are perfect as "buffers" for text and graphics. Althought their capacities are not as good it is quite handy to make [WIN]+R "pbrush" or "notepad" to quickly paste some kind of note or graphic of interest.

    On Linux, I have been using "KolourPaint" which is quite similar to pbrush but has some other extra features, unfortunately not all of them work fine (for example zooming out or in of an image makes the image render wrongly) and the gnome text editor takes *ages* to start compared to notepad...

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  239. Music by Harbinjer · · Score: 1

    for Music I really like MusikCube. It's somewhat like itunes, but much lighter. It has great support for naming and tagging in large batches, and has dynamic playlists. Basically a very flexible SQL query, and you can basically use any criteria, from a very large list of stuff it keeps. They have some great examples.

    I also like XMplay as a pretty basic, and really lite MP3 player.

  240. electrical engineering CAD software: PCB layout by gemtech · · Score: 1

    I still use TANGO/DOS. I can fit everything that I need on a 5.25" floppy. It runs fast, has pull down menus (not all fluffy like windoze), it always finds all of the errors and makes perfect PCBs.
    I have also used PCAD and OrCAD, both windoze versions, and am always dissatified with the user interface, too many menus to pull down. They try to do too much for you. I can see it in a large company, but for a 1-man shop it's way too much overhead.

    --
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
  241. It's not just you. by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Who really cares about reducing "bloat" any more? There was a time when hard disk space was at a premium (Stacker, anyone?), but these days, I've got more disk space than I know what to do with. And 90% of what I do have there is data: pictures, music, etc. Reducing the size of the applications would result in a barely noticeable change.

    I can still sort of see the argument with respect to memory, particularly if you're running an older machine... but for a relatively new one, you've got plenty of RAM in there for almost anything. Even if you're running an older rig, just buy more damn memory!

  242. Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America Online

  243. Enlightenment 17 by scottied · · Score: 2, Informative

    Enlightenment 17 is the only modern desktop solution I know of that packs a ton of bling without even a trace of bloat. Definitely my favorite bloat-free software.

  244. Image processing heavyweights by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Informative

    WinImages' EXE is about 4.6 megs. Feature-wise, it is comparable to Photoshop most ways, with some different approaches here and there. Considerably more powerful than the current release of Gimp. It loads and executes essentially immediately on any modern machine (say a GHz or better), even first time after a system reboot (doesn't depend on OS caching for startup speed.)

    It will use 250 megs if that's how much memory is required to hold an image (in four 62.5 meg allocations - R, G, B and A.) If there isn't enough memory to do that, it depends upon the OS to handle the virtualization of the image data. All images are treated as 32-bit for processing purposes. All operators (filters, etc) directly approach the image buffers in memory for maximum speed. Users are definitely better off having enough memory.

    WinImages is written in C, intentionally designed to use as few external functions (OS, DLL or otherwise) as possible as initially installed.

    The footprint can be enlarged by adding plug ins, scripts, and various data files such as particle systems, ray trace scenes, palettes, brushes, curves, transitions, timelines, operator presets, tool caddies and the usual host of other ancillary files. The actual weight of image files typically dwarfs WinImages' resource usage almost no matter what you do, and none of the above slows the software down in any appreciable manner.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Image processing heavyweights by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Similarly, that's why I use Corel PhotoPaint. It will run on any piece of crap (my fave, v8, is quite nimble even on my antique P233), and it runs rings around concurrent Photoshop on ANY hardware. Yet 99% of the time, it does all the same work (and does a way cleaner job on JPG compression).

      I'll have to try WinImages sometime... I appreciate crisp performance and a straightforward interface (which is why I hate Photoshop :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Image processing heavyweights by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      If you (or any other slashdotter) would like, you can visit my contact form and I'll see that you get a copy to evaluate. just use my name in the form (Ben) or mention slashdot. WinImages is a Windows application, runs under Windows 98 and up. Also runs fine under Mac Parallels for Intel / OSX and of course, bootcamp. Haven't heard of anyone getting it going under Linux's various Windows-like solutions, but it shouldn't be much of a challenge - it does, after all, run under Win98. :-)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Image processing heavyweights by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Done! Thanks for the offer, that's very generous. I'll review it for our local user group too -- you might get some interest from members who've choked on the price of Photoshop. :)

      Being able to run under Win98 is actually a Very Good Thing -- I think it keeps programmers honest about having their app clean up after itself, not wasting the resource heaps, etc. Relying on the OS for all of that is just plain sloppy, and can lead to problems even on OSs that are relatively tolerant (open a dozen Nero compilations at once even on XP, and see what I mean).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  245. Here you go.. by e5150 · · Score: 1

    office suite:
    editing: vim, sc
    viewing: cat, catdoc, catppt, xls2csv, xpdf

    internet stuff:
    www: elinks, dillo
    ftp: elinks, lftp
    email: mutt
    irc: ii or maybe irssi
    (centericq eating up 6 megs of memory seems to bloated for this list)

    window manager: wmii

    file managment:
    zsh, splitvt, screen

    seejpeg and qiv for image viewing
    convert from imagemagick does everything I need from an image editor

    alock as "screensaver" http://darkshed.net/files/c_cpp/alock/

    aterm for terminal emulation in X

    sox for audio stuff

    and last but not least (at almost 1 Mb) microperl when I need to do some not-so-fancy perl-kung-fu

  246. ZORK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Play Zork instead of that bloated Quake...

  247. My favorite software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    text editor: vi (or pfe32 on windows)
    log processing: awk/sed
    download manager: wget/ncftp

    and the shell that makes it all possible?: bash

    None of this software has a single ounce of bloat and it's all very flexible.

  248. Reaper DAW by Consul · · Score: 1

    A complete DAW, with various plugins, in an installer of about 2.5 megabytes. This is not limited-use or cheap-ass software, either. The sound is phenomenal, and the plugins are useful. How do they do it? No legacy code. A complete start-over from scratch.

    http://www.reaper.fm/

    --

    -----

    "You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."

    1. Re:Reaper DAW by Alex+Stone · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is a full fledged program in a tightly coded pack that works, and has all the tools to work with for a good living. New code, and no historical bloat. Lean and powerful. Plus 1 for Reaper, the intelligent 21st century choice.

  249. 600k? 30 articles = 1MB compressed on Plucker by KWTm · · Score: 1

    I was about to say that it takes even more space on Plucker,but then I realized that we were talking about different things.

    I get Plucker to spider the most recent 30 articles (all the direct links from http://slashdot.org/search.pl? ). Without graphics, the first-order spidering, when harvested and compressed, becomes a 1MB file for my Palm Treo.

    But you're talking about just the front page of Slashdot. Looks like that CSS is pretty hefty. If you happen to want to compress it, looks like Plucker might be an option.

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
  250. Linux apps by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

    My favorite non-bloated apps are Gnumeric (spreadsheet), orpie (awesome RPN calculator), and Liferea (feed reader). Also GAIM/Pidgin, which in my opinion has done an amazing job of maintaining and improving a simple interface while becoming very versatile in terms of the protocols that it supports.

    On an aside... anyone remember how Firefox was originally supposed to be a NON-bloated browser? Maybe it still is, in comparison to IE, but I load it down with so many extensions and plugins and gizmos that it doesn't seem that way anymore :-)

  251. Re:TextPad and Hextreme on Windows by lottameez · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I use textpad all the time. I haven't found anything better for doing multi-file text replacements.

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
  252. GNU Emacs-19.34b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every version since then has been terribly bloated and slow. Unfortunately 19.34b won't compile on most any recent OS...

    Please bring back 19.34b!

  253. Adventure on the Apple II by hogghogg · · Score: 1

    Damn that game was fun and it ran on an Apple II loaded from a floppy!

    --
    David W. Hogg -- assoc prof, NYU Physics
  254. DSLinux by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

    Last week I resurrected an IBM Thinkpad (~1Ghz, munged 18G HD, 1600x1200x32, broken DVD and dead net port) using Damn Small Linux, booting from floppy and running off a USB key.

    It's a fine system. Shoehorning everything to be able to run on a 16MB 486DX system makes a system with plenty of resources run fast.

    I'm considering switching from the bloated hulk that is Fedora, which I have to use at work.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  255. Freezip by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

    Does the job. Still fits on a floppy easily.... found here!

    --
    Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  256. Poseysail sailing simulators by CptMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Dennis Posey's sailing simulators require about 2MB hard drive space. With simple graphics, they run on old computers. There is nothing missing from these programs that would be worth the pain of making them bigger. They were obviously developed for some early Wndows version and not allowed to bloat since then, even though there are new tweaks that come out every year.
    poseysail.com

    Mike.

    --
    Long Live Cleveland Freenet (bl899)
  257. 8 of the best by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    For Windows:

    Irfanview - The best free image editor/viewer full stop
    EditPlus - A really fast, versatile, and small text editor
    ArtGem - Virtually unheard of, but extremely fast. Rivals and even surpasses GIMP.
    Opera - Not perfect, but faster and less bloated than Firefox and IE
    Deepburner - least bloated CD burning program I found which actually works.
    Syncback - Just found this recently. By far the best backup prog especially for its price.
    Mediaplayer, and MirandaIM as already said

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:8 of the best by maxume · · Score: 1
      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  258. I'll give you bloat free software by crypt0h · · Score: 1

    Umm... Vista.

  259. scite, anyone? by gregarei · · Score: 1

    scite is my editor of choice for c because it is very light and gets the job done well. - Real men just grep /dev/urandom for chars and pipe them to a text file.

  260. Feedreader by iandunn · · Score: 1

    I tried several RSS aggregators (RSS Bandit, SharpReader) and they were all slow and dificult to work with, but FeedReader is great.

  261. And all software needs DTT. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Hah!! Well, I'm not buying any software without DTT.*

    *Digital Turnip Twaddling

    (The problem with the iPhone is not that it was version 1.0. The problem is that Steve Jobs is version 0.9 Beta, after all these years.)

  262. lienmp3 by cabazorro · · Score: 1

    Requirement for compiling:

    gcc
    ncurses development library version 4 (should work on newer version)
    glibc 2.1 and above
    A fast computer (because libmpeg3 is a high quality decoder)
    8MB RAM

    http://lienmp3.sourceforge.net/

    The best non-bloat app ever!

    --
    - these are not the droids you are looking for -
  263. Kim-1 Chess by enodo · · Score: 1
    Vi? BeOS? Hah - you young whippersnappers know squat about bloat-free software. Back in the day, when real men toggled their programs into a front panel, then then there was bloat free code.

    My personal favorite was Peter Jennings Microchess, written in 1976 for a computer called the Kim-1.

    http://www.computerhistory.org/chess/main.php?sec= thm-42f15c9b2be73&sel=thm-42f15cab2be73

    Top this: this is a program that plays chess. It does not play it well, but it does accept input and makes a legal move in response. How long is the program?

    838 bytes.

    Yes, bytes, no k or M prefix.

    You can see the entire hex listing here:

    http://archive.computerhistory.org/projects/chess/ related_materials/text/4-1.MicroChess_%20Manual_fo r_6502.Micro-Ware/MicroChessManual.PETER_JENNINGS. 062303071.sm.pdf

    Check page 24/41.

    1. Re:Kim-1 Chess by alnicodon · · Score: 1

      What ? Are you advertising here some evil-closed-source software ? Unless you'll argue that back in the days, well, HEX was considered the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it :) Just kidding, of course, thanks for sharing this bit of history with us ! Al.

    2. Re:Kim-1 Chess by enodo · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is true that hex was the preferred method for inputting the program (there was actually no storage medium on the Kim-1). But to be fair - the listing I posted a link to actually has the source listing right below - assembler of course.

  264. MPlayer by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/news.html

    It uses a CLI (it's got a GUI too but who needs that pffft) and it keeps its codecs locally rather than using system ones. This might not be a plus in all cases, but it sure makes it portable and easy to set up (after a system reinstall I don't have to worry about reinstalling codecs).

  265. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  266. CommuniGate Pro by centron · · Score: 1

    Compare an Exchange installation at ~500MB (and some fairly considerable resource requirements) to CommuniGate Pro, which uses around ~30MB and is very light weight to run as well, despite its extensive list of features.

    --

    XeoMage

  267. win32pad by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    win32pad is the best free, lightweight (32K exe) notepad replacement I've ever found. It is basically a wrapper around the MS RichEdit control so you get Unicode support, no 64K limit, and the added bonus of clickable hyperlinks in your files.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:win32pad by bruns · · Score: 1
      --
      Brielle
  268. Small environments make for less bloat by mhollis · · Score: 1

    I read through a number of posts describing well-coded applications, many running under Unix for many years, others being Os kernals that aren't considered "modern" today, based on what we expect of operating systems today.

    For years I have used an environment that forces many creative programmers to "write tight." It's the Palm OS, currently being referred to as Garnet. Applications have to be small and run in the RAM they occupy (in storage). they can only access small amounts of free RAM. There are something like 20,000 applications written for Palm-compatible devices and they tend to work very well with very little "bloat."

    I have run into programmers who are regularly churning out applications for the Palm OS devices because they say they have fun while writing the applications, applications are pretty simple to write and the results are very pleasing. One person told me that it generally takes about a weekend to flesh out a fairly easy game.

    When you compare the Palm OS devices to the Windows Mobile devices, the Palm devices need less memory and work simpler and better.

    When the environment demands simplicity, you get really useful results.

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  269. ROX: RiscOS On X by oGMo · · Score: 1

    RiscOS On X (ROX)

    This gem has been around for awhile. It's somewhat "minimalistic": gtk, C, maybe libxml. No heavy component interface, large GNOME dependencies, or similar. It's blazing fast on both my desktop and my PDA. It's also blazing fast to use...faster than the commandline alone. Once you've assigned keys to its standard functions, you can navigate directories by clicking...or by hitting '/' and shell-style tab completion. You can select files by globs, regexps, or more complicated patterns, also at the press of a key. Then you can hit '!' and run a command on your selection. Drag and drop is prevalent and intuitive, but not forced or required. The mass rename dialog is awesome, and regexp-based, along with manual editing. Did I mention it was really fast? And when all the builtin functions aren't sufficient, you can hit 'x' and pop up a (user-specified) terminal in the cwd. Thus it works alongside the shell you love, instead of replacing it.

    After all these years, there's still nothing as usable or functional... or fast.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

  270. Eset Nod32 by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

    I switched from CA's eTrust to Nod32 on 600 computers. It was as if I'd given them a much faster processor and faster hard drives. The speed difference was amazing. eTrust now uses many 3rd party programs. It uses Apache Tomcat for the GUI which is slow the way they did it. Any time a Secunia warning came out for any of the 3rd party software they used, there was typically a huge eTrust update a week later.

    Nod has a small foot print and is easy to manage. It doesn't have as nice of an admin interface, however I find myself spending 1/20th the time administrating Nod as I did with eTrust.

    Nod has anti spyware, anti rootkit, smtp/pop3/http scanning, etc in a single client product. eTrust had only antispyware/antivirus and that was in three products (Pest Patrol, Inoculan, and Vet.)

    My vote is for Nod32. I also enjoy Pidgin, Ad-Aware, Truecrypt, PGP, HDTune, Thunderbird, Firefox, UltraVNC and IrfanView.

    1. Re:Eset Nod32 by trifish · · Score: 1

      I second NOD32 and TrueCrypt. BUT I have to strongly disagree with PGP (especially v9) and Firefox.

  271. And now that you mention it... by Poromenos1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hats off to NSIS for being a full-blown installer with some 40 KB overhead. I worship its having delivered me from the clutches of the evil InstallShield (remember when apps were 50KB and the setup 2 MB?) Justin Frankel is a genius.

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    1. Re:And now that you mention it... by pieaholicx · · Score: 1

      I second that motion. Providing a fully customizable free alternative to the corporate solution with next to nothing overhead is quite an amazing feat.

      --
      http://blog.heavensdomain.net
  272. mplayer for video (not wmp!) by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    MPlayer plays anything I throw at it, and is open source. I used to have VLC, but got disappointed in its buggy subtitle support. Best of all, Mplayer doesn't have a GUI, so the visual bloat is minimal.

    1. Re:mplayer for video (not wmp!) by black_penguin · · Score: 1

      BTW : MPlayer also have GUI; gmplayer.

  273. Will the original poster please provide a summary by wrwetzel · · Score: 1

    This is a good question but it is hard to sift through all of the replies looking for recommendations. It would be very helpful if the person orignally posting the query would post a follow-up summary of the responses, perhaps with an indication of the frequency of each suggestion. Thanks, Bill

  274. Screw that! Bloat is my best friend! by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

    Without bloat how could I justify new hardware to the wife?

    Acceptable:
    "Well honey, my old computer doesn't meet the requirements of Office 2007 so I'm going to have to upgrade..."

    Unacceptable:
    "Well honey, my old computer doesn't meet the requirements of Bioshock so I'm going to have to upgrade..."

    It's amazing how large of a video card my "Office 2007" machine needed.

  275. ROX Filer by bitspotter · · Score: 1

    ROX Filer

    It's freaking fast, responsive, intuitive (similar to the Mac OS Finder), and hackable.

    It's so fast, I've used it to replace some menus I used to use, in some ways.

  276. My favorite by wings · · Score: 1
  277. Bloat Free All The Way by thePsychologist · · Score: 1

    I try and use minimalist software whenever possible. You can't beat the start up times and simplicity. Obviously lighter software has fewer features, so that's why you need to keep more bloated pieces of crap around in case you need them. For instance: 1) Browser. Usually for browsing I use elinks. It's an awesome console text browser. It has tabs, bookmarks, table and frame support, and very importantly, editing text boxes in an external editor (this post is being typed in ViM). It can browse most websites with ease. Starts up pretty much instantaneously and even with several tabs, barely uses more than 4MB of memory, compared with 100+MB for firefox. However, there are websites which I need other browsers for. If I need to view images, I can use the links browser with image support. But usually I use firefox for more complicated things. My University website is completely inoperable in elinks. For bloated websites, I need a bloated browser. 2) Music player. Easy, XMMS. I tried Audacious (an updated GTK2 client), but the sound quality wasn't as good. XMMS with thunar (custom action to enqueue in XMMS) makes a perfect music manager. I have a separate workspace with XMMS and thunar open to manage and listen to music. No frills, and it works. XMMS also is very memory efficient (4MB about). 3) Text Editor. ViM for many tasks. However, sometimes when editing large amounts of LaTeX files I use the Cream scripts or Gedit with the LaTeX plugin. Just a side note, ViM has a latex suite that makes it very easy to edit LaTeX files. Often lightweight software can be extended by scripting or plugins to add just the features you want, instead of using a heavy bloated piece of crap. 4) Checking email. Unfortunately I've yet to find something lightweight. I use sylpheed claws that uses about 20MB, which isn't bad at all, but it's more in the medium category. I tried various text based clients and whatnot, but every single client I've tried either a) requires a fetchmail/getmail like installation or b) has horrible documentation and it's too frustrating to set up. I prefer an email app, but Gmail is perfectly usable in elinks for those who don't mind Gmail's setup. You can use ViM for your Gmail this way. 5) Window Manager. Fluxbox. When I moved to Linux last year I used GNOME. Believe me, there is nothing in GNOME that you can get in Fluxbox with a little customization...well maybe that's not entirely true but it's coming close. Here's a huge tip for Ubuntu users. Get the alternate installation CD, and install a command line only system. Then install fluxbox and GTK, and whatever else you use. This will avoid the installation of lots of useless services and make your startup time really fast. Mine went from 1min to 30 seconds, and shutdown time is 12 seconds now.

    --
    "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
  278. Bashpodder. by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

    http://lincgeek.org/bashpodder/

    Replace iTunes with a shell script...

  279. starcraft by ephedream · · Score: 1

    Gotta say it. As far as quality : resource consumption ratios are concerned, this game tops all. It's probably because it does not require a 3D card, and must run at 640x480 resolution. It is also pretty well coded I think, because my friend used to run it on a 486 running Windows 95. Yes, 486. Yes, it was painful, but after the game finally loaded, it ran quite smoothly! And it's still a great, playable game, almost 10 years later.

  280. Wannabe web browser by Darth+Cider · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It only runs in Mac Classic, but at 400k, the web browser Wannabe is a very cool app. Extremely fast at loading pages. It displays only text, converting images (ads, etc.) to urls or saving them to disk. I really wish the author would open-source it for a port to OS X and other systems.

  281. WriteRoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like WriteRoom for "Distraction free writing".

  282. Windows Vista by sonciwind · · Score: 1

    Hands down

  283. AmigaOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm gonna hafta go with the AmigaOS.

  284. Putty, Q10, Yakuake, and Katapult by Jeff+Carr · · Score: 1

    For my PortableApps usb key, it would have to be Putty for a tool or Q10 for a text editor.

    Putty is simply irreplaceable when I'm stuck on Windows.

    Q10 is just a light, quick, beautiful, whimsical text editor. I only wish it worked under Linux, but it does default to Unix line breaks, so it has that going for it.

    Otherwise, I'd have to go with Yakuake or Katapult.

    Yakuake is a Quake style drop down terminal for KDE.

    Katapult is a launcher that has almost completely replaced the kde menu for me.

    --
    The television will not be revolutionized.
  285. One spot for a lot of bloat free apps by thedman · · Score: 1

    I have found many good/small bloat free apps here .... www.tinyapps.org

  286. Well, of course it's... by punxking · · Score: 1

    Duke Nuke'em Forever.

    oh...
    wait...

    --
    You can have my cynical agnosticism when you pry it from my cold, dead logic.
  287. Shields Up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything by GRC.com assembler-maven Steve Gibson! Windows apps in pure ASM plugging security holes? That's poetry.

    Although, SpinRite couldn't save three of my hard drives... but at least there's a satisfaction refund for the software.. THAT'S my idea of low-bloat!

  288. plugging my favorite text editor by Xtravar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Edit Pad Lite http://editpadlite.com/

    It has amazing find/replace capabilities that I haven't seen in other text apps. Edit Pad Lite is free (the download is a bit hidden at that URL) and Pro costs money but has regexp, syntax, etc.

    It's the only Windows app I really miss in Linux.

    --
    Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
  289. The Answer: by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed.

    The kernel. *rimshot*

    Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:The Answer: by et764 · · Score: 1

      Depending on how much counts as "the kernel," I wouldn't be surprised if even the kernel has changed more over the last 20 years than Paint has.

    2. Re:The Answer: by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      The kernel has hugely changed in 20 years, going from DOS based to Windows 95 to Windows NT based with a Win32 skin on it.

  290. Blender, Emacs, Fluxbox by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Blender
    Measured in features compared to other programms of the same type, Blender is easyly the most bloat-free software ever. Version 2.0 fit on two 3.5" HD Disks and had an incredible featureset. The GUI uses OpenGL and is blazingly fast compared to other 3D progamms. It has gotten larger (ca. 10MB to download) but still beats others hands down.

    Emacs
    Once the most bloated piece of software in existance, Emacs now is the leanest Work enviroment available with the most power. After 10 years I've finally started to learn Emacs and it's all I expected it to be. Usage and control is far-out bizar at some points (marking a section takes several steps that are so counter intuitive it's unbelievable) but the power and available featureset is impressive.

    Fluxbox
    My favorite non-bloat Window Manager on X. Fast, neat and unique features, looks good. My prime choice for non-KDE/Gnome setups.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Blender, Emacs, Fluxbox by karbonKid · · Score: 1

      Pre-2.0 Blender used to fit on 1 floppy. Great, bloat-free sofware, that has increased in features, but suffered in terms of performance and size, after being open-sourced. Remind you of anything? And +1 on Fluxbox. I wouldn't use any other WM nowadays.

  291. Less is more by suggsjc · · Score: 1

    less is a good program. I also happen to like ls, cd, grep, and the occasional pwd.

    --
    When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
  292. Mod Parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent philosophical point.

  293. Window Maker by turgid · · Score: 1

    Yes, indeed, Window Maker. I've been using it since 200. It is small, powerful, reliable, user-friendly, Free, ergonomic.

    It really is painful to use kwm (KDE) and metacity (GNOME) in comparison. Before Window Maker I was an avid AfterStep fan, but at some point it became very buggy, bloated and full of cheesy eye-candy.

    In my new job I have to use MS windows (2k3) which is absolutely dreadful, but I also get to use a RedHat box running GNOME. It's not as bad as Windows, but it's still no banana.

    1. Re:Window Maker by TJamieson · · Score: 1

      Yes, indeed, Window Maker. I've been using it since 200.
      Good lord! 1800 years' worth of testing can't be wrong.

      But I do agree; Window Maker rules.

      --
      For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
  294. my list on linux by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    My list on linux:

    • fluxbox - a lightweight window manager that has great performance even on old hardware
    • mg - a tiny emacs clone that I use as my default editor; supports every emacs feature I ever actually use, and starts up instantly, even on older hardware
    • xpdf - It drives me nuts when people whine about how PDF is evil because documents take a really long time to pop up when they click on a PDF link in their browser. Just set your browser to use xpdf instead of Adobe Reader as your default app. Opens instantly.
    • dillo - nice fast web browser, works great in cases where you don't care about JS or CSS

    I often find it's quicker and easier to use command-line tools rather than GUIs:

    • cdrecord
    • mutt for email
    • ImageMagick for a lot of tasks that would be more hassle to do with Gimp
    • when for my calendar (I'm the author, so I'm biased :-)

    Can anyone suggest a really lightweight WYSIWYG wordprocessor for Linux, preferably one that doesn't make bloated files? I'd also like an alternative to kaddressbook that wouldn't take 9 seconds to start up on my 2.2 GHz dual-core x64.

    1. Re:my list on linux by Jimmay · · Score: 1

      You should give Ted a try!

    2. Re:my list on linux by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      You should give Ted a try!

      Here are my notes from the most recent time I tried it: Uses rtf as native format. Can read many Word docs. Only prints to ps. Seems small and fast. To convert its ps output to pdf, use ghostscript. Yech, tried it, and it crashed within a few minutes. Also, the control keys don't work! And when I open rtf files written by Word or OOo, it displays them incorrectly, with no spaces between words.
  295. Lite software by uem-Tux · · Score: 1

    Putty uTorrent AudioGrabber (though the sounds and decorations are a bit much) ChatZilla (IRC with no fuss) wget nmap TextPad dillo mpg123

    --
    A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills
  296. AROS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  297. Re:$$$ where my mouth is (donate to Free/Open Sour by scalarscience · · Score: 1

    I have some issues running synergy on a machine with more than 1 core/cpu. Sure would be nice if it was tuned & recompiled for the modern era. Otherwise I happen to agree on that particular app, I use it daily (even with the copy buffer desynch issue and the occasional other bugs).

  298. Mail.app by xrayspx · · Score: 1

    I never expected to like Mail on the Mac, but it's actually very good at dealing with...mail. I have one glitchy issue with message duplication using UW-IMAP, but as far as fast searching of my mail and speed searching on large folders, it beats the hell out of Outlook + Exchange (because it stores a local copy of my remote IMAP folders). I like the idea of having Calendaring and Contacts split out, primarily because I never use either. I am a convert from Evolution on SuSE, so I spent a while trying to get that to run well, and ended up using Mail.app, and being happy with it.

  299. How to keep it light by bobbocanfly · · Score: 1

    DE : Openbox FTP: "ftp" Download Manager: wget IRC: irssi MediaPlayer: uPlayer Backup OS: tty Linux (4mb)

  300. mod parent up insightful by halber_mensch · · Score: 1

    I don't have any mod points today, but dammit I'm glad someone doesn't have their head wedged directly up their ass on this issue.

    Inefficient, bloated software is inefficient and bloated regardless of what hardware it is running on; and 'inefficient' and 'bloated' are not admirable traits.

    --
    perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
  301. Foxit by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

    Foxit PDF reader. So much less bloat than Adobe's PDF reader.

  302. FoxIt and 7-zip by billmarrs · · Score: 1

    FoxIt PDF reader: http://www.foxitsoftware.com/
    7-zip file archiver: http://www.7-zip.org/

  303. I use text-mode stuff in Linux, OS/2, and Windows. by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

    Web browsing: Links
    E-mail client: Yarn or Pine
    USENET client: Yarn or slrn
    FTP Client: NFTP or Midnight Commander
    Shoutcast/MP3 player: Z!
    Filemanager: ZTree Bold, FileJet, or Midnight Commander
    Text editing: FTE, pico, or Cooledit/mcedit

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  304. You're wrong. by schnipschnap · · Score: 1

    Select All (Ctrl+A), drag picture around so that the top left corner of the canvas touches the top left corner of the region you would like to crop; resize canvas from the bottom right corner to the bottom right corner of your region; save (NOT AS JPEG KTHNX).

  305. A bad question to ask Linux geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since they don't care how feature filled or well polished an app is but rather that it does their intended purpose.

    One that not a lot of people know is

    FoxIt PDF Reader (works great as a FAST and small alternative to adobes bloated PDF suite. Just a matter of time until Adobe makes an Acrobat OS.

    Utorrent is pretty small and perhaps the best torrent program on any platform

    NOD32 is small and resource friendly, which is hard to come by in Antivirus

    UltraEdit is another compact, but ultra useful swiss army style program to have around

  306. Well, you're wrong. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "If a piece of software take so long to load that I get bored and kill it before it loads then it is bloated..."
    again, that is a wrong conclusion. You do not know if it is bloated. All you know is that it is poorly designed. not the same thing at all. Especially when measuring to such a tight standard and regulated standard as "when you get bored."

    More features then you will use is not bloated..it's more featured then you need, nothing more. Every one of those features could be very tightly written.

    Of course, my point is that you can not base bloat in any of these manners.
    If I have two applications with equal features, and one is 100K, and another is 100MB you have one with bloat.

    "Give a program that does one thing well, loads fast and has an "Advanced Options" checkbox .... VLC anyone ..."
      you are so caught up in pushing your favorite, you are missing the point.

    If I created soemthing that does exactly what VLC does, but is half the size then your VLC probably has bloat. That doesn't make it bad. It could also just be a better compiler.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Well, you're wrong. by HateBreeder · · Score: 1

      while it's fun being a semantics nazi, the point of the grand-parent was to demonstrate bad user experience - due to bad performance.

      while user experience is subjective, most of us, won't bother dwelling so much with the definitions of user experience, or bloat, or bad design, but rather try being productive and useful by "understanding" what the grand-parent is trying to say.

      It's obvious to everyone, that perhaps even the most bloated software will run smoothly on a supercomputer. that fails to see the point.

      Your reply was pointless, useless, unproductive and does not serve any purpose other than avoiding the point and wasting our time.

      --
      Sigs are for the weak.
    2. Re:Well, you're wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Your reply was pointless, useless, unproductive and does not serve any purpose other than avoiding the point and wasting our time.

      So what you're saying is it was a bloated reply? ;-)

  307. Window manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw the enormous desktop environments. All you need to do is be able to click, drag, resize, minimize, hide, redisplay, and select running applications.

    UWM takes the cake on full functionality, configurability, a little bit of window decoration, and written completely with standard Xlibs (so no extraneous junk), and the compiled binary, on Debian, is still only 92k.

    If you want a little more eye-candy I used to suggest Enlightenment, but E17 is about as large as almost anything else. E16 is still rather light, weighing in at 660k (again, Debian Sid) and not having many external library requirements. That's a little bit dishonest, though, in that my system does include most of the glib/gtk and kdelibs which are necessary for various applications.

    Anything which requires HAL/FAM/bonobo, however, stays the FSCK off my system.

    I remember when one could go from a bare HD, through LFS, and on through BLFS, and a have a fully functioning system with X11/gtk/glib/multimedia/filesharing/etc in about 4 days on what was, at the time, semi-standard hardware (around 500 MHz CPU and 256 mb RAM). Now, to have a comparable modern day desktop Linux OS, it'll still take about 4 days of compiling--but with a 2 GHz CPU and 1 gb RAM.

    Bloat-free software is a way of life... and the way to go.

  308. Notepad isn't 68k - it isn't a complete program. by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    Notepad isn't standalone at all. It relys on a massive library set called Windows for its UI.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  309. tiny editors by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    edlin For a few tasks, there's never been anything on an MS platform superior. Too bad they dropped it long ago.

  310. Faves by massysett · · Score: 2, Insightful

    CD ripping: abcde. Easy to control and customize.

    Text editor: vim Yes, it is bigger than, say, nvi. But on most any machine, it usually runs lightning fast.

    Shell: zsh. Not one of the smallest CLI shells, but very capable and well-documented. In many ways, easier to use than any GUI shell (and much lighter compared to any GUI shell.)

    Calculator: command-line wcalc

    Finances: Ledger whips everything I have ever tried; I would never switch to a GUI program for this again.

    Lists and databases: colon-delimeted plain text files. Search and get records with awk or grep. Quicker and easier than spreadsheets, and I could (should) easily encrypt them with GPG.

    Nutrition tracking: see sig (immodestly)

    Task tracking: todo.txt

    Photo sorting: just use GNOME's Nautilus and folders; all the photo album apps seem to be too much trouble. Wrote a zsh script to pull photos from memory cards, rename them so I know what camera they came from, rotate them, and dump them into a hard-drive folder so I can sort them out.

    Light doesn't always pay: I got tired of trying to configure Fluxbox and Gentoo; now I'm on GNOME and Ubuntu. Light also doesn't pay for things done infrequently, as light often comes with a bigger learning curve. I usually resort to GUI tools to, for example, add users to the system.

    I wish I could find a good CLI audio player--full featured, but CLI. MPD seems to come closest, but it can't get me away from Amarok. Similarly, GNUpod is pretty good for ipods, but I move stuff in and out of my iPod fairly rarely so I found Amarok is just easier to use.

    1. Re:Faves by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      A good CLI audio player you say? Ever looked at mp3blaster? Not sure if it meets your definition of full-featured. I used it happily for quite some time before I installed Gentoo, then I discovered Amarok and fell in love.

  311. The best of the best by rinkjustice · · Score: 1

    WordWeb rules (I just wish they'd come out with a linux port soon, Skype is pretty handy, CCleaner, Eusing free registery cleaner for Windows is absolutely amazing, 7-Zip, and Clamwin Anti-virus. I love GIMP too, but it could go on a diet.

  312. Angry IP Scan by aarenz · · Score: 1

    If you want to ping a range to find all responding machines and open ports, this one rocks. Under 120K, remembers settings and you can config a ton of options. Very useful port scanning tool. Single EXE requires nothing else in windows, you can even link to it directly from their website and run it right in memory, never touch the disk. http://www.angryziber.com/ipscan/

  313. CD and DVD image creation and burning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use cdimage 107KB, cdburn 13.5KB and dvdburn 15KB for my cd/dvd authoring and burning.

  314. Busybox by Sherloqq · · Score: 1

    All your favorite shell utils bundled into one relatively-small binary.

    --
    Have EVDO, will travel.
  315. mIRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one remember poor old mIRC IRC client?
    Fast, efficient, scriptable, Windows Only. Poor mIRC. If only there was an OS X client...

    1. Re:mIRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mIRC 6.3 is much more bloated than previous versions.

  316. Here are my favorites... by PRMan · · Score: 1

    Most the best Windows freeware is written by some dude in Europe:

    • CDBurnerXPPro - A great, lightweight, free CD Burner
    • CD2ISO - Turns a CD or DVD into a an .ISO file.
    • Virtual Clone Drive - A free program by the AnyDVD people that mounts .ISO files as drive letters. Much faster and more stable than Microsoft's program or Nero ImageDrive.
    • K9 - Fairly lightweight and unobstrusive (but effective) internet filter for your kids (free for personal use).
    • PhotoFiltre - My favorite lightweight image editor. Is very fast and bloat-free (compared to GIMP, which has a horrible interface, and Paint Shop Pro). It has most of the features I need in a graphic editor.
    • WinMerge - If you write software, it lets you compare file versions quickly and easily. A great piece of software to have if you accidentally had 2 people make changes to the same code.
    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  317. total commander by koutkeu · · Score: 1

    Total commander as file browser / ftp / fxp is realy great.

  318. What about desktop environments by crustymonkey · · Score: 1

    Fluxbox: tons of functionality, easy to configure and a small footprint. I know there are smaller out there, but if you consider the functionality/size ratio, it kicks ass.

    --
    \033:wq!
  319. NUMOFF.COM by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

    My favorite is still NUMOFF.COM, which as the name implies, turns off the numlock key.

    Unfortunately, I was unable to find the original 8 byte version, All I have is this bloated 11 byte one;

    B8 40 00 8E D8 80 26 17 00 DF C3

    -- Should you believe authority without question?

  320. Synergy by Noksagt · · Score: 1

    I have some issues running synergy on a machine with more than 1 core/cpu.
    What issues? I run it daily on an x86-64 Linux box with two cores (self compiled) & occasionally use it on a few win32 boxes that have two processors. No real complaints (except for copy issues). But I don't run the server component at all times & don't use more than two machines, so haven't really stressed it.
  321. Favorite non-bloatware? Easy one... by Panaqqa · · Score: 1

    Anything written by Steve Gibson.

  322. Re:Oh! You forgot the powerful encryption features by mandark1967 · · Score: 0, Funny

    Ya know, SCO used the safe and secure ROT26 encoding WordPad provides to ensure those linux zealots couldnt see it's (err...Novell's) precious eye pee...

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  323. Try this one: http://www.flexdict.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try this one: http://www.flexdict.com/

    A lot less bloated than its competitors...
    And was written by me.. ;)

  324. Easy by kramer2718 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google Docs and Spreadsheets. They take up no hard drive space beyond what I'm already using for Firefox.

  325. Word 5.1 for Mac by payndz · · Score: 1

    Until a few months ago when I bought a new MacBook (and had to start using Word 2004 because of the lack of Classic mode for Intel), I'd used Word 5.1 more or less every day for the better part of 14 years. It's still the fastest word processor I've ever used. Bootup in one second on a 466MHz G3 iBook? Hell yeah! In contrast, Word 2004 is the only program that regularly gives me the spinning beachball on a 2.14Ghz Core Duo.

    The only thing from my point of view that Word 5.1 lacked was a live word count. If Intel Macs ran Classic, I'd still be using Word 5.1 on a daily basis.

    --
    You must think in Russian.
    1. Re:Word 5.1 for Mac by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      Is it light enough to run in Bochs or another processor emulator? Virtualisation is the future they're promising us today...

  326. Media Players equal Bloat period :-) by drouse · · Score: 1

    Back when all you needed was a VT100 and computers didn't have audio devices, you didn't have all this bloat.

    But if you must play mpg files, then my vote is mpg123 -- a nice command line mpg file player, you can even pipe the output to the screen. Or decode to a WAV file, modify that in Perl, then send it to a SOAP application on another server that routes it to your boombox -- all without any pointing or clicking!

    If you want to have real control over your music collection, and don't want to have your files hidden by a candy interface...

    $ cd ~/my_music/hip_hop
    $ ls
    MC_Frontalot
    $ cd MC*
    $ ls
    Nerdcore_HipHop.mp3 Penny_Arcade_Theme.mp3
    $ mpg123 -qy *.mp3

    --
    -- I browse at +5 with stripped sigs ... Ha! Ha!
  327. Try this one: http://www.flexdict.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try this one: http://www.flexdict.com/

    A lot less bloated than its competitors...
    And was written by me.. ;)

  328. Perl epitomizes "bloat" by mkcmkc · · Score: 1

    Why do I have to import Regular expression or Strings in python? To avoid bloating the core syntax of the language. For Python, one can learn that in a day or two tops, and then learn the modules one needs to know as needed. And if you see something new, it's not mysterious because it will generally have the module name in front of it (e.g., "cgi.escape"), so you know just where to go to learn about it.

    With Perl, to be able to read the core language, you have to know how

    0_0_0 x x x 1_1_1 . . . 2_2_2
    parses and what it means. You have to know that how an expression like

    x +2
    is even parsed depends upon how 'x' is defined.

    Once you learn perl you don't need a big set of reference books to explain every obscure library. I think you do. You may think that you know what a regular expression like /$foo[bar]/ means, but you almost certainly don't.

    Perl may have its virtues, but it's definitely a big, hairy, sweaty, greasy, stinky, drooling beast of a language.

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  329. OT: Wiki Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know of software that will create a local wiki on Pocket PC? I'm looking to share/sync local wiki files between my WM6 Pocket PC and Windows system.

  330. My favorite bloat-free program by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

    /dev/null

    Nope. No bloat there.

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:My favorite bloat-free program by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      of course, I forgot my favorite shell: /bin/false

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  331. Beware by baffled · · Score: 1

    I would recommend against using Miranda. Sure, I once had the same opinion as you - nice, light IM utility. I thought it was perfect. After a few months of use, however, I discovered an annoying small bug.

    It drops all your incoming messages into a black hole. It seems as though you're online, and it's working fine. But your friends don't respond to you. You never receive the messages they send. This also happened to a friend using Miranda, after a few months of use. It is disconcerting until you discover what's happened.

    Maybe it's fixed by now, I'd hope so. This happened with their newest release about six months ago.

    1. Re:Beware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That happens occasionally on any client I've used. I think it's related to the servers, not the clients. People will appear online, but your messages just never arrive. Sometimes I've seen cases where I appear online on my friend's computer, but they appear offline on mine. There are other weird things too, but they don't happen often and a few hours later everything is back to normal. I think you are blaming Miranda based on circumstantial evidence (I haven't used it yet, but I've seen exactly what you describe using Trillian).

    2. Re:Beware by flewp · · Score: 1

      I've used many different IM clients and have only experienced this problem with Miranda.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    3. Re:Beware by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      I actually experienced a problem with Miranda that prevented me from connecting properly. Even the people on the forums couldn't help. Out of the blue I tried downloading the latest alpha build and, lo and behold, it worked better than ever before! So I've been happily using the alpha ever since. The auto updater even works perfectly so I get the latest bugfixes, not that I've found ANY in this alpha. I'm in awe of the Miranda coding team.

  332. EIMS by PuddleBoy · · Score: 1
    Eudora Internet Mail Server

    The app , which we still run on an OS9 box, is about 500k in size and takes about 10-20MB of RAM when running. It can handle hundreds of domains and thousands of email boxes. It doesn't do everything an MTA might do, but it is simple, fast, and elegant.

    I've been using it for about 10 years.

  333. Portable Apps are (usually) Bloat-Free by Comboman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Portable Freeware is my favorite site for programs that will run on a USB flash drive (or floppy if they're small enough) without the need to install on the host machine and create registry entries and the like. The focus of the site is portability, but generally speaking that also means bloat-free.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  334. Time vs bloat by FrankHaynes · · Score: 2, Informative

    I consider my time more valuable than the RAM for which I have already paid (RAM is a sunk cost at that point).

    I would much rather have Bloat-O-Shop take 20 seconds and whatever resources it needs to apply a filter to a huge image than wait 20 MINUTES for Gimp to do the same task in a tiny amount of RAM, assuming I have configured Gimp to use RAM sparingly. I can turn around and send out that image 19 minutes, 40 seconds sooner than the guy (a girl would not be so foolish) using an identical installation of Gimp, so whom do you think gets more work in the future?

    [x] I do not expect these arguments to be persuasive to those who spend days/weeks/months slaving over a hot terminal session cranking out software, only to give it away for free.

    --
    slashdot: A failed experiment.
  335. FoxIt PDF Reader by jeppster · · Score: 1

    Well, I liked it back around v1.3 with no installer, and only a 9mb imprint.

  336. Total Commander! by hansson · · Score: 0

    Could not see it mentioned anywhere. TC http://www.ghisler.com/ is the first thing that goes on my fresh Win-installs. If you used it once you'll never go back to File Explorer or mess with WinZip. I'll add a vote for IrfanView, and Notepad2 http://www.flos-freeware.ch/notepad2.html should be mandatory on every system.
    </A>

  337. My favs... by dep01 · · Score: 1

    Well, I am on Windows, for better or for worse. There are a few i really like.

    1. Total Commander - A super-fast and powerful file manager.
    2. UltraEdit - A text editor.
    3. MiniAim - a 74k AIM client.

    --
    "hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
  338. xmonad: window manager in 500 LOC by jnana · · Score: 1

    xmonad is a tiling window manager in about 500 lines of Haskell code.

    Features:

    • Automatic window tiling and management
    • First class keyboard support: a mouse is unnecessary
    • Full multihead/Xinerama support
    • XRandR support to rotate, add or remove monitors
    • Per-workspace layout algorithms
    • Per-screen non-built in status bars, with arbitrary geometry
    • Dynamic restart/reconfigure preserving workspace state
    • Tiny code base (~500 lines of Haskell)
    • Fast, small and simple. No interpreters, no heavy extension languages

    It's minimalistic, has everything I need with dmenu.

    Oh, and it's very actively developed.

  339. new business venture? by martin_henry · · Score: 1

    Utilities: 7-Zip (Compression/Decompression) Editpad (Tabbed Notepad replacement)

    Multimedia: VLC (Plays Anything) Exact Audio Copy (Perfect CD Ripping) LAME (High Quality MP3 Compression) Audacity (Record off Line Inputs or Loopback)

    Internet: uTorrent (Bittorrent) Putty (Telnet/SSH)
    The amount of programs we have in common gave me shivers...maybe this is how geeks should do online personal ads? I can see it now:
    Hi, I'm Ted, and I use OpenBSD with the following programs.....
    --
    www.purevolume.com/martyd
    1. Re:new business venture? by GPL+Apostate · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not running all those insecure Windows binaries in emulation on your OpenBSD system...

      --
      Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
  340. Your comment is uninformed and ignorant by dmwst30 · · Score: 1

    Actually, I used to use Azureus, and there were several patches made to fix 100% CPU utilization and RAM usage problems in the past. I can't recall if it were due to updates to JRE that caused this, but to say that Azureus has always been an efficient application is white-washing the program's history. I switched to uTorrent specifically because of these issues, and the vastly smaller memory usage led me to keep using uTorrent.

  341. I'm stil here... by thegnu · · Score: 2, Funny

    or 2GB, in outlook.
    (I know I got modded troll, offtopic, and lame for this the other day)

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  342. Camino by danpritts · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked that nobody has posted Camino (mac web browser). (or else, i'm shocked that the search didn't find said post ;). Uses the gecko rendering engine (so usually, if a page works in firefox, it works in camino), but throws away all the other crap from Firefox.

    There is something similar called, i think, Galeon, for X11.

  343. What about office applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone is talking about editors, but what about office applications?

    For all my spreadsheet needs, nothing beats VisiCalc!

  344. Not vi: vim! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Everyone should be at least a little familiar with vi. When the fit hits the shan, sometimes it's all you've got to get out of the doo doo.

    When that happens you don't want 'vi' you need vim.

  345. EMACS = Escape Meta Alt Control Shift by poopie · · Score: 1

    Anyone whose ever spent time programming in emacs knows the name stands for "escape, meta, alt, control, shift"

    If you've never met a 'meta' key before... well... go buy yourself a real computer ;)

  346. websites by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    Why limit ouselves to apps and not talk about bloat-free sites as well? Google's search homepage is a good example of bloat-free design, I think.

  347. Crimson Editor serious bug by enos · · Score: 1

    I agree with you that Crimson Editor is absolutely wonderful, and I'd still be using it if it weren't for a fatal (to me) bug:
    It garbles big files. Try openning a file with 10,000 lines or more, change something, then save. Some lines end up in wrong places and such.
    Unfortunately development on Crimson Editor seems to have stopped 3 years ago. I wish it weren't so..

    --
    boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
    1. Re:Crimson Editor serious bug by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      There's currently an open-source effort called Emerald Editor, which is based off of the released Crimson Editor source code. I don't think there's been any releases yet, but it may be something to watch.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
  348. Random 'light' tools I use by Dramacrat · · Score: 0

    winamp lite, vlc, foxit pdf reader, utorrent, xfce.

    --
    There are over 36 million lines of COBOL code in the world, and they are all raping children.
  349. echo by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    at a morbidly obese 15288 bytes, what more could anyone need?

  350. iTUNES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iTunes is the biggest piece of bloatware I've ever seen! Any mp3 player that needs its own enormous file organiser is useless. It grabs all the audio file associations, and mucks up usb compatibility. It starts a constant daemon to monitor when an ipod is plugged in. It has some ugly skinned window, which does not have normal functionality (resizing etc). It is impossible to close. Transferring files to an iPod is some awful 2-3 step process.

    To make it easier, why not just have a small program that will copy mp3s (not some drm-converted piece of shit) directly to the mp3 player. The player should show up as a usb drive and people can instead just use explorer to copy their music over.

    (I have similar problems with photo managers – I can't see why they exist! Isn't it much easier to treat all the photos as jpeg files instead of starting up some ridiculous wizard.)

    As well as that, iTunes insists on installing QuickTime, which enjoys having an icon everywhere (desktop, tray, programs), despite never being used by anyone! (Who runs a media player first, then opens the file?)

  351. These 2 tools by the same author & 1 more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Registry Cleaning Engine 2002++ SR-7:

    http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/389/foowhatev ermakesgooglehappy.html

    It is a multithreaded single executable design in Borland Delphi and does a great job on cleaning the registry safely and I have compared it to others like it, per what the program download description states, in other registry cleaners. I found it does the job more safely and thoroughly because it finds more entries than others do. Most importantly this proggie does not expose users to the dangers of registry cleaning in that other ones expose (Class Identifiers/CLSIDs, and when the wrong ones are removed, things stop working or blow up). This one does not do that.

    I have also found it is a useful tool for security in 2 capacities:

    1 being in hiding the tracks of files I used to have laying around but do not anymore, and it removes their tracks that remain in the registry.

    The second being that I have conversely also found that it is an extremely useful as a forensics tool for hunting down what users have actually had on their systems, even though they deleted them and defragged their drivers to stop undelete tools from recovering said files.

    ****

    APK Matrix ScreenSaver:

    http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/390/APK_Matri x_ScreenSaver.html

    The smallest and coolest looking "matrix" screensaver I have found to date, by the same author as the program above. If you liked this film, this one rocks.

    ****

    WinRar (current build):

    Who can say enough about this program? It may have "ripped off" the style of the Winzip interface (the original archiver) but it is lighter on memory & system resources and does more compression formats natively (without using external archivers) than Winzip does.

  352. We have to have bloated software by treeves · · Score: 1

    to drive the demand for more RAM, HD space, processor power, etc.

    Yesterday I put 2GB of memory into my cell phone, giving it about ten times the storage of the first desktop computer I bought in 1993.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  353. unbloated apps of goodness by poopie · · Score: 1

    wget - grab url without any annoying save dialog boxes
    elinks - text-based wysiwyg
    calc - http://sf.net/projects/calc
    vlc - cause it can play just about anything without concern on local OS dependencies
    ImageMagic suite - these tools rock - most notably 'convert'
    awk and sed - you'd be surprised how many times I've used awk and sed on a text/csv file in 5 seconds to do what someone else takes hours to do in a spreadsheet
    find, grep, and xargs - with this trio, I can do in 1 minute what takes other people hours or days to do
    scp - so much better than ftp for so many reasons
    rsync - there are so many very expensive commerical data replication solutions that basically are just GUI wrappers around rsync
    htop - I just like it. Fast, colorful, unbloated
    tkdiff - one of the best graphical diff tools around. Small, simple, fast.
    screen - take your console session with you
    vncserver and vncclient - while I don't like their non-pam OS authenticaiton, they're great tools. Fast and lightweight
    rdesktop
    audacity
    pidgin

  354. SpinRite, the disk repair program by swschrad · · Score: 1

    still under 64K (an exe program) and requiring a DOS boot, this will fix any disk that runs and seeks and can still find magnetism on the platter. been around since something like 1991, and the program essentially reverse-engineers the disk and controller based on what it can see to non-destructively low-level format when needed. www.grc.com

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  355. Keep telling yourselves size doesn't matter... by jmoriarty · · Score: 1

    Oh sweet mama pajamas... a nine-hundred-reply thread of Slashdot ubergeeks engaging in a contest of "my tool is smaller than yours"?

    You just know eHarmony is farming this thread for user names and banning them on the fly.

  356. Re:Oh! You forgot the powerful encryption features by empaler · · Score: 1

    ROT26 - that's twice as powerful as ROT-13!!!!11!

  357. Windows Notepad replacement by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    Edxor, which supports encryption and if *fast*. Find it along with other Win32 stuff at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~nulifetv/freezip/fr eeware/.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  358. IEFBR14 by dlefavor · · Score: 1

    You youngsters and your low expectations.

    IEFBR14 takes up exactly 2 bytes of executable code.

    Never fails, ever.

  359. One more... by Javaman59 · · Score: 1

    Eclipse

    --
    I'm a software visionary. I don't code.
  360. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software...(Games) by epedersen · · Score: 1

    Scorched Earth The Mother of All Games http://scorch.classicgaming.gamespy.com/

  361. DVDDecrypter by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

    DVDDecrypter... Best...Utility...Ever!

  362. the BEST? - Re:Foobar by J_Omega · · Score: 1

    Best audio player for Windows ever.
    Quite an opinion there. I'd say its about the best SO FAR.

    Sure, it has a rather minimal memory footprint, however my real issue with it is the amount of CPU it takes up. I'm looking at taskmanager right now, with foobar not even playing a song, and foobar is spiking at about 47% CPU. (the latest foobar, 0.9.whatever, on a 1.6 GHz AMD cpu, btw.) It always acts like this for me... Why? Columns-UI? The minimal skin I've applied?? It only seems to peak at around 55% cpu usage when actually playing MP3s, FLAC, etc. *boggle* (Any advice here, greatly appreciated.)

    My "SO FAR" quip relates to the fact that Amarok (http://amarok.kde.org/) should soon be usable on Windows. I hardly care about the memory footprint there... I've been waiting for it for quite some time now. I'm 99.8% sure that I'll be using it instead of foobar when the day finally arrives!

  363. Clear by acidblue · · Score: 0

    Let us not forget the wonderful unix 'clear' application. I use it consistently throughout the day. It also seems to be transparently available to just about any operating system. For those who use Microsoft based operating systems the command is 'clr'. Has anyone done any performance testing/benchmarks between the different versions of clear? Should I compile my own? Are there any pre-compiled binaries available for OS X or various flavors of Linux?

    Wait a minute, why is it 103K on OS X? Wow, that's big. Is that bloat? I think I'll need to compile my own.

  364. it's by mistahkurtz · · Score: 1

    norton antivirus!

    --
    not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
  365. small footprint means no gui by Door+in+Cart · · Score: 1

    Give slackware booting to runlevel 3, gnu screen, gnu coreutils, vim, lynx/links/w3m/elinks, lftp, rtorrent, and moosic a try. There are many others of course.

  366. the catch to vi . . . by hawk · · Score: 1

    . . . is when it's dynamically linked (e.g., FreeBSD), and your problem is preventing /usr from mounting . . .

    hawk, who was surprised to find that he could still use ed

    1. Re:the catch to vi . . . by Epsillon · · Score: 1

      That's what /rescue/vi is for, Hawk. All the stuff in there is statically linked and needs nothing but /.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
    2. Re:the catch to vi . . . by hawk · · Score: 1

      wasn't /rescue added in 5.x? My dusty neurons want to say it was added when situations like mine occurred after switching to dynamic linking, but it's been a few years.

      hawk

    3. Re:the catch to vi . . . by Epsillon · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think it did first appear in 5.x according to the CVSweb entry for its Makefile. I vaguely unforget an old Proliant running 4.7-R that didn't have /rescue and needed lot of mounting of filesystems and messing about to add the missing " to rc.conf that stopped the whole system going multi-user. Getting it to recognise all the memory on that not-quite-a-BIOS equipped box was fun, too (MAXMEM=xxx and recompiling a kernel on a system that could only "see" 16MB of memory, if you can call that "fun"). Amusing times. Thank goodness for all the little improvements we never see until we do something daft.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
    4. Re:the catch to vi . . . by hawk · · Score: 1

      In my case, I think that it was getting an entry out of /etc/fstab that was stopping me from going multiuser, combined with a mandatory fsck. But ed was there to save the day :)

      hawk

  367. init in 4k ram by proton · · Score: 1

    im the author of twsinit, something I expermented with a while ago
    in the end I got it down to 4KiB RSS (one stack page), still performing its function flawlessly.
    all an init program needs to do is run some startup scripts and catche sigchld signals anyways.
    I even went on to agetty after that, getting that down to 4KiB aswell.
    Everything else on the system was the same btw, all I did was swap out sysv init and rewrite configs.

    I'd like to see anyone saying 4KiB is inefficient.
    /pro

  368. Portable Apps by mprindle · · Score: 1

    A great place to look for bloatless software are Portable Apps. Most of them are compact yet still work great for there intended purpose.

    http://www.portableapps.com/

  369. I use these daily by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    1. vim (any kind of text editing)
    2. elinks (mainly for reading html documentation, but browsing the web is ok too! hey, no flash fat!)
    3. xmms (media-playing)
    4. gnumeric (spreadsheets)

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  370. Re:uTorrent on Windows, Transmission on OSX by Kildjean · · Score: 1

    I feel the same way... uTorrent is perfect on Windows, a good alternative on OSX is Transmission. I used to use Azureus and since it got bundled with that crap beta thing they did it sucks. Then I switched to XTorrent, which in idea it sounds good, but it sucks as well. Later on I got so frustrated I tried other torrent apps for Mac like:

    Tomato Torrent is a very plain alternative, seriously lacking in eye-candy and begging for a new icon (and maybe a new name too). It's based on the official BitTorrent client. I think it desrves a mention because I know a few people who swear by it. It comes with an AppleScript file that you can place in folders you want to download to. When you want to download a torrent to a specific folder, you just drag the .torrent file onto the piece of AppleScript to initiate the transfer. One pro is that it's an extremely light client that hogs very little RAM. It's the closet thing to uTorrent on the Mac.

    Bits on Wheels is a slightly out-dated (last updated Sep. '05), yet popular Mac BitTorrent client. It claims to be "the first 100% native BitTorrent client for the Macintosh" as it is written in Objective-C and Cocoa. Bits on Wheels is freeware but not Open Source. One of its main features is a visual 3D Swarm with which you can observe what's actually going on under the hood, how many seeders and leechers you're connected to and the bits transferring between everyone. Bits on Wheels is very OSeXy (heh!), it's how I'd imagine the default OS X BitTorrent downloader to look if there was one. bits on wheels sawrmIf not to use the first native OS X B.T. client, I'd download it just to fly around in 3D chasing bits.

    And lets not forget the grandaddy of them all, Bram Cohen's self-titled BitTorrent application. It's gotten kind of confusing since he named the protocol, his company and his application all BitTorrent. BitTorrent OSX is a very (and I mean very) basic application. It's as feature-full as Safari's download box and that's not saying much. Now some people wouldn't mind something like that, but if you're looking for simplicity Transmission is a much better choice. BitTorrent OSX also takes an age to start up on my MacBook Pro.

    Transmission is my current Mac B.T. client of choice. TransmissionIt's an Open Source project, maintained by the developer of the popular Mac DVD ripping application, HandBrake. Transmission does its job well. A neat feature it offers is the ability to view download and upload rates in the dock, so I don't even have to open up the program to check how my downloads are going. Another great thing Transmission does is copy the .torrent file to its support folder, then trash the original file from my desktop thereby leaving no mess of files behind for me to clean up. Now just like everything Transmission has its flaws, the biggest of which is that Demonoid, a leading BitTorrent directory has banned it on ocassion! They say it doesn't adhere to set standards.

    For the different torrent apps I mentioned here you can go to:

    Bit Torrent OSX: http://www.bittorrent.com/
    Transmission: http://transmission.m0k.org/
    Tomato Torrent: http://sarwat.net/BitTorrent/
    Bit On Wheels: http://www.bitsonwheels.com/

    Hope that helps!

    Kil

    --
    Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
  371. Name Your Favorite Bloat-Free Software by __aahgmr7717 · · Score: 1

    I vote for the original Oberon-0 operating system and programming language by Niklaus Wirth. That system used only 300K bytes. It includes the compiler, graphical user interface, documentation, file system, and more. The system is modular and strongly typed.

  372. Re:Notepad isn't 68k - it isn't a complete program by SEMW · · Score: 1

    You're right! OS standard widgets and UI libraries are for fools! A program isn't a proper program unless it implements everything from radio buttons to window management tools completely from scratch in a way guaranteed to utterly confuse anyone who hasn't spent 87 hours learning the its precise eccentricities! "Consistency" and "learnability" are for people who want usable software, not cool software!

    --
    What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  373. Some of my favorites... by Abuzar · · Score: 0
    Some of my favorite light wieght apps (all of which are for windows):
  374. anti-bloatware by dayton967 · · Score: 1

    Qmail I think is the best bloatfree software I have seen. The only problem with it is setting it up is a little on the annoying side.

  375. Name it? by vistic · · Score: 1

    For some reason this made me think of Bastian being told he needs to name the Childlike Empress in Neverending Story.

    The Unbloated Software: Bastian. Why don't you do what you dream, Bastian?
    Bastian: But I can't, I have to keep my feet on the ground!
    The Unbloated Software: Call my name. Bastian, please! Save us!
    Bastian: All right! I'll do it! I'll save you! I will do what I dream!
    Bastian: MOONCHILD!

  376. CCleaner - It Works by Sid_Daley · · Score: 1

    Love CCleaner, small footprint, scriptable and free plus it works.. http://www.ccleaner.com/features SD

  377. btdownloadcurses by rubberglove · · Score: 1

    that, coupled with screen, is perfect for doing remote or unattended torrent downloads.

  378. six letters: evilwm by ddiederich · · Score: 1

    [dana@pippin ~]$ ps aux|grep evilwm|grep -v grep
    dana 3377 0.0 0.1 3560 428 tty1 S Jul20 0:26 evilwm
    [dana@pippin ~]$

  379. OpenBSD by Calyth · · Score: 1

    At the risk of being totally flamed, I prefer OpenBSD for setting up a barebones server without extra bloat.
    Of course, there are specialized linux distros that are very tiny, DSL, Puppy and Slax comes into mind, but they are desktop distros.

  380. I know... by wellingtonsteve · · Score: 1

    Windows Vista...!!! oh wait a minute...

  381. Oh no! by robi2106 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    500 jobs? Hell, the HP plant I worked at had more than 500 H1B workers from India with Wipro working at our location. Like that can offset the thousands of coding jobs they took?

    1. Re:Oh no! by robi2106 · · Score: 1

      Oops! wrong article! hehehe

  382. CD Burner XP Pro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great bit of software which handles burning audio, MP3, data, DVD, etc without any of the bloat of Nero, etc.

  383. PMView and AC3D by gmezero · · Score: 1

    [ravingfanboyhat="on"]

    PMView -- http://www.pmview.com/
    Absolutely hands down, the best image conversion/management program ever written. It originally started out over a decade ago for OS/2 and as it moved to Windows, it has only gotten better. And they just went Vista compatible to boot!

    and

    AC3D -- http://www.inivis.com/
    When it comes to 3-D modeling tools, AC3D is cheap, fast, simple to use, with an easy to understand interface right from first launch... none of this spending a billion dollars on a program and then needing to take a year of classes just to make a friggin' cube. Added bonus, built in support for exporting 3-D models to Second Life sculpties format without all the stupid limitations found in *every* other modeler.

    Now go check'em out!
    [/ravingfanboyhat="off"] ...whew, glad I got that out of my system.

  384. Jarte Word Processor by rinkjustice · · Score: 1

    Jarte: A complete word processor that's under 3 megs!

  385. Re:the BEST? - Re:Foobar by maxume · · Score: 1

    I imagine it is the skin. I've had it running(on a modest core duo), with columnsUI and no skin(or the generic one, whatever), since September fourth, and it has consumed 40 *seconds* of cpu time(so it is using something like 1 second an hour, which is about 0.03%).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  386. Konqueror is a decent browser nowadays by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's been a while since you tried Konqueror, because most of the things you mention are supported in the 3.5 series.

    Blocking animated images is possible, you can even allow them to run once but not repeat.

    You can set site-specific policies for JavaScript.

    Although blocking of flash, background music and videos is not directly controllable, there is the option of disabling plugins for selected sites, which is good enough in most cases.

    And blink tags? I haven't seen one of those in years. I guess I would just close the tab if I'd encounter one; no serious site would even consider using them.

  387. ListXP by Foresto · · Score: 1

    Rick Brewster's ListXP is a very useful and fast text file viewer, designed to mimic Vernon D. Buerg's LIST.COM. It handles huge files just as easily as tiny ones, has a hex display mode, an optional context menu Explorer extension, and various other goodies.

  388. netpbm sets the standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A library and a suite of utilities that are small (often minute), contain nothing more than is required to perform the task required and yet can collectively manipulate image data from and to just about any format, size, resolution, depth one may require, with a huge variety of programmable crops, overlays, subtractions and other manipulations. Just top notch!

    http://netpbm.sourceforge.net/

  389. You are insane! by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

    But, I need some money. Please send me some. I work my ass off, so I deserve your support.

    Thanks!

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  390. XP booted faster than 2k by tknd · · Score: 1

    Windows XP also booted faster than 2k.

  391. Geoworks - NewDealOffice by joegizmo · · Score: 1

    An entire software suite that can still run on a 286 PC with 1mb of memory. Word Processing, Spreadsheet, Publishing, draw and database are the main part of the suite and it all fits in 11-17mb. It was the software ripped off by windows 95 to show "motif" icons. Icons that are associated with the program that created it. If you go back even further it was the first graphical interface used on an Apple machine (Apple IIe) and the first true graphical interface that ran on a PC XT. I first used it on a Commodore 64. The last version produced could run under Dos, Win95, 98, Me and XP...Vista will not run it, but you could create a floppy dos boot disk and keep it on a small Fat partion and still use it on a Vista machine (if the cpu will let you). At one time Geos offered a pretty robust demo program, I think it was called NewPublish that still might be floating around on the net. This link seems to have it but I don't know if it's the english version. http://www.siemens.md.st.schule.de/~rainerb/DOWNPU B.HTM

    1. Re:Geoworks - NewDealOffice by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      I thought Mousedesk was the first Apple // GUI.
      Geoworks came later.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  392. Everyone forgot antivirus software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Antivirus software like Norton antivirus/internet security are usually the best examples of bloat. I manage a lot of computers for my friends and the first thing i do is uninstall Norton. Infact most viruses are harmless compared to what norton does with a computer.

    Use NOD32 its least resource hungry av software and it does a great job at catching stuff too.
    Infact its got the highest rating at www.av-comparatives.org
    You can try out an online scan at www.eset.com/onlinescan

  393. T-Maker's WriteNow by timothy · · Score: 1

    Now defunct, but WriteNow was the speediest, friendliest word processor around for a long time. I think the whole thing took 4 floppies (the version before the last one I used was on two floppies, I think). If I remember the marketing hype correctly, it was all written in assembly, hence its high speed and good power-weight ratio.

    It was originally for the NeXT, I think, then ported to Apple.

    Heh, no, I had it backwards -- see this very nice Wikipedia article :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WriteNow This is exactly the sort of thing for which I praise WP about 20 times a day.

    Tim

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  394. Fun, fun, FUN! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Now I saw tons of lists for media players and other semi-work related apps, but there are some REAL killers when you are in the fun department.

    Mupen (Or more specifically Mupen++) takes like 6 mb. It's totally portable, runs under wine, and contains nearly everything needed to play over 300 Nintendo 64 games. I pack this and about 20 of my favorite games on a USB stick, and take them with me everywhere I go.

    If you want even smaller file sizes, you can do the same with Super Nintendo roms, but for my money Mario Kart 64 is one of the best games ever made, and well worth the 9mb. Other favorites on my USB stick:

    Bust A move 7mb
    Dr Mario 3mb
    Super Mario 64 6mb
    Mortal Kombat 4 13mb

    Plus, let's face it, most of those old console titles are much more fun than even the latest hi budget commercial DirectX titles....

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  395. Browse by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

    I have a program - I have no idea where I got it from, and I've probably had it for 20 years - named Browse. And that's what it does. That's all it does. It allows you to browse text files, either move up or down a line, or a screen at a time, or go to the top or bottom of the file. Handles files which use either CRLF, CR or LF for end of line so you can view MSDOS or Unix/Mac text files. It's an MSDos program, browse.com, maximum memory it uses is 16K. No, you didn't misread me, not 16meg, 16K; no matter how large a text file you give it, the program only uses 16K of memory. The program file itself is exactly 1,024 bytes.

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  396. Debian & IceWM & W2K by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Debian network version is under 200mb. I don't have to download and install, and de-install, a lot of cruft that I don't want. Also, with debian, I don't have to download a new version every six months, or whatever. I just keep updating the system I have. Best package management in the business.

    IceWM: does what I need, seems crisper, and snappier, than gnome or kde.

    W2K: best OS msft ever developed, IMO. Very fast on a 900mhz system with 384mb of ram. Works with all of my hw/sw. No cartoon interface.

  397. mc by Andyham · · Score: 1
    I am not sure about disk usage, but it hardly shows up in top. And talk about functional, it really can't be beat.

    It can save your ass when X takes a dump (not too often, but it does happen). And it can run in a terminal when X is working.

    I spent considerable time looking for a "pretty" replacement for mc, and eventually gave up. Nothing managed to do everything that mc does as quickly, as easily and conveniently. There are some nice file managers out there, but every one I tried wound up lacking something that I really like about mc.

    Opera is my browser of choice, because what memory and disk space it does use pays off in performance. For documents that don't need the OO capabilities, AbiWord is great.

    I also regularly use Xfig and pcb (although pcb understandably requires at least a little horsepower to run). XV is surprisingly capable for a viewer, even though it looks a tad ugly by today's standards.

    Before AfterStep got all clunky and slow (at least around the time they made the transition to 2.0), I used it. Now I use Fluxbox. I still use fetchmail and pine. When alpine comes a little further along, I'll probably give it a try.

    The one solid disappointment for me has been Tux racer. I have never really been able to successfully play that game with any kind of responsiveness on anything but a powerful machine. I remember it being included in the Red Hat 5.2 distribution and there was no way it would play on my 120 MHz 486 with 32 MB of RAM. Ah, the good old days...

  398. DWM by Shardz · · Score: 1

    I use DWM (Dynamic Window Manager), from suckless.org as my primary window manager now, after switching from Fluxbox. The code is clean and fast. Configuration (colours and whatnot), is handled by editing the C code and recompiling, which takes about 2 seconds on my AMD64 3200+ running Gentoo Linux. (Compilation needed on all distros). Works just as well on OpenBSD 4.1.

    Most of the WM is controlled by key commands and supports a wonderful tilemode, for maximum efficiency. No desktop icons, no menus, no clutter. Based off of wmii.

    1. Re:DWM by uggedal · · Score: 1
      I'm a DWM user as well:

      [diamond:~]% which dwm
      /usr/local/bin/dwm
      [diamond:~]% ls -l /usr/local/bin/dwm
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 root staff 37K 2007-08-22 22:31 /usr/local/bin/dwm* Other bloat free software I use every day:
      • rtorrent
      • mplayer
      • feh
      • gnupod
      • mercurial
      • vim (well, not exactly the lightest of software)
    2. Re:DWM by Shardz · · Score: 1

      rtorrent and mplayer are both fantastic. For image viewing I use xv, and I don't own an iPod. I've got a nice perl script which plays m3u, mp3, and ogg files for me, but otherwise I use Amarok. :/ Amarok is fantastic but is full of bloat. On the other hand, "omp" (Ogg-M{p3, 3u} Play) is pretty much as lightweight as it gets.

  399. I would be using Lynx, but by sowth · · Score: 1

    I used to run Lynx, but many sites require javascript these days. Though if I didn't have to worry about javascript these days, I'd probably go with dillo. Mozilla and Firefox both take several seconds to start up on my 1.8GHz supercomputer!

    Realize you are talking to someone who, when his hard drive died, didn't buy a new one for a year because he was satisfied with using boot floppies and a live CD.

  400. Re:Perl (forth and then tcl) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would vote for Forth as the most unbloated programming language in general. You can describe the core syntax in 5 words (words are separated by white-space).

    TCL is nice though and I consider it fairly full-featured.

    Lisp implementations tend to get bloated although the core language isn't bad, bloat-wise.

    perl is bloated though (I've used perl extensively, I don't hate it, but it is bloated, sorry).

  401. Small text editors (was Re:Oh!) by sowth · · Score: 1

    I use e3 for my editing needs. The staticly linked binary is just under 13k.

  402. mpd and gmpc by whatever3003 · · Score: 1

    Transitioning from windows to linux I couldn't find a decent alternative to Winamp - XMMS and Beep just didn't cut it. I found them to be unpolished, ugly and XMMS skipped and stuttered atrociously. But I found mpd (music played daemon) and gmpc (gnome music player client) a really excellent, small and intuitive pair of programs to use - of course there are other clients for mpd, but gmpc is my first choice.

    And for debian/ubuntu users:

    sudo apt-get install mpd gmpc
    --
    "Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." -- Salvador Dali
  403. ironic by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing that after the next patch, it will mysteriously bloat to 80,286 bytes?

  404. NOD 32 by sxedog · · Score: 1

    Yes it's an anti-virus program, but I'm really impressed with how: a) small it is (12MB exe...compare that to Norton) b) efficient it runs - two processes and no performance hit c) fast it scans - my other antivirus (no bashing here) took almost an hour for a detailed scan. NOD did it in 20 minutes. this is not an ad; you asked for my favorite 'non-bloatware' Sorry if it's not up to your 47k standards like 'ed' ;)

    --
    If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it.
  405. Least bloated apps that do what I need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -Visual Studio 2005: no other IDE comes close to its functionality. A couple hundred bucks worth of RAM makes this plenty fast, and the productivity gains over those still using plain programmers' editors allows me to justify my high salary.

    -Microsoft Office 2007: aside from the useless eyecandy, there are so many minor improvements that save me time every single day. The first version of Office worth upgrading to since Office 97.

    -Windows Vista: how else is a developer supposed to target Windows Vista users, than using it yourself?

    -Photoshop CS3: Gimp is much slower, yet has fewer features and a god-awful UI.

    What you will notice about this list is that every item is, by your definition, "bloated". However bloat is meaningless unless there is a comparable product that does what you need. And frankly, hard drive space and RAM are both dirt cheap. I have no qualms about loading up with 8GB of RAM and 1TB of HD, and I can do it for less than what I paid for my first 486.

    I leave you with this question: Which is more bloated? A program which uses 1GB of hard drive space and RAM, but performs an operation in O(N) time, or one which uses 1/10th that amount of storage but operates in O(N^2) time? A typical user will not care as much about the RAM usage as they will about the run time and scalability of the application, and often, optimizations consist of trading storage space for performance.

  406. Re: Metapad - small, fast & reliable by Tetch · · Score: 1

    I commend to you "Metapad" by Alexander Davidson : http://www.liquidninja.com/metapad/

    Not very highly featured, but still streets ahead of Notepad - zipfile < 50Kb, .exe < 100Kb with no installation required ! Outstanding if you just want something more bearable and less brain-dead than Notepad. I install it everywhere I don't need a more fully-fledged programmer's editor.

    It hasn't been changed since 2005, but doesn't really need it - not for my purposes anyway. Has little touches like making hyperlinks within the text content hot (clickable).

    --
    If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
  407. To be reduncat, what is available memory? by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    That's the show stopper question.

    You may be perfectly fine with it defaulting to hogging some percentage of your available RAM.

    My sister, the one who would supposedly benefit from the back-set driving, may only want to clean up some old photos. Her iBook is maxed out (for that model) at 768M. 256M would be plenty for her, but your optimistic 80% setting would have her copy of Gimp setting itself to run with 614M, leaving her with 154M for the OS, NeoOffice, AppleMail, Safari, iPhoto, iMovie, ...

    Sure. I should buy her a new MacBook with 2G.

    And while we're dreaming, are you going to buy me that prototyping box for a little project I want to do with embedded CPUs, so I can afford to get her the MacBook? Or even a used sempron notebook that I can load Linux on and use on the train instead of staring into space?

    Setting the amount of memory an app uses is a familiar concept to those of us who used Macs back in the pre-Mac-OS-X days. Some apps, the programers can guess by estimating average useage. Others, like image editors, need the user to tell them what's reasonable. There may be a good way of getting that feedback without too much burden on the user, but that wouldn't be an install dialog. And you'd want to avoid the not-so-odd case when a user test launched an app a couple of times before digging into serious use.

  408. Another well awarded point ...? by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Troll and flame points have a hidden complementary value for me. I suspect, someone provided you a complement point, and now they can not use the point as insightful, informative ... which means the "troll point" has double/bonus value. It was not used to under-rate another /. person, and it was not used to over-rate any dumb M$ comments. May all the gods bless you and your comment.

    Today I was talking with someone about dBase (Ratliff), CP/M (KilDall, and Ashton Tate, because a person thought dBase was created by IBM. I suspect, many folks today (like the politicians) believe M$ created the first word-processor and spreadsheet.

    Well you got another irrational troll-point ... you are never alone.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  409. Begs questions by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    Where do you measure bloat?

    In the count of reserved words (built-in operators and other identifiers), as you seem to be suggesting?

    In the size of the executable?

    Or in the examples manual?

    Or in the layers of abstraction over the hardware?

    What about the initial steepness or overall height of the learning curve?

    How about the part of the language executable that is not available to the run-time?

    Oh, and FORTH is a perfectly valid way to write Forth, even though it is not an acronym, per se. At least one of the early manuals recommended capitalizing the name. (Of course, you hardly ever see people write ForTran or CoBOL any more, but they are not wrong.)

    joudanzuki

  410. Does Irssi count? by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 1

    It certainly starts a hell of a lot faster than Firefox or Thunderbird do in the morning, and it can be fully operated by keystrokes, which is handy for an IRC client.

  411. Netscape Mail circa 1995 by bjbest · · Score: 1
    The mail client I've always used is Netscape Mail ver. 3.01 . Far easier to use then any recent version of MS Outlook, I've also installed it this year on my mother's laptop as a no-frills mail client. Try right - clicking a message on Outlook and you get a ridiculous long list of arcane options when all you really want is Delete for spam. Just adding an E-mail address to the address "contact" book is a nightmare of multiple confusing options. The old Netscape program is resistant to most malacious scripts attached to E-mail simply because it doesn't recognize it as code.

    Also great is any of the original games played on a Commodore 64 Emulator. Even at pokey dial-up speeds were I live, even the most complex C64 game downloads in only a few seconds flat!

  412. Future Crew's Starport 2 Intro by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

    Future Crew's "Starport 2" BBS ad was the tightest, most cleverly-optimized, elegant piece of assembly code I've ever seen. The binary was even zero-byte-reduced to fit in exactly 1993 bytes, which was the year it was written. And it implemented a surprising amount of functionality in such a small binary.

    See info at http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=12217

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  413. !acroread by Liquid+Len · · Score: 1

    Acroread is an awfully bloated piece of software. Back in my early days with Linux (around 1997), I tried xpdf, but it seemed to be unable to correctly render many pdf files. Recently, I tried it again and it has changed a lot. It works flawlessly and as an avid LaTeX+Beamer user, I find it very, very useful. Who needs Adobe spyware anymore ?
    Oh, and BTW, I switched from Firefox 1.5.x to Firefox 2.0.0 on my old 2002 iBook with 384MB RAM, which still runs 10.2.8 (I know...) and found it significantly sluggisher...

  414. Easy: iTunes. by Trillan · · Score: 1

    Any version of iTunes prior to video being added. I have no idea what the relative size was, but it always felt more sensible and smaller than WinAmp.

    After video was added, I still wouldn't categorize iTunes as bloatware, but it no longer *felt* slim.

  415. Re:Premise by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I think there's two categories in this survey.

    A. Designed efficiently so that new hardware does = speed increase. Each user has different feature requirements, so some might need to hyperlink spreadsheet fields, others might call it feature creep.

    B. Minimialist Aesthetic, as a programming exercise or to demonstrate program size vs. cpu speed. For example, the candytron farbrausch demo mentioned above creates dancing a dancing 3d woman with 64 k of code. Because the limiting factor was code size, they took advantage of cpu rendering power that was not available in the 8-bit days.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  416. Re: Open Office Portable? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1


    I saw some remarks in various posts elsewhere that said Open Office was suffering from feature creep.

    I also think an explosion of features subtly exhausts the user. I'll have to look at OpenOffice Portable - Calc & Writer to see how those work.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  417. Re: Non-iTunes on ipods? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1


    I thought the whole point of the iPods was that iTunes enabled the DRM necesary to play stuff from Apple. I'm rather surprised to hear that you installed something else.

    I think I remember also not being a fan of iTunes' design.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  418. Re: Making Sense only to yourself by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1


    Sure.

    And what makes sense to you today might make you cringe next year. It's important for both/all of those visions to be possible.

    P.S. That link gives me a "no music found" error.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  419. Re: WinAmp by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1


    WinAmp. I got out of the habit of that, for zero good reason.

    Fun skins, no-nonsense operation, didn't seem too excessive. (Go away, RealPlayer).

    I'll put it back on my list of stuff to do.

    Meanwhile, Mirrorshades is great.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  420. Get Rid of bloat, LEARN THE COMAND LINE! by Sardonic1 · · Score: 1

    Gui, whether X, Windows, whatever, uses resources. Trying for light, remember the old days and the command line? Ever notice on nix servers they don't run X (normally)?

  421. 64KB should be enough for everyone... by wazoox · · Score: 1

    Thanks to Contiki OS you can have a complete operating system with a web browser on a good ol' C64, Atari 800... Now that's unbloated software!

  422. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Replace Acroread by Acroread version 5 (in Windows) or xpdf (unices, cygwin, etc.). Acro loads so many modules, it's not worth the wait for daily work.

  423. Moc by ErlendSL · · Score: 1

    I use moc (music on console) for all my music-playing. It's lightweight, fast, plays the formats I use, got a great interface, and last but not least: it navigates in the directory structure, rather than using a tag-database.

  424. Turbo Pascal by mark99 · · Score: 1

    The app was around 30k. 10k was the compiler, 10k was the "Integrated UI, 10k was the runtime library. It was too "bloated" to be very sucessful with CPM, but on the early PCs, which usually had 256k or so, it was just brilliant. That is what got me off my Mainframe/Fortran jones.

    I just installed the new Visual Studio Beta (Oracas). The thing is like 3 GB :(

  425. small exes by kwench · · Score: 1

    Hmm... ed is small???
    Let's see...

    & ls -axl /bin/ed /bin/cat /usr/bin/e3 /usr/bin/vim.tiny
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 18148 2007-07-30 12:10 /bin/cat
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 40704 2007-08-13 14:12 /bin/ed
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 13386 2007-02-02 22:47 /usr/bin/e3
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 593412 2007-08-28 20:29 /usr/bin/vim.tiny

    I think with 14k, the e3 editor is quite as efficiently coded as possible while still easily usable. However, I know some AmigaOS apps that are smaller (and more usable). It's all a matter of what libraries get linked. C is a rather bloated language (although most people see it as a slim one nowadays). The "hello world" program in different languages can differ a lot. I remember testing AmigaE, C and AmigaBASIC (a Microsoft product). AmigaBASIC was around 50kb, C around 16kb (because I had to include stdout.h), E just 4kb. And you could get smaller using False, but who can program that? The entry level in Linux seems to be now 20kb, just to be able to do something at all. Using stuff like Java or Mono will surely increase the size of the executable.

    Programming has changed: We are not forced to deal with limited resources, but we like to re-use prebuild libraries and modules quick 'n' easy. This is mostly no problem because computers are waiting most of the time for the user or the network or the disk or whatever. But when it really matters (like processing gigabytes of image data or vector data, compiling a large project etc.), programmers might consider doing this part in plain C or assembler (while still trying to keep portable).

  426. asmutils cat is only 147 bytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use asmutils on my laptop with 8M ram. The cat binary is only 147 bytes and the shell is less than 5 kilobytes. Check it out at http://asm.sourceforge.net/asmutils.html

  427. Va-ha-ha-io 64MB RAM.166MHz CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    win2000 pro.
    coolplayer 300kb mp3 player
    l33tplayer 300 kb video file player (i use it with cole2k media pack)
    mplayer2.exe (use it with cole2k media pack)
    winamp classic 800 kb
    uTorrent NUFF said!
    k-melon webbrowser. (no local cache, squid does heavy lifting) ...
    used on a 166 MHz, 64 MB ram, 6 Gig HDD laptop.
    tried linux (Suse9.2). complains about to 'lil RAM :(

  428. Re: Making Sense only to yourself by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

    And what makes sense to you today might make you cringe next year. It's important for both/all of those visions to be possible.

    I agree whole-heartedly.

    P.S. That link gives me a "no music found" error.

    Fixed, try again now. It appears Soundclick changed their site, and broke old-style links.

    --
    DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  429. Deluge by Kristoffer+Lunden · · Score: 1

    My vote also once would have gone to uTorrent, which I ran with Wine on Linux, but Deluge is even less bloated without missing any functionality. That it is a native app and GPL, are bonuses, too.

  430. Small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google.com

  431. The best *programmers'* editor: brief by whitroth · · Score: 1

    And it came on two 5.25" floppies.

          mark "one of these days, I ought to see if I can run it under WINE"

  432. Aesop's Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are security updates to cat?
    Well, Aesop wrote a patch to make it emit additional \a characters, but the mice seem wary of applying it.
  433. Re:Notepad isn't 68k - it isn't a complete program by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Besides consistency and learnability, using standard dlls can also reduce bloat - a program that tries to reimplement the wheel will be larger, and likely slower.

    For one thing, a proper system dll, such as what's used to create standard windows and buttons should be highly error-checked, and therefore stable, not to mention highly optimized to make it faster.

    A good 'lean and mean' program should make use of system dll files whenever it makes sense.

    Take Media player classic versus windows media player. Both use external code to play their media. That's just fine.

    From what I remember, 7 or 8 wasn't bad, then 9 was horrible, 10 is getting better(at least you can hide most of the crud), I haven't used 11.

    The creaters of classic realize something important. People want to watch videos more than they want a fancy 'skin' that just gets in the way of playing videos.

    For example, why should I dedicate as many pixels to the border and controls as I am the video? I might want to be doing something else with that screen space. And what's up with the majority of the controls being nonfunctional most of the time? Why do I have to hit ctrl-p to play/pause, instead of the nice big, easy to hit spacebar? Why did they shrink the seek bar, making it less accurate/easy to control, while not using the space gained for anything useful?

    I'll frequently play a video in the corner of a screen while reading something else. When I'm doing that, I rarely need more controls than a play/pause button, and selecting the screen and hitting space works for that. The majority of the time, the only control visible with classic is the seek bar. It's a nice thin bar across the bottom that also tells me how far into the video I am, that I can easily adjust if I want to.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  434. 'true' by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Though 'false' has its points too.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  435. xlogo by L'homme+de+Fromage · · Score: 1

    For a bloat-free X app, you can't beat xlogo!

  436. Re:Premise by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    I think there's two categories in this survey.

    Nicely put. I like that definition.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  437. Funny you mention iTunes by Trestop · · Score: 1

    My favorite non bloatware software is the Amarok media player. Yes - it is 32MB (installed) and has everything but the kitchen sink, but all of its features are useful (I think I've used every single one of them including wikipedia support)

  438. usenet-ftp-irc-email-? by ticktickboom · · Score: 1

    I prefer software that takes as little hard drive space and RAM as possible.

    noone has mentioned usenet (atleast when i loaded this page this mornin).

    what bout xnews? doesnt need install, jsut extracted. can rebuild all indexs if jsut the exe is there. that and stunnel are neato :)9i havent seen anything in the way of FTP cleints either. FXP works great for my needs, small n fast. only have to wait for that 'buy me window or be stuck with the fully functional trial!' window to disappear. what bout irc? mirc has become pussified. there anything out there small friendly and scriptable?
    noone mentioned telnet clients either. i mean, this is /. right? usenet, ftp, irc, telnet, and noones even mentioned these things?

    broswers will be memory hogs. i dunt like seeing firefox eating 800 megs of rams. but sincei have the ram, i do like using it.
    distributed.net has a client that is much m,uch faster than seti crap or the like. distributed cracking of encryption schemes.
    i have had news rover running for over a month and only using 15 meg of ram, same with xnews.

    as for email, pine was nice, but soemthing had changed. i like foxmail. it does seem to be a lil kiddish/gay at first, but everything can be changed if ya know how. you have to get the language packs to read if it you dont know chinese. its small, doesnt need install, it works as any ware should.

    xnews is dead :(
    long live xnews

    saw one post talking of the drivers for mice by logitech...
    who uses anything them hardware comp0anies make? 3rd party stuff is usually smaller n faster and has more options. seems hardware companies only want to slow down what you jsut spent a month saving for. like western digis hard drive safe thingy. slows the whole system down, gobs of proc n ram. same with asus mother board monitor thingy, not the mother board monitor used by many other systems. i forgot what it was called, since i saw how it lagged my pc down when i installed thier stuffs. i since then changed 80% of my stuffs to 3rd party.

    if thres any other small fast email ftp usenet or telnet clients, id liek to hear of em.

    oh, theres FDM, freedownloadmanger.com people on broadband dont really need something like this i spose, but great for dialup. it does call home, but that can be turned off. never had a failed dl with it.

    welp, thats my 2 cent on what small shits i like. i think i just let all kinda law enforcement know what i have installed on my machines.

    i think all of you did also

    soemone mentioned an AV that they dont have to mess with. i like kaspersky. all others seemed to only act like they were doing something. norton wont letyou remove an infected file. mcaffee is the same (own3d). i hae tried AVG, but it likes causing errors and random reboots. so far kaspersky has only dont what its sposed to. its like a ware, but its too big, and its functional. the scan could be faster tho

    tick
    "Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

  439. Re:Firefox started out well...but burned out horri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The spellcheck, the anti phishing features and shit like prefetch that I don't need and can't even remove (I can disable though) just add unnecessarily clutter."

    Indeed. Actually, you can compile Firefox yourself with antiphishing disabled.It's a pity Mozilla Corporation doesn't offer such builds though.

  440. Barking up the wrong tree by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

    I always preferred Elm to Pine. To put an un-bloated way, vi is to emacs as Elm is to Pine.

    --
    (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
  441. Hello World by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    The classic hello.c program is my nomination. It must be popular as it is used so much by so many people. It is considered minimal in most circles.

  442. Frontier: Elite II by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    Frontier: Elite II, it's so tiny, but such a old, full featured DOS 3d game.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  443. My favorites by sznupi · · Score: 1

    (excluding already mentioned ones in up-moded replies)

    NOD32 - probably least bloated antivirus, I don't notice it on 5 year old PC (even better when you turn off IMON module)

    Google Talk (native Windows client) - while it doesn't have all the functionality of Skype (notably landline calling and video)...well, just compare them. Bonus: while Skype and Gtalk are roughly the same, quality-wise, on fast connection, Gtalk wins hands-down on slower ones.

    Combined Community Coded Pack (CCCP :P - http://cccp-project.net/ ) - pretty much created because the authors had enough of bloat in other solutions.

    CutePDF Writer ( http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp ) - PDF printer, considerably outperforms PDFCreator (from Sourceforge) when creating laaarge documents.

    Dorgem, Fwink - light webcam software, both on Surceforge.

    Speedfan ( http://www.almico.com/speedfan.php ) - very light temp/fan speed/SMART monitoring app.

    Most apps from Slysoft.

    Official Last.fm player - quite good considering its download size and RAM usage (and well...basically its running all the time here)

    Winrar - for a long time I'd recommend 7zip...but really, Winrar isn't that much heavier, but is...considerably faster than 7zip in decompressing large RAR archives here.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  444. EZBack-it-up by ReekRend · · Score: 1

    That's exactly what I wanted too, and this program is exactly that. My home network has a massive amount of data but I like to keep things as simple as possible, so it's all JBODs and this for backup.

    http://www.rdcomp.net/ezbackitup/

    I love it. The only thing missing is network support, you have to map network shares to drive letters to back them up, but I don't mind.

  445. Re: Avast by ReekRend · · Score: 1

    No, that isn't how it works.

    Avast requires you to register with your email address once a year, purely for tracking purposes; you don't get spammed (or emailt at all actually) and it is no hassle.

    There are no hints or any such to "buy" anything, but it's such a good product that you can be sure I recommend the free home version to everyone I talk to and the licensed business version to anyone who could use it.

    The *simple* registration does stymie some people, but I have to admit that even when it's my friends it's just because they are stupid. At least their stupidity in that case isn't leading to Norton or McAfee being installed.

  446. Re: Avast by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

    I disagree that this is "purely for tracking purposes". A side effect is certainly to make the full version more attractive.

    There are a lot of people for whom such a "simple registration" is more than they can handle.
    An unknown dialog box poping up is for them always a sign of something wrong, no matter the contents.

    If your less computer-literate friends do not call you in those cases, you probably are far more selective with your friends than I. That does not mean they are stupid, just not versed with computers.

    User-friendly would be if those products had a warning before installation "this product wil stop working once each year until you repeat an arbitrary and annoying procedure" Then i could either prepare my friends for that or stop recommending tht product altogether.

  447. OS X and Windows by Domini · · Score: 1

    OS X: (I use the BSD utilities a lot... so very few additions)

    Utilities:
    The Unarchiver (Does Un-Rar and 7zip)
    xPad (for when I'm not using vi)

    Multimedia:
    VLC (It's a bit bulky... would have preferred NicePlayer, but VLC plays it all)
    Xee (great, quick, small multimedia viewer)

    Internet:
    Transmission (smaller than Azureus)
    Camino (I use them all really... I still prefer Firefox for it's plugins though)
    Adium

    Windows:

    Utilities:
    Total Commander (with 7-zip, vim, and other plugins)

    Multimedia:
    Media Player Classic
    iTunes (my little guilty pleasure... I have a vast library to manage cross-platform)
    Irfanview

    Internet:
    uTorrent
    Opera
    Eudora (or previously Forte Agent)
    Putty (Telnet/SSH)
    Google Talk

  448. Yes it does by sznupi · · Score: 1
    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  449. Billy by l0cust · · Score: 1

    Its probably too late to add anything to the discussion now but I can't believe no one else mentioned it so far. Billy is a wonderfully light audio player with minimalist footprint even after loading 500+ items to the playlist. Comes in both installer and portable versions. Switched from winamp to it during my college days and haven't gone back since.

    Check out their site Sheep Friends. All the applications there are designed with the minimalist footprint idea in mind and I have been using almost all of them for years now.

    1. Abby [Simple allround converter]
    2. Billy [Lightweight audio player]
    3. Diana [Basic notes]
    4. Hawk [Hex file viewer]
    5. Kelly [Desktop calculator]
    6. Natty [Tray mail checker/notificator]

    --
    Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
  450. Please don't make JPGs with MS Paint! They suck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ordinarily, I'd agree with you except on one critical point:

    Do not ever make JPGs from MS Paint! I often see desktop screenshots on the web taken from MS Paint, and it's always obvious when they are. They always look like crap! The only reliable formats it converts to are PNG for 24-bit images and GIF for 8-bit images (especially handy if you set your display to 256 color prior to taking a screenshot.)

    At least use one of the paint programs from TinyApps.org if you must convert to JPG. They do a far greater job and are smaller too!