X+webkit = Disgraceful

[Shane Ambler]

On 09/09/2016 18:49, CK wrote:
> 252M    .
> 7.6M    ./bash
> 200k    ./gnome
>  31M    ./gnome2
> 1.6M    ./gnome3
>   1M    ./hunspell
> 1.0M    ./jpeg8d
>  13M    ./perl
>  10M    ./python
>  27M    ./xorg
>
> I just fetched the recursive ports for:
>
> x11/xorg-minimal
> x11/xfd x11/xset x11/xterm
> x11-fonts/bdftopcf x11-fonts/pcf2bdf
> x11-wm/vtwm www/webkit-gtk2
>
> And that doesn't even include a web-browser

> 250+ MB, 36+ hours of downloading, and I still
> can't even view the WWW, graphically.  It's just
> fucking disgusting.  In 1996, I didn't even have
> a hard drive that big, and my kernel was about
> 1/2 MB, RAM was 16MB, FreeBSD took about 16MB of
> disk space, and I could install everything from a
> bunch of floppies, and Xwindow + graphical browser
> was just a minor addition - maybe a few MB at most.
> And guess what?  THE WEB DOESN'T LOOK ANY BETTER
> TODAY THAN THEN (with the exception of server-side

And you haven't even discovered the joys of compiling that crap
yourself. Webkit really shows off the wonder of C++ and templates, the
various webkit source tarballs may weigh in between 5 and 18 MB but you
will want multiple GB of RAM to compile each of the ports that is based
on the same source code.

www/webkit-gtk2
www/webkit-gtk3
www/webkit2-gtk3
www/webkit-qt4
www/webkit-qt5

what makes it even better is that you get all of these installed because
the five apps you want to use each want to use a different webkit port.

And if you hadn't worked it out - only simple apps actually use the
webkit ports, mostly for petty things like a help window, the big boys
like firefox and chromium have their own source and don't use the webkit
ports.

-- 
FreeBSD - the place to B...Software Developing

Shane Ambler