Saying it is false and calling views "distorted" does nothing to further the conversation. If you're interested in furthering conversation on the subject try providing reasoning behind your statements instead of condescension.
You think that false statement is a respectable "response" to a comment on the benefits of small software?
Small software exists both in the past (when memory and storage were more limited) and in the present. The very idea of small programs is a foundational one in the field of computing.
"All software is large" is not a "view" that is in agreement with reality. As such, it is distorted.
I am using small software every day. In fact I am writing this comment with a small program. When I write software, it is small, at least relative to anything from Microsoft.
I am too dumb to write large software.
Small programs that don't do anything are secure but nobody cares.
And you've probably written software larger than Notepad; a very popular small Microsoft program.
The only points I would contest are 1. that "a bunch" is effectively the "same thing" as large software. A "bunch" can vary in number and quality. My userland is a single "multi-call" binary and quite small. The sum total of source code is not so large that I cannot manage it. It's keeping tabs on the kernel code that presents the challenge; and 2. that "nobody cares".
If "nobody" cared, then you would not be seeing a comment such as mine because there would be nobody to author it.
Moreover there would be no reasonably small kernel source that users like me could use. Some people care enough to maintain that kernel and to keep it relatively small.
Maybe that group of people is like the software: small. Suits me just fine.
Which small program is that?
If all you are aware of is large software, then your statement that "All software is large" makes more sense.
"All software is not as large as Microsoft's software."
Would you agree with that?
You do not believe such a program exists?
Or maybe you want to critique the program? That would be typical commenter behavior, but it is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
The topic is Microsoft software and the relationship between code size and probability of security flaws.
You brought it up and now you don't want to say, I find that odd. It's hard to have a conversation if you're going to be so.. cryptic.
> Or maybe you want to critique the program?
Maybe I want a significant example of a "small program". At this point, neither terms have been well defined. You called the program used to make your comment "small" so tell me what it is.
> The topic is Microsoft software and the relationship between code size and probability of security flaws.
The greater the code size the greater the probability of bugs. And security flaws can be exploited utilizing the combined flaws across different independent programs or included libraries.
My point is the only programs so small that security issues are a non-issue are either not interesting or combined with other programs to do something useful.
Right. I think we are done here.
Microsoft Windows is larger than any OS I know of, and only keeps growing.
To answer your question, I am using a text only browser that's based on the links project, with my own minor modifications.
I still have no idea why you and the other commenter are asking. It seems quite clear neither of you have any legitimate interest in such programs. Otherwise you would not be challenging my statement of such a simple fact as the quoted sentence above, as it applies to Microsoft.
I strongly disagree that "small" programs are not useful. As I have previously stated, I use them every day. I use programs such as sed and netcat to interact with the www even more than I use a browser.