Who's more bloated?

[sarumont]

Just seeing all the RH bashing going on...and the big bloat issue...

[ventricle]

I haven't done a redhat install, in the default manner, always custom. But if you consider that winblows does not install software other than that built into the OS, for example office packages, multiple image viewers, I would say windows is not as bloated.
If the install was done so there was no extra applications installed, I think it would be a tie. The biggest problem with Windows getting bloated and needing reinstalls is the registry.
That's my opinion anyhow And it is focused on bloat, not anything else.

[Mado]

I think of bloated in a different way...see, redhat installs lots of stuff, but thaat's all it does. In windows, you don't install that much but everything you do install does alll those stupid message popups and the corner and alll these other stupid tings that are all like "Oh! Oh! TRY ME!!!!!!!!!!!" I think it's more about what they do with the software that's installed than how much is installed.

[ventricle]

So really you need to define what bloat means!!

[flw]

I voted for Redhat based on the number of CD's requred to get a semi-functional system after install. One for windows and three for Redhat.

The most important issue on which is more bloated it how is it configured after the install, what services it is running (needed or not), and its main function or role.

[jasonlambert]

i said it was a tie.

On the RH side, yes you do need 3 CD's, but that provides you with far more applications and server's than a single windows CD.

if you think:
1 x windows CD
1 x MS office CD
1 x Graphics App CD

Redhat have put those three together, plus the webserver, DHCP server, samba, vnc, rdesktop, DNS server, PHP, 2+ GUI's, and a lot more.

I think on a default install, both windows and redhat put junk that is not required (to me at least), but i suppose others may make use of what i wouldnt.

Jason