Posts in by tag
Recent Poll's
User login
Navigation
Recent Comments
Syndicate
Here is a list of reasons (too bad none will get fixed)
Thu, 06/18/2009 - 17:04 — kurkosdr
Ok, I 'll tell you what sucks on Linux: 1)We need better upgrading tools 2)We need better installers (for non-repository software) 3)We need a better X server. 4)We need a good Office suite (that will open doc files correctly). 5)We need DVD authoring software and tv card support (video capture, anyone?). 6)We need better 3D support (on all graphics cards) and a much better compiz (that will not crash). All of the above is pretty standard stuff today that every computer user wants to have out of the box.
So, here it is, a nice list of six to-do items you can send to the linux community. Done sending it? Good,
Now, can the linux community go and put those things in linux, please? No wait, they can't. Nobody is obligated to, and they don't have money to pay people in order to. It relies solely on when and if someone will be in the mood to. And of course if nobody happens to be in the mood of solving the problem, nobody will. And then the problem just stays there and as a result, the quality of the final product degrades.
Firefox and Apache are both high quality and highly successful products. Well, this is because their projects happen to have some sort of business model behind. These projects have people who organize, people who pay, and people who get paid. In plain english, if something in Firefox and Apache needs fixing, it WILL get fixed, they are not naive enough to rely just on the INTENTION of someone for fixing it. The latter never works. To put it quite simply, in Firefox and Apache, someone bears responsibility for the usability of the final product.
Despite the good intentions, nobody seems to be willing to solve linux's main problems. For the last 4 years, everyone is bitching about the same problems again and again, yet they still remain. Why? Is it so hard, or are you just incompetent? This is the real reason linux sucks, because it has too many problems and minimal resources to fix them. And unfortunately, I do not see any serious plan or investment coming.
You still think linux is high quality? I challenge you, people, find me a Linux disto that can compete with MacOS X and Windows Seven. What? You don't care about competing? That's what losers say...
Just don't come bitching later about driver and 3rd party software support. Hardware and software makers go only with the winning team, and guess what, you are not in it. And don't tell me you that don't care or that you don't what Linux to become mainstream, because I know very well you do. Because you happen to want software and hardware support. So stop pretending. You just can't. In other words, your OS will always lag in 3rd party hardware and software support, because it will never improve it's quality. Simple as 1-2-3!
And please, don't start mocking about the security and stability of windows. When the people said to Redmond "we want stability and security" the people at Redmond responded, and said to their engineers "make me a stable and secure version, or you are fired". And voila! came Windows Seven. Stable and secure.
In contrast, the way things are done on linux is that if something HAPPENS to be done correctly, it's good. If it's done wrong, so be it., Nobody is obligated to fix it. It might stay that way forever! In fact, based on previous experience, I dare to say it will most probably stay that way forever.
If not, go ahead prove me stupid and fix those 6 points mentioned. Oh wait, you can't. They will stay this way forever. See what I am talking about?
PS:And believe me, if there was any other viable alternative to windows, (ex AmigaOS or MacOS were ported to pc) nobody will give linux a shot. It just got it's hype because it's the only competition to Windows. Too bad it's a really lame one.
i'm a windows power user,
i'm a windows power user, i've been trying to switch to linux for years and have used many different distros, and every time i install some new release i just shake my head in disbelief that linux remains such a broken piece of shit
One big problem as I see it,
One big problem as I see it, is that Linux users, and its critics both consider "Linux" to be the entirity of the OS AND the Apps. Now if a particular Windows app sucks, does that mean Windows sucks? No. Like wise,particular sucky or missing apps for Linux don't have any bearing on the OS. It might influence your choice, but the apps are seperate from the OS.
I think it's sad we now just see the OS and apps as one big inseperable bundle. The OS should just be the platform framework, with the apps independant and seperate. Linux critics keep saying that Open Office sucks, which really has NOTHING to do with Linux, and Linux zealots simultaneously go on about the repositories and how all these third party programs make up "Linux". Seriously, it's dumbing the computing world down.
It would be far better to just improve Linux's compatibility so that commercial companies will PORT their already existing windows apps to Linux. But the Linux community doesn't take this kind of observation well, you should never suggest the OS can be improved.
Here is quite simply the big problem.
Compatibility. There are all sorts of different distros with different compatibilities. Sure there are standards, but they apply to source code and use of particular Unix systems than a binary standard. For a commercial company, or ANYONE to write an app which can run on Linux, they have all these different distros to support, different repositories, PulseAudio or Alsa, etc. Drivers face a similar problem. How to write one universal installer that WILL work? How to write an app which will integrate with Linux and work for all distros?
Borax Man, I have to admit
Borax Man, I have to admit you have a point. It was kind of unfair blaiming Linux for not having good DVD authoring utilities and Office suites, as neither Windows ships with good DVD authoring software (DVD maker is horrible) or even with an office suite.
As you have said, what's a part of the operating system and what's not has always been kind of subjective. For example, most people consider things like GIMP and Openoffice to be a part of the OS, while others think even the GUI as something unrealted to the OS.
So, let's take the average way. Let's assume people don't need any bundled apps. That's it no media players, no office suites, no browser or even a picture viewer. Let's assume they 'll download everything seprately. We only need the very basics. a boot loader, a kernel, a shell, a GUI, some kind of 3D support, a soundsystem and... well that's pretty much all we need.
Here we go:
The XWindow System: Well, if I had to point to a thing that went from barbarosity to decadence without civilazation in between, that would be the X window system. Seriously, what was the time X got things like support for pbuffers and other 3d stuff? Oh yeah, never! A multiscreen support that allows people to move windows on any desktop? Never happened! Instead, all these people at the X development team do is add more layers, thus making it even worse in every version. Yes, that's right, the X has grown fatter and fatter throughout all these years, and what did we got as a return? Nothing. No better window maker, no better 3d support, nothing. Don't believe me? Then why the drivers of NVIDIA are closed source? I'll tell you why. It's because they don't play by the rules and work their way around the X. In fact, they bypass some parts of it completely., See, it's the only way to make things like graphics work on linux well. If NVIDIA did it all the right opensource way, they would end in the same miserable state as ATI, with more than half of their card's functions rendered useless (pbuffer etc). Everybody knows that all the GUIs in linux distros are just frontends for command line utilities, with the bright exception of some software that bypasses the horrible thing called X entirely or partially (NVIDIA). So to speak of future computing without the need for a command line. But hey, keep adding more layers, guys!
KDE: Can you say "epic fail"? And I do not even need any proof for that, I guess (already discussed to many times).
Compiz: Oh, another crashy time there. If all the woes of compiz happened to aero, believe me, people would have burned Microsoft to a crisp. But if FOSS messes up, they can some out smelling like roses. Anyway. This is your flagship product people! The GUI that's going to make linux finally look good. Your chance to prove you can make it! And what do we get? A wobbly effect, a codebase that even it's creators describe as "bad code" and lot's, lot's of crashes. Bad
Gnome: Why again this thing looks like a 10 year old mac that just underwent a nasty plastic surgery ? Anyway, this will most likely be your fallback GUI, so you 'd better get starting used to it (believe me, you won't)
Now, on to the juicy part:
Pulse Audio Oh, I stepped on a toe right there. This used to be the oh so beautifull project that was supposed to provide a sane API for developers to put sound in their apps, even over network. Well, look at the docummentation, and you see that PulseAudio and ALSA are fighting each other like two candidates from america's next top model. Applications originally designed for alsa break,. as only a part of the ALSA API has been developed. Yes that's right, according to PulseAudio, the only good ALSA API support, is the buggy API support . Yet this didn't bothered them from releasing it as final product, ready to be put in various distros. They even fooled canonical, so I 'm glad I didn't installed Ubuntu 8.04. Crashy time again. Meanwhile, newer applications may have problems with ALSA, and so own. Great way of helping the linux developer. Which brings me over to...
Stable and sane APIs (and SDKs): Well, if we judge by various developers complaining about that in just about every forum, and the rate APIs on linux get changed, as well as their diversity, I am done bashing this point. Anyway, I 'll provide some entertainment by continuing bashing: Even thought why Cyberlink doesn't port their PowerDVD to linux.? Probably because it will cost them a whola lot of more time and money that they did in windows? There might have been some prime examples, big companies like Ahead and ID software , but not everybody is Ahead and ID. It's not a conspiracy of evil forces my friend, it's simple as that: Your linux is an unfriendly and extremely diverse land, and makes developers cry. Imagine if you had to translate a news report to 60 different languages instead of one, 3 minutes before going on air. Yes, that's exactly the type of torture poor linux programmers have to endure. They have to support your KDE, you Gnome, xfce, Enlightment, Pulse Audio, ALSA, and test it with Compiz and all the other nosense. In Windows it's just windows. And you still expect to atract commercial software, linux people?
Filebrowser:Terrible.
So, here you get it. Even with the multimedia and office tools not included, there is still lots of the usual Linux mess up in the core layers too. And I challenge everyone to prove me wrong. You can't
And that's probably why all servers run Linux without a GUI. Just bootloader, kernel, shell and server software. Because this is the only damn thing on Linux that works (don't know why, it's just happened that way).
I rest my case.
You've pretty much nailed it
You've pretty much nailed it there. I do like KDE 3.x though, its just KDE 4 which looks terrible. GNOME was good, but now I can't stand to use it. Audio? Fail. X? I like the networkability of it, thats a big plus over Windows, but thats really the only advantage of this bloated beast.
The problem is that people focus too much on the apps, and not the platform. It's all well and good and true to say there is a lack of good apps on Linux, but it's not the lack of apps which is the problem. It's the difficulty that Linux has in providing a stable, universal platform to EASILY distribute apps on (the whole POINT of a platform/OS). From there, everything else follows. You cant just develop an app using the native package format and have it install on all distros. You can use an install-shield like installer, but that kind of says it all really, doesn't it? Despite the fact that the package method is far better than the Windows way of installing and uninstalling it, the only way you can ensure your distributed binaries will be universally installed IS by using the Windows-like installer. Klik and 0install and third party solutions and dont really count. After all, you have to be able to install klik and 0install in the first place!
Same with drivers. How do you sell a piece of hardware, and include linux drivers on an accompanying CD or disc? Easy with Windows, but with Linux? No wonder they don't bother. Same with apps. You can write two versions and have 99% of the market share, why write another 15 versions to get the remaining 1 or 2%
The lack of commercial quality apps on Linux wouldn't be so severe, if it were possible to develop such apps and distribute easily. But when Linux zealots are confronted with this problem, its the usual "oh, Linux wasn't designed for that development model" garbage. A ridiculous position and poor excuse. They do this because providing a platform was never really given due consideration and they were more concerned with lame ideas about 'freedom' (ie, freedom to make a zillion different versions, each with incompatibilites), than making something useful.
And that's the pain just
And that's the pain just from the developer's point of view. What about the users, who don't know jack about all those different OSes and platforms? If they are slightly aware, they might know there are "Macs" and "PCs", or in the absolute best case senario "Macs", "Windows PCs" and "Linux PCs".
So, if they buy the new eeePC and say to the store owner the would like it to be a "Linux PC", they 'll probably receive a distribution of Xandros Linux. Then, when they seek help online (and trust me, they 'll need it), they 'll discover there is also Ubuntu Linux, PClinuxOS, LinuxMint, not mentioning the KDE and xfce versions of all those. All of them with different environments, different way to do things and, the absolute incarnation of insanity, it's own hardware and software compatibility. How people are supposed to help and communicate with each other, if everyone has a different product? For example, Xandros linux is the OS that comes originally with eeePC, but it's terrible (hangs all the time), so you 'll have to switch to ubuntu. Good luck learning the whole new thing from scratch or giving help to all those people that stayed with Xandros, or the other people that switched to Linux mint. And why ubuntu failed to support eeePC's wireless? If the code for the wireless was available in Xandros, Ubuntu should have integrated it too. Nope.
And can anyone tell me what's the reason to have both "PClinuxOS" and "LinuxMint"? They are both versions for extended functionality with media and with cute GUIs, so what's the need of having them both?
Oh yes, there are two separate efforts from two different people and according to FOSS, this is so freaking awesome. As you said, these people at FOOS are more concerned with lame ideas about freedom and creating a million different versions of the same thing, so they can create a "code library anyone can look up to", rather than making a useful product.
"Why Linux as a Desktop is not getting anywhere?" my widows title says. Asus tried to get it somewhere, but they got stabbed in the back (badly) by Xandros and Ubuntu incompetence. And with the lack of standardization between the two. Return rates for Linux netbook were 4 times higher that their Windows counterparts.
"The big chance of Linux to break into the Desktop is the advent of netbooks" you FOSSes say? Yeah right. I am telling you, the only way of Linux going somewhere is if a company gets the good pieces of it and creates a good product out of it. You know, make it with a business plan and the needs of the market in mind. But unfortunately, if it happens, all these freedom supporting FOSSes are going to object to this, sabotage this, and we will end up in the same mess.
The only opensource products that did break into the desktop where Firefox, Apache etc. Can you imagine why? Probably because they happen to have a business plan behind them and they do NOT come into a million different versions. By the way, did you know what "Iceweasel" is? It's yet another version of Firefox. Fortunately, those people at Mozilla are smart enough NOT to support all those silly different versions. Why should they? And wha da freak the final user needs to even know even what Iceweasel is? And what's the point of having Iceweasel anyway? Fortunately, the Mozilla foundation knows that, and they turned their back on Iceweasel. Good for them. If it was in the FOSS hand, the wouldn't have done that (it's against "freedom"), and we would have two separate versions of Firefox, or even three. Better make it four...
Is any FOSSie listening to this conversation?
It's shared libraries is
It's shared libraries is what it is.
There are projects such as PC-BSD and Gobolinux that try to create installer packages (like .exe's in windows and .dmg's in MacOS). However, as it stands right now, if you really want access to the wide variety of applications that are available for Linux (or BSD) you're basically going to have to use the shared library model, which means using ports or packages or packaging managers, etc. It's a completely different philosophy than the way exe's and dmg's work, and it's probably one reason why people are uncomfortable with Linux and BSD.
When you have an OS like Windows that has something like 90% or thereabouts market share, people are naturally going to be looking for alternatives that offer the same ease of use and lack of a learning curve. Linux seems promising, and it is, in fact, promising, so long as you understand that the shared libraries model of installing packages from a package manager and managing dependencies that way is a different philosophy and, actually, represents a completely different way of doing things.
Is a non-shared libraries method better? Arguably, it is, yes. This turns the OS into something more like a shopping cart, where you can go to the different websites of different software vendors (free of charge or otherwise), and simply click through a wizard and have your software up and running. Not so with the shared library model.
This is obviously a limitation in some ways, but a benefit in others. Saves disk space, bandwidth, and so on.
Simple fact of the matter is that Linux and BSD as they stand today, with some exceptions, represent a completely different way of getting software onto your system, as well as keeping that software (and the system) up to date (concurrently). Personally, I think it would be nice to be able to just install software -- i.e. -- go to some software vendor's website, download a file, go through a wizard, and have it work -- one standardized software installation binary across all Linux distros -- but it isn't happening probably ever.
Just realize that, deal with it, and you have potentially a very nice, secure, robust, modern OS. But one must also realize that this is what it is, and act accordingly. If you approach it as a different philosophy of getting software on your OS from the get-go, things will go a lot smoother and things will make a lot more sense, and perhaps one would be less likely to get caught up in "shopping" for software, treating the OS like a shopping cart of sorts - instead - thinking of software programs installed as a type of configuration of the OS. This means you pretty much have to know what software you want, as discovering, trying out and installing new software, or upgrading to the latest versions of existing software apps when months have passed since the initial install can and sometimes will mess up the OS, taking out other working apps with it (not always though -- this depends). It can be a pain, but once you figure out how it works, it makes sense why that happens.
Disable the "check for updates" functionality of Open Office, Firefox, etc... you won't and can't really use it - at least not in the way you think. Forget about trying out betas, and so on - at least downloading them from the vendor's site - this will ultimately, eventually lead to nothing but frustration (it's just a simple misunderstanding of the philosophy, if you asked me).
Make a list of the software you want, and install it in one fell swoop when you install the OS. Upgrade or reinstall often (use two computers, or two hard drives and learn how to clone and mirror things). Get involved with it, stay alert, because if you're not constantly learning something, you're really probably not paying enough attention. It can be fun and rewarding, if you have the time and inclination to do it. If you're not that tech savvy, plan on reinstalling every few months or so. If you're more tech savvy, plan on upgrading every few months or so. Reinstalls work better, if you asked me - upgrades can be touch and go, although they do represent a learning experience, and that can be a good thing, if you like learning about computers.
One thing you could do is keep your home directory on a separate disk or something, then just upgrade or reinstall the OS on a seperate disk or partition.
Look, we all live in a world where there really aren't all that many "Windows-like" alternatives to Windows - and so I think that often this makes us look at things in a skewed, perhaps innocently hopeful way, but in a unnecessarily frustrating way nevertheless.
If you're going to use Linux or BSD and don't like the shared libraries thing, try PC-BSD or Gobolinux, but still, until those catch on, you may not really find the file types (.pbi files for PC-BSD for instance), from your favorite software vendors. It's a different philosophy when it comes to installing software, but you can make it work, so long as you're realistic about it, alert when you're dealing with it, and willing to learn, and have the time. Otherwise, being realistic about the situation, the amount of time you are willing to devote to it, and the amount of frustration you're willing to deal with can be immensely helpful.
Seeing how much money you're saving though not having to pay for an OS, setting up two computers might not be so far out of reach, actually.
Linux or BSD is really a choice, and when we're desperate in a Windows-centric world, our decisions aren't as informed as they could be. One might also say that the word-of-mouth marketing is also not quite as informed, or realistic as it could be. Linux is easy to install, so basically -- install often. Use the money you save to buy another computer and some spare disk drives. Keep your data and files backed up on separate disks or something.
As I see it, shared libraries are really the only choice right now, you're just going to have to deal with it if you go this route. For me, that means update or reinstall every couple months with the attendant cloning or swapping out of hard drives between two different machines, etc... once you get good at it, it doesn't take nearly as much time as you think. Still... it does take time, so one just has to be realistic about it.
Until your favorite software vendor offers .pbi files for something like PC-BSD or similar type packages for Gobo Linux or some other standardized format comes out, we're all stuck with the shared library model, and we just need to be realistic about that and what that means. The fact that so many folks are looking for an alternative to Windows doesn't change what Linux/BSD is, and how the philosophy of how software gets installed works. In the future, that might change, but this is something that we should all discuss when we recommend Linux or BSD (and I do recommend them BTW) to our friends, coworkers, or strangers at a party over small talk or whatever.
It's just different -- in some ways it's better, in some ways it's worse. But in the Linux/BSD the OS is best not thought of as a shopping cart where you go out on the web, download, install, and try out latest versions of various programs that interest you.
It is what it is, and if you realize that, reality will sink in and you might realize that nothing is 100% perfect in this world, and that Linux isn't exactly everything right of everything that you might think is wrong with Windows. It's different, and understanding those differences can help you make the right choices. Linux and BSD are, however, reliable, robust, secure and fairly pleasant to use operating systems, once you get them up and running and configured to your liking.
Also, take notes of everything you do, of all the commands you type in that worked, because you might (probably will) need to type them in again sometimes. Just keep a sketch pad handy or something. This will save you a lot of time.
That's a lot of words to
That's a lot of words to say: Crazy APIs, horrible standardization, driving developers away. Regards...
Shared libraries might have
Shared libraries might have made sense, when saving 200K of diskspace or RAM meant a big different back when Unix first came out. In this day and age where you can buy 1TB drives, it's just not worth the effort to wrangles with installing three different packages to get one other piece of software to work, just to theoretically save 500K of diskspace should another program need those packages. I've been bogged down trying to get programs installed because a 'shared' library had to be installed seperately and wouldn't cooperate. Sometimes, there is only ONE program insatlled using the library anyway, so why make it shared? I can understand for libraries like glibc, qt, etc, but for every library?
Secondly, your suggesting of just downloading everything in one fell swoop and reinstalling or upgrading the whole thing every two years or every year is a pain in the ass. Firstly, it's unlikely that when someone moves to Linux or buys a computer, they are going to know initially all the software they want. More likely, they are over time going to want to add, piecemeal, apps to their system. Windows accomodates this FAR better than Linux. The suggesting of using two computers and mirroring just tells me why it is that people avoid Linux and think it's a techies OS. Upgrading every few months is even more ridiculous, especially when its a reinstall.
ONLY someone who just likes to dick around with OS's would do that. People that want to use their computers to get TASKS done need apps, need to be able to install apps, DONT want to worry about mirroring, format/reinstall to upgrade and keeping close tabs on every OS component. I dont know why it is that Linux devs and users don't get this, but they constantly fail to realise this. Any attempt to point this out gets you labelled an MS shill. Therefore, Linux is an OS geared for tinkerers. Like a kit car, which is good for people who like to modify cars, but NOT good for people that NEED a car. Linux is the OS equivalent of the kit car. If you want to spend your time endlessly tinkering with it, trying out different technology, its good for you. If you need it in order to carry out the tasks it was designed for, you're better off elsewhere. Those who need a platform, Windows suits better.
Linux just isn't designed to be used as a platform.
Soooo true. 6years ago no
Soooo true. 6years ago no problems now internet times and my mom is pissed by windows updates and she does't know what to do. Heh I am glad that she refused installing Linux on her PC.
In case you still don't get
In case you still don't get it:
Touted as the most popular linux distro out there
PS: There is also a Linux Mint distro which happens to have DVD and mp3 playback support, but still lacks the rest
OK, A shit-hole-full of
OK, A shit-hole-full of words r enough dear kurkosdr, Tell me, Do u claim K3b, Amarock, VLC, GIMP, Skype, gvim, emacs, TEX, OO03, openareana, KDE3.5, MCC, Okular, Nautilus, Konqueror(firefox has its roots here),Dolphin, Oxygen theme... ...are BAD? or even "NOT SO NICE" ? coz I happen to like them all including your likes like Firefox. Am really stunned by your LAWYER like skills. ;)
Those are APPs, they are not
Those are APPs, they are not core Linux components. KDE 3.5 can be considered as part of the Linux OS, but they really screwed up with KDE 4, didn't they? Ooops. I guess KDE 3.5 will soon make way for rotating icons and retina burning glossiness. Dolphin ain't that great, Oxygen theme? A theme? Gimme a break! openarena? Well, I prefer Quake Arena. Nautilus is on your list? Take that Windows explorer! we have something far slower!
Half are available on windows, or some equivalent is. Except teh crappy ones.
Point is, a Windows user isn't "missing out" on anything, except perhaps on Nautilus and KDE 4, which. All the GOOD Linux apps are also available on Windows. Often they are far easier to install on Windows and run faster there too. ho ho ho! I can run Firefox 3 on Win98, but with Linux you'll struggle if you haven't updated.
"PS: There is also a Linux
"PS: There is also a Linux Mint distro which happens to have DVD and mp3 playback support, but still lacks the rest"
So you're saying Ubuntu doesn't have the functionality available to download from its repository?
I don't think you just
I don't think you just _understand_ that Linux can be what you search, because of the capitalist system in which we live. Hardware constructors are paid by Micro$hit not to do any drivers for Linux, that's why X server, graphics drivers and WiFi drivers are yet for most of them "shitty".
Now, screw you.