Why Linux Sucks

Hopefully I can get accross to many people, one of the fundamental problems with Linux and help people understand what it is. This is based upon being part (I think) of the Linux community and close knowledge of it, a long time Linux user, and a long time Windows/DOS/C64/Vic20 user, a former IT co-admin/Tech Support dood for a medium sized company and helping friends use Linux and seeing how people actually use computers.

The Linux community appears to be creating an OS which their mum/grandma/Aunt Mavis can use so they don't lose sleep at night over the thought their mum/grandma/Aunt Mavis is using an MS product. They want one they can screw around with, but also one which someone who doesn't even care about what they are running as long as it does X and Y can use such as their computer illiterate mum upstairs. Well they think this is what mum wants and would probably correct her if she had a different idea. So while you have all these wrappers and bindings and stuff being developed for fun by geeks, you also have tacky GUI addons and automated systems so if mum wants to edit a picture, she just just click on a button and get the functionality to edit a picture or if she wants to listen to music, she can click on a button and get something to listen to music. That way mum is satiated and wont complain and Linux zealot can sleep easy knowing she is using GPL software, and said zealot can write an article about how computer illiterate mum managed to click a button to install a game or The GIMP therefore it's a viable alternative to Windows. Anyone who says otherwise is an MS shill or stupid.

They think 'mission accomplished' because they think there are only those two types of users. Technical nerds who enjoy spending all day reveling in the power of compiling apps from source code and editing makefiles, and the average user who mindlessly clicks things and only wants to click a button to get the 'thingy' to edit pictures. The noob who won't care about how it works or what it is, as long as they can clicky clicky with the mouse to do stuff. Both types exist and are actually a very small minority. Linux zealots think the latter, the clueless luser who breaths through their mouth, encompass most Windows users. They are dead wrong and this mistake is seriously retarding the development of Linux as a platform. Often anti-Linux windows users seem to put forward the idea that Windows users are like this, again reinforcing in the Linux community the wrong idea. Fact is, those anti-Linux critics are just as wrong and are speaking on behalf, again, of the mythical army of Aunt Mavis computer users. Linux community will then duitifuly does everything it can to, in a very shallow manner, so as to make the criticisms on behalf of these non-existant users invalid. A sorry situation indeed!

So if you say you need Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop, the Linuxers say "what you really mean is you need an image editing program, and we have 'The Gimp', so use that". ie, you dont really need that, we have an equivalent we've packaged for you. The equivalent might be suitable, ie Open Office, XMMS, or it might not be. Often it's not. Often it's out of date anyway unless you upgrade your entire distro every 6 months. They dont care because they think your silly for caring, you should only want some generic program and be happy with that and be glad it's themeable and 'free'.

Problem is most people care about the app, not the fact they are using a particular OS. (Linux seems to try to enforce the opposite, care about the OS, and just take any app). Even people not technically inclined will like to browse the web and download apps they want, or install apps others have given them or told them about instead of just clicking on a package manager to install a 'photo editor'. Even my mum who has had a computer less than a year has downloaded and installed Google Chrome. She didn't know what it was, granted, but nevertheless, she was capable of downloading it and installing it and will certaintly want to do more through her travels.

With Linux, it would be case of Linux nerds making an easy to use 'sandbox' to play in. She could use the graphical repository manager to download a particular style of program, but she would have to be content with how the Linux/Distro developers selected the software (and the version they selected, often old). ie, if she wanted to play Doom, she would have to think "OK, is there a free shootem up game in the Add/Remove Software program section?" instead of just playing Doom. They think people just want a 'game', and game, or a 'graphical editing app'. No, they want specifically to play Doom or a particular game or version of it, or run specifically Paint Shop Pro (or something which has the same functionality). If she wanted to send the app to someone else to try, again, she would be screwed. How do you do that? Linux zealots sometimes do make a valid point where the 'alternative' is viable. There are instances where the user is mistaken in thinking a specific app is the only one which will perform specific tasks, but this doesn't account for all instances. For instance, someone might think that only MS Word will do, when OpenOffice will slot in just fine. But this doesn't account for all cases, just a few. And most of the GOOD alternatives are available under Windows anyway.

If this person wanted to install something of her own choice, directly from the software vendor, well, they would be screwed with Linux, and the Linux zealots would whinge about why they think they needed to do that, and the audacity to think they can just install any program from anywhere, because well, its insecure, or even that they shouldn't have access to install! They've made something that works well and effortlessly in a very limited scope, if you go outside that scope, you have to become a Linux uber-geek and learn to compile source from code and edit Makefile files and resolve dependancies and give up and go to Windows, which they dont want. Yes, Linux is still like that.

They want the 'noobs' to be content with the limited sandbox and just use the included apps and go no further. They treat this as more important than having binary compatibility, and a standard package format which I've always said Linux needs. (just make RPM the standard!) They seem to think people would rather be limited to just the apps packaged for their distro, than have the freedom to install any program they like easily. Apparently people dont like to do this, it scares them and if you baby them, they'll be happy. That attitude really is that elitist one, and it's so way off mark and so far off what most discontent windows users are actually like. Windows offers the latter, freedom to use any app with ease and unfortunately, Linux doesn't. Hence the reason, I think, that people dont write good apps for Linux. Whats the point if no one can run it. You would have to get every distro to package it for their repositories along with dependancies, which wont happen, and even if it does, you'll have the fact that any distro over 1 year old wont have repository updates. I've played many freeware DOS games, which still look and run better than many Linux games. There ARE good Linux games, but often a Linux program seems to be written to stop someone complaining and silence critics and supposedly be a reason to move away from MS to GNU/Linux, or just to experiment with programming, than the desire to actually write a good game, graphics editing program, etc.

Most computer users, even those not technically inclined don't want someone choosing and deciding what apps to run and how to run the platform. It's ironic because I always thought Windows would be the OS to do it, but Linux does it more, implicitely, if not explicitely. It's only if you want to become painfully familiar with the OS, where you can obtain the same range of freedom as Windows and then more. I've done that, which is why I'm still using Linux.

Hence the reason they miss out on revolutions in how people user their computers. The distro's are designed to create the functionality THEY THINK people need so they can be dragged away from MS to GPL/Linux, and not give people real freedom to do what they like. Quite simply because you just can't reliably install and run any program on any distro. None of the solutions to fix this problem are satisfactory, not one. If you look at most Linux distros, and much software, it has this attitude written all over it. Why do you need a distro for children? Why cant you just make an installer with different educational programs and call it the "Kids Wonderpak" for Linux. Because it is ingrained that the apps and the OS are one.

Linux community needs a serious change of direction, and reappraisal of how they go about making their OS usable and how to actually make it a platform. It's a shame, because there really is a good OS waiting to bust out and in many ways, Linux IS better than the other dominant PC OS. But the approach in how is is presented to people does the system absolutely no justice. The Linux community seem to think that writing code, or rewriting code and reinventing sub-systems will fix it, but it's an attitude thing.