Author Topic: linux sucks  (Read 1045 times)

Faust

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,223
  • Kudos: 0
linux sucks
« Reply #15 on: 7 October 2003, 13:19 »
quote:
What brought this article on is availability of cheap PCs, sub $300 PCs from mass merchandisers like Walmart. These PCs are loaded with various Linux distros like Mandrake, for instance. The assumption is that these PCs are being bought by first time users (or maybe as a second PC) who are not computer experts or light Windows users. I've recently witnessed three instances of where these PCs were purchased, then the hard drive was reformatted and a copy of Windows was installed. I am sure there is more of that going on. The obvious conclusion here is that Linux for whatever reason did not pass the grade. Here are some reasons, in my opinion.


Anecdotal at best.

 
quote:
It has been written about to death. KDE & GNOME have released their respective excellent wares, but still, Linux is not making inroads at the desktop level.


Neither is apple you will note.  And with the popularity of each months new Backstreet Boys I dont think we can take popularity as a measure of value.

 
quote:
And chances are that it will never make them, unless some radical changes are undertaken by respective leaders of key Linux projects (kernel, X, desktop). Actually latest KDE & GNOME are rivaling Windows at this point, but it doesn't matter.


Note "rivalling Windows."  Apple had a chance to do this.  They failed.  It wasn't a threatened mass installation of OS X in Munich that had Ballmer so worried.

 
quote:
The problem is the modularization and clear separation of kernel, X and the desktop environments from each other. This division has caused Linux to be poorly integrated. Actually, the problem has several faces.


 
quote:
Problem #1. The integration of device (and otherwise) drivers into the system. Case and point. RedHat 8 and 9 provide no ability to access WinXP NTFS volumes. They claim is that they can't provide this functionality because of its unsettled legal nature. Now a nice man (woman?) at linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net provides this ability. But how was this done? He took the original RedHat kernel, compiled the module that provides NTFS access and added the module to the kernel. Users can download the RPM that takes care of all the complexity. A couple more simple steps and voila - you can access your XP share. There are more examples like this where the user can add new functionality to the system by recompiling the kernel. In this case, because so many people need it, someone has taken initiative and provided a ready-made replacement kernel. Most of the cases are not like that. And herein lies the problem. Users don't want to recompile kernel or its modules - they want ready made solutions. Even power users don't want to recompile kernel. Period.


I have *NEVER* HAD to recompile a kernel.  And as a "power user" I have actually wanted to.

 
quote:
Keep in mind, I am NOT complaining that RH doesn't include NTFS support. I am bringing up an objection to manner in which users add functionality to their system.


 
quote:
Consider how support for other file systems is implemented in Windows. No one needs to recompile anything. Instead you simply run an installation that installs a dynamic device driver (.vxd) to handle foreign file i/o. For examples, see www.sysinternals.com


Or mount automatticaly detects the FS type and insmods the right driver.

 
quote:
Problem #2. Video drivers & X. Somehow it came to be that the Xfree is the one and final arbiter when it comes to displays, video drivers and functionality. They release their wares on a fairly slow schedule. So, if you got a brand spanking new video card, you are pretty much stuck waiting for the next release. This is the case mostly when you just bought a new PC (which will most likely be loaded with windows). You install Linux on the second partition, but alas the install reverts to a generic video driver. Sucks for you.


Yeah I certainly had to get a new version of X when I got a new graphics card.   :rolleyes:    No, I just ran the driver installer from Nvidia.

 
quote:
I understand if they release new functionality for X on a slow schedule - that's fine. But drivers should be released separately as soon as they are available.


 
quote:
Problem #3. Plug & Play. Unfortunately for Linux, its constituent parts are not tightly integrated. As a result, when I plug my USB digital camera (or mouse, printer, etc) into the PC, absolutely nothing happens. In Windows, you get the 'Add New Hardware' wizard (or something similar). In WinXP, it is even better: if the system can find a signed driver for the device on its own, it simply installs it without any user intervention and you can use it immediately. That's what I call true Plug & Play. In fact, the first time I encountered this feature, it took me for a loop. Years of dealing with PCs have conditioned me to a familiar routine: connect hardware, install the drivers and pray that it works. So after installing WinXP for the first time, I connected an Epson USB printer and sat patiently waiting for the 'New Hardware Found' box. Instead, all I got (and missed the first time around) was a little icon in the system tray and a popup tooltip informing me that new hardware has been detected and software for it installed. I hope we see more of this in the future.


DEAR GOD NO!!!  HE HAS TO CLICK A BUTTON AND / OR THINK!!!  NOOO!!!  Jeez get a game console buddy.  Or maybe he would prefer a Macintoy?  

 
quote:
Why can't the same happen in KDE or GNOME? Simply because they are not integrated with Linux kernel in a tight manner. I put word Linux in bold and that's key. KDE and GNOME (or GTK and QT, if you wish) are not written for Linux - they are written to be cross-platform. In fact, between the two DEs, they support Linux, Unix, *BSD, Solaris, Mac and partly Windows (I use GTK based WinGimp all the time - in fact the website logo was made with it, though I have zero graphics experience). So due to this, kernel may send messages that my camera is now connected, but no one is listening. And I haven't seen any significant effort to address this issue.


He wants to integrate a desktop environment with the kernel?  Apple doesnt do this either and with good reason - because its fucking stupid.  If its tightly integrated you have to change one when the other changes.  So you have a consistent set of ways to interreact with the kernel and leave that as a "point of contact."  Maybe he wants the WM to run IN the kernel as well?  Hey why not put in a more few apps while youre there.  How about tetris
 :-P

 
quote:
There is Linux USB site that can help you with the USB devices. It can help you manually mount the camera and retrieve the images, but it doesn't matter at all - no user knows or should know the command to mount a drive. The worst that user should encounter when installing or connecting hardware is having to enter a CD with drivers and follow a couple prompts.


Both processes are equivalent in terms of work. I have installed things on Windows, it's insert CD install dirvers, follow annoying promnpts, restart, let Windows set it all up properly, restart ok now we set the desktop res back to normal and try out this new graphics card.

 
quote:
Problem #4. There isn't an distro that does everything I need out of the box. It usually takes several hours of hunting for software to make the system usable if at all. In fact, I have yet to see a distro, that even after endlessly playing with it, was able to eventually become a truly usable and productive system. RedHat 9, arguably the current usability champ, came offly close to it. Out of the box, just about everything worked. I only needed to download & install mp3 support, xine for video, ms core web fonts for sane web browsing, nvidia accelerated driver for geforce4 (not for performance, but because the generic driver doesn't display the screen right on my flat screen), ntfs support and phoenix. So supposedly a working system, right? Wrong. There are too many small things that desktop users would need and Linux (or distros) doesn't provide them out of the box. For instance, I already mentioned the lack of support for my digital camera. Another nuisance is that after setting up the printer in GNOME, Mozilla (the default browser) doesn't see it but Konqueror (in GNOME, mind you) does. When I tell WinXP to shutdown my PC, I can just walk away, because it will shutdown the entire machine. In RH9, I have to wait for all the processes to end and then manually turn off the machine. Annoying stuff like that. I am sure that there is a solution to every one of the problems - I (and home users as well) just don't want to waisting my time chasing them.


First off all Mandrake when I first got it did that (power off after shutdown.)  Without me needing to do anything.  And of course I never have a problem with not having a specific program, it's just apt-get install blah blah and I've got it.  Boom.  Done.  Red Hat 9 supports apt get and 10 will support it natively.  Get over it.    :rolleyes:    I'd like to see a Mac support NTFS out of the box by the way.  Or of course half of those free programs that Apple users end up bragging abnout "how cool it is to have these one a platfrom!  it runs everything!  Out Of The Box!"

 
quote:
Bottom line. Most of these problems can be traced to lack of integration between components in Linux. Until there is some integration Linux is unlikely to gain a foothold in the desktop market.


He wants integration, were everything DEPENDS utterly on something else so cant be removed?  Then he should get a game console.  For people who want control, get GNU/Linux.

[ October 07, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]

Yesterday it worked
Today it is not working
Windows is like that
 -- http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/error-haiku.html

mc0282

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 124
  • Kudos: 0
linux sucks
« Reply #16 on: 7 October 2003, 13:52 »
I try Linux so many time and i didn't want to give up on it , but geez such pain in the ass just to configure a device, every time i use this OS,  i feel like i am a moron, and i have to be hunting for information just to start something or configure a device..  on slackware 9.0 when it boots up throws my ass into console i try to load KDE had to do major search just to find out had to type "startx" ..  the linux console command is  pain in the ass when i first got my hand on my first 486 system and had dos on it , i understood dos without no problem, i bought a book and i was set. but linux i had to go searching for a great book on linux, there are so many of them and most them  explain stuff differently  and leaves me wondering even more.. i have to agree with person the wrote the website " why linux sucks", i am advance user in PC world i build system to make extra dollars and i am C programmer , i hate Microsoft with a passion.. PLEASE WOULD SOMEONE BUILD A STABLE OS WITHOUT SO MUCH HEADACHES and stop the war which OS is better.  i wont use APPLE because i don't like how mac os is looks gay and i just don't like it please understand. i like certain feature linux has is open source and i agree the linux is the best with networking, but suck for desktop. like i always said linux should have been for companies  and i think the person the create linux problably want linux for business but i can't say this true.  Windows has alot great feature but is unstable,full of hole,flaw,virus, an asshole company so on..

i am replying to this post because this how feel about linux, i am not replying to go against linux user. i did give a try to linux alot freakin time  but i give up man..

i hope yah understand..

[ October 07, 2003: Message edited by: mc0282 ]

huh, what?

insomnia

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 587
  • Kudos: 0
linux sucks
« Reply #17 on: 7 October 2003, 18:03 »
quote:
sorry. we're gonna build our OS and show you what the Linux kernel can really do. fuck X11 and all the archaic UNIX crap



Any idee how many people already tried this?


 
quote:
as for Linux being the most advanced... nope! The kernel's very nature makes it more "old hat" than Mach. A monolithic kernel versus a microkernel? It's not bad, it's just not as high-tech.



Mach failed. It only made more problems.Apple even tried(...and failed) to hire Torvalds for fixing this (Linus still doesn't like the Mach kernel...).
Linux uses a monolithic kernel but still permits modules (like micro-kernel architectures)
That is even more 'high-tech'.


 
quote:
CthulOS is probably going to use the Linux kernel, but good luck finding X11 anywhere on the system. We'll build the OS that the Linux kernel deserves, and not some half-ass UNIX clone with TIRED old X11 and other shitty UNIXness. No, look for a nice, clean NeXT-inspired OS.


WHY???
I don't see any reason for eliminating X11.

Where will you find your apps and support?
X11 is platform independant. You'll lose all this without it.
X11 makes it also possible to run havyweight apps on old computers.
If you think eliminating X11 will make things faster, it doesn't.  
I don't even like a GUI being buid directly into the kernel(bloat, makes the code ugly).
...

So what's the point of eliminating X11?


 
quote:
There's  REASON it's called NeXTStep.


Following these logics, you should call your system: "PerfectOS"(if things whould only be that simple...).

[ October 07, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
    Voltaire

Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral.
R. Stallman

http://www.pvda.be/


Unforgiven1

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 100
  • Kudos: 0
linux sucks
« Reply #18 on: 10 October 2003, 21:37 »
I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this board about Linux, or computers or stuff of that nature.  But I like Linux way better than windows.  I can't stand the sight of windows anymore.  It's chaotic file system.  I mean what the fuck was Billy thinking when he made that up.  Linux file system just makes sense...programs go in /usr/bin/.  My stuff goes in /home/unforgiven/.  and other stuff goes in /.  I mean...how simple can you get. I mean windows...C:/horseshit/morebullshit/bgisspyingonyou/suck mydick/file.  Jesus christ!  Linux may be more work, but its more fun also (to me computer work is fun) It doesn't hold you by the dick and lead you around, and then force you to do 10 things you don't want to just to do the one thing you want.  It doesn't hide files and send them to Microsoft.  It doesn't crash so often.  If you want childish simplicity, use windows.  If you want a good OS, use Linux.  I don't know if this is another of those troll posts...if it is, just disregard this.

and if Linux is so bad...why does Microsoft use a Linux server for their firewall?  Bet they didn't want that nugget of info out.
Microsoft is not the answer.
Microsoft is the question.
"No" is the answer!
The nice thing about Windows is - It does not just crash, it displays a dialog box and lets you press 'OK' first.

solarismka

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 598
  • Kudos: 0
linux sucks
« Reply #19 on: 10 October 2003, 21:58 »
quote:
Originally posted by Unforgiven1:
I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this board about Linux, or computers or stuff of that nature.  But I like Linux way better than windows.  I can't stand the sight of windows anymore.  It's chaotic file system.  I mean what the fuck was Billy thinking when he made that up.  Linux file system just makes sense...programs go in /usr/bin/.  My stuff goes in /home/unforgiven/.  and other stuff goes in /.  I mean...how simple can you get. I mean windows...C:/horseshit/morebullshit/bgisspyingonyou/suck mydick/file.  Jesus christ!  Linux may be more work, but its more fun also (to me computer work is fun) It doesn't hold you by the dick and lead you around, and then force you to do 10 things you don't want to just to do the one thing you want.  It doesn't hide files and send them to Microsoft.  It doesn't crash so often.  If you want childish simplicity, use windows.  If you want a good OS, use Linux.  I don't know if this is another of those troll posts...if it is, just disregard this.

and if Linux is so bad...why does Microsoft use a Linux server for their firewall?  Bet they didn't want that nugget of info out.




Its the same here!  Linux just point blank works, if anything the only change I see is windows people constantly whinning ALL the time!


 
quote:
 

mc0282                


I try Linux so many time and i didn't want to give up on it , but geez such pain in the ass just to configure a device, every time i use this OS, i feel like i am a moron, and i have to be hunting for information just to start something or configure a device.. on slackware 9.0 when it boots up throws my ass into console i try to load KDE had to do major search just to find out had to type "startx" .. the linux console command is pain in the ass when i first got my hand on my first 486 system and had dos on it , i understood dos without no problem, i bought a book and i was set. but linux i had to go searching for a great book on linux, there are so many of them and most them explain stuff differently and leaves me wondering even more.. i have to agree with person the wrote the website " why linux sucks", i am advance user in PC world i build system to make extra dollars and i am C programmer , i hate Microsoft with a passion.. PLEASE WOULD SOMEONE BUILD A STABLE OS WITHOUT SO MUCH HEADACHES and stop the war which OS is better. i wont use APPLE because i don't like how mac os is looks gay and i just don't like it please understand. i like certain feature linux has is open source and i agree the linux is the best with networking, but suck for desktop. like i always said linux should have been for companies and i think the person the create linux problably want linux for business but i can't say this true. Windows has alot great feature but is unstable,full of hole,flaw,virus, an asshole company so on..

i am replying to this post because this how feel about linux, i am not replying to go against linux user. i did give a try to linux alot freakin time but i give up man..

i hope yah understand..


I see your first problem, slackware is a hard distro to use compared to other distros, I found RedHat and Lycros a absolute dream to use!

You may want to try those instead.  over at

linuxiso.org

Personaly I hated DOS, but found myself very comfortable at the concole.  I also used OpenBSD.   So if I started out on OpenBSD then I would think that all BSD's are really hard when thats not true at all.  In fact after a while I actualy liked OpenBSD.  So basicaly try other distros, see what fits you

and at least you tried!  Which is a VERY good thing!  :D
"Regime Change" starts at home!<p>Islam IS NOT the enemy! Against American Terrorism since Sept/11/2001<p>Jihad:<p>http://www.islamanswers.net/jihad/meaning.htm <p>new SuSE Linux User!<p><p>If your gonna point a finger at someone then at least have the proof to back you up!<p>trolls are idiots that demand attention by posting whatever is opposite to the theme to ruffle feathers to make people upset!<p>Often these same trolls always mention grammar/spelling since they have no intelligence of their own.