Slashdot Log In
What Needs Fixing In Linux
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Dec 01, 2008 09:35 AM
from the or-what-needs-breaking-in-windows dept.
from the or-what-needs-breaking-in-windows dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Infoweek's Fixing Linux: What's Broken And What To Do About It argues that the 17-year-old open-source operating system still has problems. Leading the list is author Serdar Yegulap's complaint that the kernel application binary interfaces are a moving target. He writes: 'The sheer breadth of kernel interfaces means it's entirely possible for something to break in a way that might not even show up in a fairly rigorous code review.' Also on his list of needed fixes are: a consistent configuration system, to enable distribution; native file versioning; audio APIs; and the integration of X11 with apps. Finally, he argues that Linux needs a committee to insure that all GUIs work consistently and integrate better on the back-end with the kernel."
Related Stories
Submission: What Needs Fixing In Linux by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
new mascot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:new mascot (Score:5, Funny)
I propose a way to show that Linux is an OS for rebels. Maybe a little guy with horns and a pitchfork to show how we're a little bit evi....
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Parent
One thing is for certain. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One thing is for certain. (Score:5, Funny)
I am sure that only sane, rational, and courteous debate will follow. Finally an argument-free thread!
I disagree you insensitive clod!!!
Parent
Re:One thing is for certain. (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, this is abuse.
Parent
Re:One thing is for certain. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Please let us know when the author is done (Score:5, Funny)
I am so happy that he has volunteered to do this. I was afraid that the article might be about wanting someone ELSE to do the work.
Re:Please let us know when the author is done (Score:5, Insightful)
So many people tut and say "Someone should do something", but so few step forward and say "...and that someone is me"
-- Terry Prattchet
Parent
Re:Please let us know when the author is done (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the author is the problem. The title should be "The problems with packaging my proprietary software for Linux Distros and keeping the packages up to date".
The kernel has little or no bearing on the problem. The way he worded the title, he implies that "Linux" (the kernel) is the problem, when in reality the problem is he (and other proprietary software developers) don't have the time to make a package for each distro and keep up with them all.
The reason "open source" sucks for Joe User is that Joe User often wants functionality that is sometimes only available in proprietary software which the distro maintainers are not allowed to distribute and package.
Therefore he has to go out and find the software and figure out how to install it.
It has nothing to do with linux or open source, rather it has everything to do with proprietary licenses and their restrictions on re-distributing the binaries.
If Joe User wants to avoid these issues, he just needs to pay for all of his software and run Windows. If he wants to run free software, along side this proprietary stuff, it's gonna take a little elbow grease. The people with the technical know how to make Joe's life easier, are _not allowed_ to help beyond documenting what needs to be done to make stuff work.
This means poor Joe has to use google and find the info and do it himself, or do without whatever software it is he needs.
FOSS doesn't suck for Joe, the proprietary licensing and distribution restrictions do ;-) The only thing that will fix it is if these people release source for their binaries and/or license the binaries in such a way that the distro maintainers are allowed to build packages that work and distribute them with their distro.
Open source developers and distro maintainers are powerless to fix the situation without more flexible licenses.
-Viz
Parent
What linux ACTUALLY needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Is more vendor support. Every supposed real problem with Linux is based on or related to a problem with a driver; nine times out of ten this problem is caused by the manufacturer being unwilling or unable to release specifications. The various vendors out there need to realize that Linux may not be the future, but it's a more likely future than Windows, and they need to put some effort into support. Of course, some of them have, and if you reward them by purchasing their hardware, they may do more of it. Regardless, having multiple GUIs isn't actually a real problem - it's an opportunity, not a setback, and meanwhile you can trivially use libqt to draw GTK+ apps [ubuntu.com] or use GTK+ to draw widgets for libqt programs [launchpad.net] (Sorry I haven't updated in a while, my last build FAILED on the build servers but worked at home, and it was a compiler error, NOT a library I forgot to specify. Nice work, Ubuntu!)
Re:What linux ACTUALLY needs (Score:5, Informative)
We don't want that support. Those vendors have a tendency to produce low-quality drivers, and reduce the overall stability of the system.
Most Vista and XP (and previously, Windows 98) apologists agree that the biggest reason Windows is perceived as unstable is due to low-quality drivers for low-quality hardware.
By selecting hardware known to work with Free Software, I'm pretty much guaranteed a solid and stable experience.
Parent
Re:What linux ACTUALLY needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is too much to ask for. Windows is the dominant OS in the consumer market and it doesn't even meet your standards. A pre-configured Linux computer should work but when you install the OS yourself on a huge range of commodity hardware then it probably won't "just work" whether you're installing Wndows or Linux. I always hated this argument because it assumes two things:
Neither of these assumptions are true. Windows often at least requires some third party drivers to be installed. Linux generally does not. If people had to install Windows themselves on every PC they bought then the majority of average computer users would probably be using Apple products. People don't want to mess with configuring anything no matter what OS they are dealing with. The real problem is that Linux doesn't have a "killer app" or feature to lure people into using it. People fear change and there has to be a compelling reason for them to switch. If such a "killer app" is created for Linux most likely it will just be ported to Windows unless there is some underlying architectural difference that prevents it. I've been a Linux user for years and I thought it was a good enough replacement for average users years ago but I've realized since then that it's going to take more than just being "good enough" to make a dent in Microsoft's OS marketshare. I'm just sick of hearing all the BS reasons out there. It's always "the install sucks, X sucks, the kernel ABI sucks, two desktops suck, thousands of distros suck", etc. None of these things have anything to do with why Linux is not on a large percentage of desktops. I could start a business today that sold computers with a fully functional GNOME desktop and I probably wouldn't do too well and that eliminates the "install sucks, kernel ABI sucks, thousnds of distos" and "two desktops" arguments. You're left with "X sucks" which I haven't actually found one person that can articulate why "X sucks".
Parent
the problem with linux (Score:4, Insightful)
the problem with linux, is that to many people want it to be to many things. there is no centralised effort to get it to do one thing.
there are several GUI solutions, rather than a centralised effort, there are several browsers gunning to be the main browser, there are several sound sub-systems/servers... why cant these people learn to play together, and come up with something that fits everybody.
i know i will get comments about "choice" its all about "choice", but its not, its not at all about choice to the common user... the common user want to switch the computer on, check their hotmail account, check facebook, and then talk to their friends on live messenger... THATS IT.... thats what the common computer user does now... they dont care how their computer does it, they dont care about the morality behind it, they dont care if the guy who made their file system killed his wife or not.. they dont even know what a file system is.
its only the very advanced users who care about these things, and im afraid to say, that these users dont even account for 1% of all computer users.
if linux based operating systems are to become as big as they want to be, they need to stop fighting among themselves and centralised their efforts. otherwise, we will be having this same story in another 17 years
From my cold dead hands. (Score:5, Interesting)
and the integration of X11 with apps. Finally, he argues that Linux needs a committee to insure that all GUIs work consistently and integrate better on the back-end with the kernel.
Call me old fashioned or whatever the cute term is now. But fuck that! If I ever see programs like cp become bloated with X library calls because some news reporter needs to see a GUI progress bar, I'm going to be very angry.
NetworkManager (Score:5, Insightful)
Workaround for static IP vs. DHCP (Score:4, Informative)
My biggest complainst are that I cannot get a static IP on my home wireless while getting DHCP everywhere else
Then tell your home wireless to reserve an IP address for your laptop's MAC address. It's an option in the Netgear router I use.
Parent
some flaws this arguement (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Why is Linux blamed for configuration files that are written by application developers? Linux is a kernel and is not responsible for Sendmail. Further I fail to see how the point and click method of configuration is better than editing a text file than can be searched, backed up and version controlled.
2. Why is it the responsibility of Linux distribution maintainers to provide a means for commericial vendors to package their product? Vendors had to spend money to get certified for other operating systems. How about putting a little work into understanding and using a Linux distribution.
3. X freezing? Umm...
Perhaps I've just feed the troll but, I'm sure the pointy hairs will read the artical and think it's all true.
Desktop environment standards? Okay. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.freedesktop.org/ [freedesktop.org] is the link. Was that really so hard?
Third parties should make repos, not packages (Score:5, Insightful)
We have the LSB, and distributions which make some effort to ship binary 'compat' packages, so that third parties can distribute their software in RPMv3 format (n.b. not the same format as currently used by RPM-based distros, which are on RPMv4) and it will just install and work on any i386 or x86_64 Linux system. But I wonder if that is slightly the wrong model. At the moment if you want some particular library you have the choice of statically linking it into your executable, or just relying on it being there in the target system; neither is very appealing.
For example, suppose you want GTK version 2.16 or later but LSB specifies an older GTK (actually, it specifies a set of interfaces, but that corresponds to a particular GTK version). You could statically link your app with gtk-2.16, or you could include your own private copy of the library to be stuck in /opt/myapp/libs, but then what about Fedora 10 which does include a new enough GTK?
Instead of providing a single RPM (or worse, lots of different binary RPMs for different distros), we should encourage vendors to set up a yum repository. Then to install their software you could add the third-party's repository to your software sources list and use the normal GUI tools to update and install packages. If they want to use some newer library which is not included in Ye Olde Enterprise Linux 1.1, then they can just add a package for that library to the repository, and it will be installed only on systems that need it. This also takes care of automatic updates, which are not provided if you just give people an RPM file to install manually.
Of course, we don't live in a world where you can just 'encourage' third-party software vendors to do things and they'll jump to it; otherwise Nvidia would long ago have released free drivers. So you need to make it as easy as possible to set up a repository for yum or apt-get or smart or whatever packaging tool distros are using. It needs to be trivially easy. So I would suggest enhancing yum and the other tools to work from a plain directory of rpm files served over http. Just dump the files on a webserver, let Apache serve the directory listing and let yum point to that and Just Work. Or, if that's too dirty for you, use a directory on an ftp site (which at least has a defined protocol for listing the files available).
I think a repository for package management programs like yum satisfies what the author is talking about when he asks for a 'meta-package'.
I got plenty issues (Score:4, Insightful)
...and none of them are listed in this article. Most of these are lame rehashes of old stuff that just isn't important. How about stuff like flash not crashing on me every two minutes? A IM client that doesn't freeze on file transfers with native MSN clients (I've tried several and they just don't work), some real compatibility with MS Office (the locked excel sheet for travel expenses breaks every time and I have to unlock it to actually make it work), fix the dual screen setup so that it actually works, that the side buttons on my mouse would work without hacking xorg.conf, all the ways WINE fails me and so on. I don't care that there's plenty choices, I just want at least one choice that works...
that's easy: USB, video and documentation (Score:5, Insightful)
USB barely works. It's OK for mass-storage devices, but sucks hugely for high-bandwidth devices, or anything that's removable - and gets removed.
Video: just as bad. Put these two together and you have a mess of non-functional webcams, video applications which sometimes hold together if you're prepared to spend hours and days hunting down just the rtight combination of codecs, libraries and applications.
However, the worst part of Linux is tha parlous state of the documentation. A morass of different styles: .man .info HOWTOs, html, text-files. Almost none is available in more than one language and hardly any is kept up to date. Even less is declared obsolete, to stop people trying techniques that haven't worked in years - but is still highly-linked to on the web.
Frequently, the best documentation for an application is the string command.
flatbed scanners (Score:4, Interesting)
I use Linux and FOSS almost exclusively for my photography workflow.
Almost.
See, when I work in film, I need to have a Mac around to handle the flatbed scanner. Because, unfortunately, Linux support for flatbed scanners really sucks rocks.
gimp has some shortcomings as well but I understand they are being actively addressed so I won't bitch about that.
Hm (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess these are the main things without wasting too much time on this topic.
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Documentation
Everything else is secondary. Well, most everything. But without usable documentation, all else is futile.
Oh, and would someone do some work on documentation?
Thanks!
Almost everything he complains about is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
He complains:
Who else should do it?
He complains the distribution differences make life hard for people selling software. Well, tough, if they want money maybe they should work for it?
I know! Let's recreate the windows registry, but this time better!. Yawn.
Just about the shittiest article I've read for a long time.
Not bad, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
What I find in *most* of these sorts of pieces is that they are either cynically or subconsciously pushing for the winozification of Linux. He makes some good points along with the bad.
(1) Package Management
This is a good point if the debian people and redhat people could work toward a solution, it could be fixed as both systems have a great deal in common.
(2) Configuration Files /etc are, IHO, better and can be backed up and diff-ed.
Bzzzt. Wrong. The foolish part of this subject is that while the Windows registry provides a standardized access to the data store, it only defines types and not what they are supposed to be. Lunux configuration files under
(3) Kernel Application Binary Interfaces
I would like to see a stabilized and standardized device interface API for standard devices, something exposing a limited subset of the kernel that would simplify simple devices like block, serial, and network types of devices.
(4)Native File Versioning
Bzzt. Its called automatic backup people. This is a relatively new feature in Macs and barely working in Windows. Would be nice, but can't characterize it as something that's broken.
(5)Audio Application Programming Interfaces
This I 100% agree with. Choice is nice, but the geometric product of "choice" in system services means that rich multimedia applications are much harder to develop.
(6)Graphical User Interface
He sort of has a point about this and it has often been a problem.
(7)Integration Of X11 With Apps
Bzzt Wrong. X11 is a HUGELY powerful system and if you encounter a bug that crashes your session, that's a bug. Fortunately I haven't seen one of these in about 6 years.
(8)Commercially Hosted Backup And Restore
Bzzt Wrong. This is not "Linux" being broken, it is 3rd party vendors being stupid.
Video performance (Score:4, Interesting)
Video drivers. Video drivers. Video drivers. Or possibly X11. Or possibly the whole multi-layered graphics approach.
I'm not sure whether it's the fault of the Linux kernel or the graphics card companies that won't release their hardware specs / open-source drivers. To the "newbie" Linux user, that's more-or-less irrelevant. I just know that I installed Linux for the first time two months ago on a brand new computer (AMD Athlon X2 6400+, Asus M3N78-VM with onboard GeForce 8200 graphics, 2 x 2 GB DDR2-800 [PC2-6400] memory) and gave up last week and installed Windows XP after spending eight weeks dicking around with video drivers / KDE vs. GNOME / xorg.conf / etc. trying to get the desktop performance up to the level where it doesn't take a good half-second for a bloody Firefox window to stutter its way up to full-screen from the minimized state.
Remote desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish there was a windows remote desktop equivalent. Yeah! I can forward X11 apps over SSH! Network transparency! Cool! But over the internet - usually painful...high latency? oops. Connection dropped? App exits. Hope it autosaves.
Ok, so let's use VNC. A lot better to be sure. Or NX, with its shockingly awesome speed and responsiveness.
But how do I get at the apps I already have running? Nifty, I can ssh in to my desktop machine at home. I know I'm logged in to a gnome/kde/whatever session. Screen locked. What if I have Eclipse open and want to pick up where I left off? :0, and setting environment variables appropriately)? Oh, look at that! Screen's locked. I'll just type in my password and get going. Works fine, except for the fact that my _monitor woke up_ and _everyone can see what I'm doing or hijack my session_ (keyboard and mouse working). Maybe I'll just quickly logout so I can start something in VNC...
-Start a vncserver? That's fantastic. I just bypassed the display manager, so no warning about concurrent sessions. Let's hope that _all_ of my apps are careful about this weird case and don't barf all over my data.
-Forward just eclipse? Maybe if I kill it first from my shell it won't complain.
-Use x11vnc (hoping my session is on display
It's ugly, all of it.
On the windows side, as most everyone here has seen, a) a session started locally can be connected remotely b) a session started remotely can be connected to remotely c) in either case, a "locked" screen is displayed as appropriate and nobody gets to see a haunted cursor and d) none of this breaks 3D acceleration or video overlays when switching back to local display. It's _incredibly_ useful. This is something you'd expect Linux to be _better_ at, a big selling point of desktop Linux...afraid not.
I tried to pick some brains once about even the simplest hacks - like being able to poll X for display updates when it doesn't have a VT. And from that, I don't get the impression Linux will catch up in this department anytime soon.
Some complaints are not valid (Score:5, Insightful)
consistent configuration system
What a dope; because we know this has worked so well for windows. The registry is a nightmare on Windows. Linux/Unix does have a consistent model and it is known as text configuration files. It's powerful and can be leveraged on even the slowest of links. One size does not fit all - although I've seen far too many applications use XML for this where it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
native file versioning
Seems Linux is now held to a higher standard. Again, what a dope. Outside of the VMS crowd, I've not seen a huge outpouring of demand for this feature. Having said that, I do believe a versioning FS is in the works and for all I know, some may already be available. Realistically, few people want this and most have no clue what it even means. For the general use case, RC-software already exists to fill this niche. His complaint is empty.
audio APIs
As far as I'm concerned, it's done. Pulseaudio [pulseaudio.org] and ALSA [alsa-project.org] are all that you need. If you have more specialized needs, then JACK Audio [jackaudio.org] takes care of you. For the majority of people, Pulseaudio has what you need and is also portable to Windows. Many (most?) distros are already moving or have completed their move to Pulseaudio. As far as I'm concerned, this issue is addressed, save only for migration time for slow adopters.
integration of X11 with apps
This means nothing. What a dope. All GUI applications which communicate with X are integrated.
and integrate better on the back-end with the kernel
Again, what a dope. This means nothing.
In a nutshell, his complaints are silly, meaningless, or have been addressed. As far as I can tell, his only complaint which has any merit is audio API standardization and that has been achieved.
But that is what Linux IS (Score:5, Insightful)
Car anologies are of course famous on slashdot, but I won't do that. I will do instead something radically new. A MOTORcycle anology. Yes, you saw it here first!
What is wrong with motor-cycles.
The list goes on. Any of them can be fixed BUT the moment you do that, you no longer have a motorcycle. You got something else.
Back to linux. The NATURE of linux is that it is free. Not just free as in beer or whatever but free as to what anyone does to it. Anyone can create a distro or a new UI or whatever because that is what it is all about.
Change that and you change the nature of linux and you get... well depending on who does it. A Red Hat or a Windows or an OSX. It might be BASED on linux, but it ain't Linux. Same as OSX ain't BSD. It uses it at its core but it ain't BSD. Similar to how Mandriva ain't Suse.
The suggestions made CAN apply to a distro, even perhaps a collection of distro's but NEVER to Linux.
It ain't just about the name, the author talks about kernel interfaces and X11 as if they are the same thing or indeed got anything to do with each other. They don't.
There are already efforts to standarize Linux distro's making them use the same directory layout.
But to make any such effort to official, that is the way into development hell that Windows and for that matter all gigantic software has become.
Notice that Linux constantly improves, constantly changes. Well those two things go together. Either you get Linux that is a constant moving target or you get MS Windows that doesn't change in years and then breaks everything at once. Oh yeah, remember how Vista was such a dud because all its interfaces changed and none of the drivers work? Well guess what, to fix that, the next windows won't change... so you get a NEW OS in the a couple of years that hasn't improved at all, just a few bug fixes, if you are lucky.
Apple knows this and just threw everything overboard two times already, last time with OSX because sometimes if you want to move on, you just got to break things.
GNU/Linux is what it is because of what it is. Change that and you get something different and that might be to big a price to pay to end up with yet another commitee developed OS. We had those. You can get PLENTY of unixes developed by a single entity. Not a single one of them is a popular as linux. (Oh alright OSX might be more popular but that ruins my argument so I am ignoring it)
Committee?? (Score:5, Informative)
the kernel application binary interfaces are a moving target.
That's why we have glibc, which abstracts that ABI from applications.
Kernel driver interface - the horse [mjmwired.net] was already beaten to death many times ( see here [slashdot.org]).
a consistent configuration system, to enable distribution;
Windows tried that with Registry - and it didn't worked. And it will never work since "one size never fits all" requirements of all applications.
native file versioning;
Was tried many times before and failed miserably. As long as majority of files are blobs, versioning on level of file system makes no sense. Versioning on level of applications is implemented already more or less everywhere it was needed and SVN/git is there for the rest of applications.
audio APIs;
See ALSA [alsa-project.org] and its user-space libraries.
See SDL [libsdl.org].
and the integration of X11 with apps.
As was shown by FreeDesktop [freedesktop.org] initiative not really needed nor X [x.org] folks want to be bothered by all the end user bells and whistles.
Finally, he argues that Linux needs a committee to insure that all GUIs work consistently and integrate better on the back-end with the kernel.
Committee?? [quotegarden.com] Buahahhahahaha!!!1!!cos(0)!!!!!!!
All what he says was tried before (see (11) [faqs.org]) and generally can be described as "failed".
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not a bug. It's a feature.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Funny)
I agree. Clearly there are only two diametrically opposed options here. Either we immediately cease all development and enhancement of Linux and agree that the current kernel version is the absolute perfection of open source, or everyone formats their hard drives and installs Vista.
There couldn't possibly be a middle ground anywhere in there.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
Until the community comes together and makes some basic decisions like .tar.gz, .rpm, .deb, .pkg, etc. then how can we possibly expect development houses to even give serious consideration?
The package format is totally unimportant. Making Redhat use .deb or Ubuntu use .rpm would fix absolutely nothing, since the distributions would still be as incompatible to each other as ever. The problem is the underlying dependency tree not the way in which you package the software, said dependency tree is what makes it impossible to install software outside of that tree (i.e. installing Ubuntu7 deb on Ubuntu8 doesn't work, since the dependency tree is a different one).
To fix this issue you would first need to get rid of the dependencies, but to do that you would need a large enough and stable enough core system on which applications could depend instead, but given how Linux development works its not clear if that is ever going to happen or even desirable.
There are however two things I really miss:
* a standard way to ship or even just build third party software that will work across distributions
* a way to install two different versions of the same piece of software
The first problem is somewhat tackled by things like autopackage and LSB, but it still feels more like multiple layers of ducttape instead of a robust solution. The second problem is a direct consequence of stuffing everything into /usr/bin/, which makes it impossible to have two different versions of the same package, a workaround is of course two just build the software yourself to a different --prefix, but it would be nice if distributions had such a feature build in instead of forcing the user to completly bypass anything the distribution provides.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem that I see with all of these niche distros. Many rarely see a user, simply because they're either indistinguishable from their dozen other competing niche variants or their features are already blanket covered by another distro.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
The kernel and tools that constitute a Linux distribution are open and free, and there is nothing you can do, legally or otherwise, to prevent someone from creating another distribution. This is the very essence of open source and the GPL, the thing that gives it (and you) so much power.
And it's not like a lot of these smaller distributions are expecting a huge following. Often they fill needs or particular niches and are usually happy remaining small and focused upon a certain thing. This isn't a competition by any means. You don't win any prize for having the most users of any distribution (RedHat notwithstanding). To think this way is treating Linux as a vehicle to stroke your own ego and is an incorrect attitude.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be foolish to say Ubuntu is seriously competing for Red Hat's userbase.
It would be foolish to say they aren't in competition. They are in competition for users, for developers, and for overall mindshare.
A distro without developers dies. A distro without users loses developers. A distro without mindshare loses both users and developers.
You don't get a more classic example of the free market than open source development. It is totally darwinian, if its fit for purpose and accessible, people find it and it lives. If not, it dies and becomes extinct - except for the sourceforge search results.
In other words, all distros compete for resources, and if they fail, they die?
The problem with this whole argument is that there's no such thing as a free market, and there's no such thing as a completely communist system, nor no such thing as a system with no communism whatsoever, so every side has something they can latch onto to make their case.
Linux is communism in that it's a community effort. Linux is centrally planned in that Linus is the master of all things kernel, and distros all have a central planning body of some sort. Linux is 'free market' in that there are various distros all competing with one another. Linux is capitalism in that anyone is free to enter the marketplace and try to make money off of Linux. Linux is socialism in that everyone involved 'owns' Linux.
Just about the only things Linux isn't (at least, not very much), are things that are dictatorial. Linux isn't terribly feudal, or monarchial, or despotic. This is because there's no real way to 'force' any of those systems, and all of those systems depend on force to get to full steam.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that the purpose of Linux, and Open Source in general, is to beat Microsoft has done more damage to the movement than just about anything else. It forces people to think in terms of how to obtain market share rather than how to improve software and advance the cause of free software.
The biggest single advantage of the free software model is the ability to innovate quickly, because there are more people working on it, and those people have more freedom to tinker around without having to worry about being profitable this quarter. However, since the vast majority of people in the movement these days seem to be primarily concerned with copying Microsoft products in order to beat them at their own game, real innovation is being stifled.
The fact that most major Linux distributions come with a default desktop that mimics Windows in many ways is testament to this fact. It's time to face facts: For most people, it's never going to be the year of Linux on the desktop, and that shouldn't be regarded as a failure to anyone. The end goal of free software is not to defeat Microsoft. Free software is a goal in and of itself.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
Free software is not monolithic entity with a single purpose in mind, and never will be. That is why there are so many licenses. Who are you to decide what free software's goal is? Seriously, what makes you think you can tell other people what their motivation for developing software is? If people want to write software to compete with Microsoft, that is their right. Every person involved has a different motivation from the next.
Laying this kind of idealistic thought process on people stresses them out.
LS
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the effort to lure MS Windows users to GNU/Linux results in copying bad features as well. For example, one of the great things about Unix in general is the hierarchical file system. When I want to work on a certain project, I cd into the appropriate directory and fire up a program such as emacs, which then defaults to looking for files in that directory. However, programs that aim at compatibility with MS Windows don't do this. If I start up OpenOffice.org in my project directory and ask it to open a file, it displays the last directory in which it looked, which may be far off in a different corner of the file system. I then have to navigate into my current project's directory one click at a time, without the speed and ease of the command-line.
Making this kind of behavior available as an option for people new to GNU/Linux is fine, but software running on GNU/Linux ought to take advantage of the core features of GNU/Linux. As a long-time (26 year) Unix person, I resent having inferior features of MS Windows imposed on me so as to attract MS Windows users.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Interesting)
"When talking to grandma about trying Linux since all she wants to do is check e-mail, look at pictures of the grand kids and keep her MySpace page updated, you get the question thrown back..."why so many different ones? Are they all different?"
Why the hell is your grandma worried about which Linux is she going to use? Does she knows about the differences between distros? Just grab her a Fedora or an Ubuntu and get over it.
"Stop being so darn elitist! You want people to use it, then be friendly about it.". No. They will come when they are willing to learn. GNU/Linux is not a shrink-wrapped product - it's a very versatile and configurable tool. And no. I don't want them just to use it. I want them realizing it is a better choice and, if for them it's not, I want them to use whatever makes sense for them. There is Windows and there is OSX. There is a lot of choice around.
"We should be able to point the average Windows user to "Linux", a single cohesive product."
No. Because GNU/Linux is not a single product. It's not even a product. It's, like I said before, an immensely versatile tool backed by a community of fairly bright people. It's made by them and for themselves. If you want to try it, fine. But don't start making suggestions or bossing them around. Did you pay for it? No? Then don't be surprised if they don't feel like they are your employees.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Funny)
Why the hell is your grandma worried about which Linux is she going to use? Does she knows about the differences between distros? Just grab her a Fedora or an Ubuntu and get over it.
Well, on the one hand, Grammy just LOVES BSD-style init, but on the other hand she's a sucker for Ubuntu's easy install and aptitude. Also, Grammy's not happy with Ubuntu's groff only being 1.18.1, and the mom macros she likes work better with 1.19.2. Finally, she has been itching to go all l33t and use gentoo to compile with all the possible flags--she figures that she doesn't have much time left, and so the investment up front in compiling would be worth every cycle down the road.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows users are not used to choice, thus, don't give them any.
WTF? So now I have to give up choice and competition in the OSS field because you want to cater to the lowest common denominator windows user?
If you don't want choice just take Ubuntu. Don't think about it, just take it. It's the most popular distro and it just works, and to make it even better they don't ask you to choose between Gnome and KDE.
But don't take my choices away from me just because you want to have all of yours made for you.
Parent
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Interesting)
Why the hell should we have to? I prefer having a choice. Windows users have plenty of choices when it comes to desktops -- Litestep, emerge, talisman, Aston and many more -- so why shouldn't Linux users? Simple answer: NO.
Clearly what you want is Mac OS X, not Linux. So use it instead of bitching that Linux isn't what you want.
Parent
All your Linux Standard Base are belong to... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, a committee should be responsible for setting standards, similar to how the W3C sets standards for the web.
There is already Linux Standard Base. But what real influence does the LSB Workgroup have in the GNU/Linux ecosystem?
Parent
Re:Linux is like Wikipedia (Score:5, Informative)
> 1. Filesystem metadata/permissions. An example would be that a file should be able to keep a list of all the dates it was accessed.
Makes things slow. Most distros turn off logging the 'atime' (access time) because this requires writing to the disk on every read.
> Why can a file only have one owner/group?
To keep things simple, the GUI is kept this way. You can make it as complicated as want though with Access Control Lists - just like you do in Windows.
For a GUI way to set this, see something like: http://rofi.roger-ferrer.org/eiciel/?s=5
2. Root is God. This must really be fixed. There should be a way for root to irrevocably divest its powers, and root does not need to access users file.
This is called SELinux and is installed with pretty much every distribution. But for what you want, the users should instead use encrypted home directories.
> 3. They lie about everything is a file. Why not extend this to networking resources ('cd http://www.gnu.org/ [gnu.org] would be cool ).
This is called FUSE, and is included with every distribution.
Parent
Re:Linux is like Wikipedia (Score:5, Interesting)
An example would be that a file should be able to keep a list of all the dates it was accessed.
Fixed already. Extra attributes have been available for a long time. Feel free to use them.
Root is God.
Fixed. SELinux.
Why not extend this to networking resources ('cd http://www.gnu.org/ [gnu.org] [gnu.org] would be cool ).
Hard to do in kernel space. We're getting there in user space.
Parent
Re:Mod TFA -1 Offtopic (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent