Linux Needs Critics 1127
An anonymous reader writes "Keir Thomas berates the fact that the world of Linux almost entirely lacks critics. In fact, he says, Linux people tend to see genuine critical evaluation as a bad thing. FTA: 'The problem with this anti-criticism approach is that it's damning Linux to an eternity of navel gazing. Nothing can ever get any better. The best hope we have are the instances where a few bright sparks, with their heads screwed on the right way, get together and make something cool (as happened with, say, Firefox back in the day). But that's rare and can't be relied upon.'"
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me be the first critic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:5, Funny)
No it doesn't. Not at all. Suppose you buy a new printer and find it doesn't work with linux. All you have to do is a post a comment on one of the 100,000 different linux discussion sites asking if someone can't produce a driver for it. And then, magically, just a few weeks later, someone with a name like Songeyong Jooeypop will post one for you to download, and it will even come with excellent install instructions like, "Please to be installing driver software for the printing! Always be remembering to install in correct dir or else to be compiling with kernel property. Happiness first! If problems are having to be had, be writing to me at fnordboi@flqoozlepop.xq"
Uh oh. Did I just criticise linux?
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:5, Insightful)
Being serious for a moment, a large part of the problem with Linux - at least in the "getting more people to adopt it" sense (chicken and egg) - is the fact that Linux developers/proponents tend to be unable to understand that while something is "not their fault", it is still their problem.
For example: I have a DVR box that I put together a few years back. It uses an ATi All-In-Wonder capture board. A "clean rebuild" of the box, including all the recording software and OS (it uses WinXP), takes ~3 hours.
I am consistently told by Linux-using friends that I should "absolutely be using Linux instead", that all Linux software is inherently superior, etc. Yet when trying to install any of the various Linux/MythTV flavors, I've consistently found all sorts of problems. The ATi Remote Wonder doesn't work well for most of them. The recording software either doesn't work at all, or is "spotty at best." Video playback quality is lower.
When I've asked about this on Linux help boards, the response is always the same (and I'm sure I'll get a bunch of raving loons attacking me here for saying so as well): "well it's your fault for having an ATi board you should go spend $$$$$$ on a hauppauge and a nvidia board and buy this and buy that because that's what my box uses and anyways the ati drivers suck because ati sucks."
Now, I recognize that ATi hasn't been as "forthcoming" with driver source / documentation as some other companies. This is where the Linux folks can say it's "not my fault." The reality, though, is that it is a barrier to entry, and therefore it is their problem.
The other problem is that the Linux world lacks consistency. The same command structure, driver package, installation routine often has to be "tweaked" to work - if it works at all - on any given random distribution or even between versions of the same distribution.
Now of course, merely by saying something like this in the open, it's a good chance I'll be branded a Linux heretic. Maybe even a slew of nasty downmods will come my way. After all, criticisms like these are part of the whole "not in front of the goyim" mentality of Linux users whenever there are non-Linux users about.
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude. Just get the nVidia board.
Kidding. Your point is valid -- use the best tool for the job. If you've got an ATI card that works well with Windows but not with Linux, and both OSes provide most of the features you want, then use Windows (assuming the cost of Windows is below the cost of that nVidia card).
Linux remains a server OS. It's coming around very slowly to the desktop and I've no doubt it will get there -- it's doing quite well on the netbooks where people don't want to install everything in their closet: they just want a functional, email-checking, web-surfing laptop and for that almost any OS will do.
Except MacOS X. That only runs on the shiniest of hardware.
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes it is not clear where the problem lies and hence it is not clear how a problem should be solved
/dev/raw1394?
An example: try using Kino to control and download video off a camcorder using Firewire under Ubuntu. There is at least one closed bug about this, yet the problem remains. The Ubuntu team set the raw1394 device to have 600 permissions, so only root can use it (or maybe it is 644, so only root can write to it) because anything else is a security risk. Kino uses the raw1394 device. Where does the problem lie? Is it in Kino for using raw1394? Is it in the kernel for not providing a more suitable 1394 interface that can be used by Kino yet be secure if non-root users can write to it? Or is it in the Ubuntu team for the permissions of
The bottom line for this is that Kino can't be used for a critical task by anyone except a skilled Unix user who is prepared to either use chmod or change the UDEV rules.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone saying Linux lacks consistency is looking at Windows through rose-colored glasses, and possibly
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:4, Funny)
Now, I recognize that ATi hasn't been as "forthcoming" with driver source / documentation as some other companies. This is where the Linux folks can say it's "not my fault." The reality, though, is that it is a barrier to entry, and therefore it is their problem.
Somewhere there's an IRC channel where this post gets linked. "Wow guys," says one Linux hacker, "this dude has a point." "Yeah he does," agrees another. "Let's get right on this. I wonder why we never thought of this before?" In two weeks, a perfectly functional ATI driver is available.
Thanks, Moryath. You've done us all a great service.
We are not magicians (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you realize that the problems introduced by incompatible hardware like this makes Linux have MORE PROBLEMS for that particular user THAN WINDOWS? Why would someone switch to an OS that has more problems than their current OS?
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Well being a programmer myself and using Linux as my main desktop, this is "also" my problem. I'm an end-user as well.
The last irritating things I have found: I just installed opensuse 11, running KDE 4. Well I love it and I don't understand all the fuss around it. Anyway I had to zip several files. I had to send them by email to a client....So simple is it? I openned this new dolhpin. I selected them, right click,actions and then the list appeared:
What kind of paranoid menu is this ? I've got 4 encryption features out of six. I simply need a very simple "compress..." or "Archive" like KDE 3.X to make a simple "zip file" or a tar.gz, I will attach it to my email and that's it. I couldn't find it, so I openned terminal and I typed the proper command line...
See how stupid it is?
Sometimes you feel like what Linux lacks the most is simply "common sense". Sure I will customise that annoying/stupid action submenu when I will have the required time to document myself...But It is truly annoying, even if you are a developer. Some guy out there was so proud of his encryption scheme that he puts 4 commands.
Not all problems are driver related, user-friendliness is also a "big" problem.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem (Score:4, Informative)
I'm running YDL 6.1 which is CentOS based for stability so it's got older packages. So, intrigued by your post, I start up d3lphin,
and right click on a folder and choose Actions. The actions listed are:
Which is slightly more sensible than your actions listing. So obviously someone has been messing with it.
Here's my unedumacated and unsolicited opinion about this. Think of the "average OSS developer", what sort of image springs to your head. It might be something like the following.
uses emacs as their desktop environment from within GNU screen.
uses IRC from within emacs
browses the web within emacs
if they use IM they use a command line client and only use the Jabber protocol.
This is the sort of person who would change an actions dialog to have a half dozen signing/encryption options, because of course, they sign all their mail with gnupg..from within emacs, and want everyone else to use gnupg too. They're just that much privacy oriented that they don't understand why most people don't care, and would rarely, if ever, encypt any folder.
My version of d3lphin lists the developers e-mail address so why don't you contact them and explain how the "average non-developer" would use d3lphin.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the guy said, its *not* the developer's fault but it *IS* their problem.
No it's not. That kind of absurd expectation (that every piece of hardware in the world will work flawlessly, despite the apathy and even animosity of manufacturers) is put on no one else, because it's ridiculous.
Look, it's like this. You buy a doodad, let's say a TV card, from LittleGuyPCI Inc. Try to stick it in your Windows box, it doesn't work. "Goddamn LittleGuy!" Try to stick it in your Mac, it doesn't work. "Goddamn LittleGuy!" Try to stick it in your Linux box, it doesn't work. "Goddamn Linux!"
Do you see a disconnect there anywhere?
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it's like this. You buy a doodad, let's say a TV card, from LittleGuyPCI Inc. Try to stick it in your Windows box, it doesn't work. "Goddamn LittleGuy!" Try to stick it in your Mac, it doesn't work. "Goddamn LittleGuy!" Try to stick it in your Linux box, it doesn't work. "Goddamn Linux!"
Do you see a disconnect there anywhere?
Yes, absolutely. When I stick it into the Windows box, it actually works, so the rest is all meaningless conjecture. ~
Seriously though, I wouldn't say that the problem is "developer's problem", really - this implies that developers care about adoption, which they often do not. But it is a problem of those who wish Linux to be adopted. It doesn't matter whose fault it really is - but if it hinders adoption rate, and you want that to change, then it is your problem; it's really that simple.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If a manufacturer makes a MOBO that doesn't support a type of HDD that PC World is selling, it isn't the manufacturer's fault, but it is their problem. At least, it is their problem if they want more people to buy their MOBOs. If you support a fraction of the hardware out there, you get a fraction of the customers. That fraction consists of people that bought pieces specifically to work with your product and people that just happen to have pieces that work with your product.
Its not about fault. Its about figuring out a goal. If your goal is to get more desktop users to run Linux on their DVR, then available hardware thats incompatible with your software becomes your problem. It becomes a challenge you have to overcome to reach your goal.
As far as linux spreading on the desktop, I couldn't guess at how many developers actually have a goal of making an OS for the average desktop user. I've spoken with a few that set goals of making the platform stable, or fast, or capable of doing a specific task they are interested in. All of that is fine and, I believe, necessary. But if there are people that actually want linux to gain market share on the desktop, they will have to face the problems of achieving that goal, even if its not their fault the problems exist.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem (Score:4, Insightful)
*SIGH.*
There are three possible reactions to finding out that a piece of hardware doesn't work with an OS (that you are trying to convince other people to use):
#1 - Write the drivers yourself (doable if you're a code-monkey, not doable for the majority of people, even the majority of Linux users).
#2 - Convince the company that made the product to write the drivers.
#3 - Run around screaming about how much the company "sucks", and what an "idiot" anyone who bought the hardware (using another OS where the support is present) is for buying hardware that isn't supported under an OS they probably had no intention of running.
Most Linux guys tend to go with #3. Unfortunately, the reality is that #3 not only does nothing to help get new users into your platform, but actually causes them to turn away from it on the basis that "those guys are fucking nuts."
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:5, Insightful)
But what you are saying is exactly what his point is, if I have it right.
You don't care if Linux works right for someone else. However, if Linux proponents want people to adopt their OS of choice, they have to deal with the fact that they have to do more than provide their part of the bargain. They have to go the extra mile to make it work for *the other person*.
Is it fair? No. But fairness doesn't matter in the slightest. It's not really fair that Microsoft has to support legacy junk too, but they do in their own crappy way.
People want their stupid video card or whatever to simply work. It doesn't have to work perfectly, but it does need to actually be installable and functional with no more than a reasonable effort. We need to face the fact that Microsoft, for all their piles of fail, has set the bar for compatibility that Linux needs to follow if the goal is to increase share of general purpose PCs out there, especially desktop workstations.
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:4, Insightful)
The basic problem is that most Linux advocates are not themselves developers. They have to support the developers through bug reports, free hardware, bugging manufacturers for documentation, etc.
A little tale of an epic Linux fail (Score:4, Interesting)
Some couple of years ago, Brazil's government cut taxes for "popular" computers - low-end machines that came with Linux out-of-the-box. The idea was to create a competitive atmosphere and offer a cheap alternative to Windows XP.
This was an epic fail. The UI was so badly done - obviously by a Linux nerd who spent too much time in his life with fluxbox, that Linux looked, 2 years ago, something out of the stone age.
Massive uninstalls was what happened. A great time for computer technicians to install XP.
You talk to people who used those out-of-the-box Linux and they shudder just to hear about it. They describe it as something terribly outdated. The other day I was talking to a sales guys at the audio/video section at FNAC (a French chain also present in Brazil). I told him he should install Linux on one the PlayStation 3 units and show people how flexible the PS3 is - you get a BluRay DVD player, a video game that's the best on the market AND a nice operating system for the home. Do you know what he said? "Oh, but isn't Linux kinda old - it looks very old." Of course, I was thinking about gorgeous Englightement TerraSoft used on PS3's, but he was thinking about the pathetic thingies he saw.
Now, you might not care about killing a niche for Linux on a big market, but many people do. But when linux developers act like autistic nerds (when they're not autistic), then it's suicidal.
See: http://www.linux.com/articles/59637 [linux.com]
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Thank you for proving my point so well with your vitriolic, hate-spewing post.
The stated goal - at least from a large portion of the linux community - is to see as many people using Linux as possible. Even as "volunteers" and "freeloaders", it is to Linux's advantage to try to reach this goal. The more market share that Linux has, the more support that they should see from software and hardware developers in the form of things like more open sourcing of drivers, better relationships with vendors (perhaps convincing companies to ship computers with Linux rather than Windows for example), and in terms of companies being willing to produce Linux-centric versions of their game (or in the case of MMO's, their game client). In other words, if Linux gets to a critical mass, then problems like "hey, Video Board X doesn't work in Distro Y Funkey Monkey" will be much easier to address.
Functionally, however, this is a "chicken and the egg" issue. At its current market share, and given the way many so-called "linux advocates" behave towards companies that don't do exactly what they want at the drop of a hat, I can understand why there are companies out there not handing out their design documents and driver source code. Linux zealots have burned a lot of bridges, made a lot of enemies, and generally made asses of themselves at just the wrong time during many points in Linux's history.
Again: whether this is what you, personally, have done may have bearing on whether it is "your fault." The fact remains that whose "fault" it is, in terms of support and in terms of making Linux friendly enough to get that coveted "critical mass" of market share where the various companies all start having to play along or else risk losing sales, is completely irrelevant.
Linux, IF you want it to reach that "critical mass" market share point, needs to reach a certain bar of compatibility. This doesn't mean that it needs to be compatible with everything known to mankind, but it DOES mean that you need to support, say, the major product lines of the "big three" video board market share holders (NVidia, ATi, Intel), the "big three" styles of audio card (built-in AC'97, Realtek, Creative), and so on. And these need to work without users having to go hunt down some obscure repository, post to 5 messageboard forums, and then follow instructions written like "well obviously you have to bleep fraggle this and sudo command toggle bashznz that and then it'll work, what kind of a lame n00b are you if you don't understand that."
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:4, Insightful)
The FOSS community has no "stated goals", so this certainly can't be one of them. Parts of the community have specific goals, for example the FSF wants Free Software everywhere, Debian wants to make the most technically excellent distribution possible, and I want to solve my problems.
To a lot of people actually doing the work, market share doesn't matter, and the sooner that you (and people who think that a goal should be market share) understand this, the happier and less frustrated you will be.
While there's certainly nothing wrong with having a goal of having more market share, but you can't force your goals onto other people.
Re:Let me be the first critic (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Has the author of TFA looked at any linux websites or even /.? Linux has a wonderful bug list, most Linux forums are full of complaints and problems that need to be solved and our own /. community that has its fair share articles, and subsequent comments, registering the complaints and comparisons of various aspects of linux and its distributions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they are critical of their own code, but that isn't the same thing. Everybody will see their own creation through some form of rose coloured glasses. For a critic to truely be good and viable, they need to not only understand what and how it is working, but what and how it is broken, not from the first person, but from a third person perspective. That 3rd person perspective helps give validity to arguments and is more likely to point out things that developers don't catch. There is such thing as being
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as well. I can't think of anyone else even remotely qualified to critically evaluate the Linux kernel.
OK, so I'm being a bit pedantic, but not very. The author of TFA says he is not a programmer, and I believe him. That means he is a user of applications, which he doesn't take the trouble to name, other than to make indirect reference to Ubuntu and Firefox. His gripe with Ubuntu seems to be that the latest release doesn't have enough shiny things in it, and who knows what he's done to his Firefox installation.
He does, however, have a point when he says that "The danger with all open source projects is that the developers become too dominant, and spend all their effort making the software 'just so'--conforming to an ideological principle only they appreciate".
I'm sure all of us (if we're honest) can think of pet peeves with some of the open-source developers' more capriciously craniorectal idiocies in just about any non-trivial project. This has nothing to do with Linux, and is a failing equally shared with closed-source software.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. What a strange article.
I would even go so far as to say that Linux (and the Free Software ecosystem that surrounds it) has a lot more critics than closed software - or at least more effective critics.
Large software companies pay PR departments to generate positive coverage. Most Open Source projects have no PR effort behind them at all. So criticism of the software is less likely to be drowned out by astroturf.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
"Most of the time the world of Linux tends to be anti-critical. If anybody in the community dares be critical, they get stomped upon."
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. What a strange article.
You say that as though you've read it.
I would even go so far as to say that Linux (and the Free Software ecosystem that surrounds it) has a lot more critics than closed software - or at least more effective critics.
Large software companies pay PR departments to generate positive coverage. Most Open Source projects have no PR effort behind them at all. So criticism of the software is less likely to be drowned out by astroturf.
RTFA -- he doesn't mean criticism == slagging off, he means criticism as is "critical evaluation". What Linux has is a lot of slaggers and very few critical evaluators. All the deconstruction of design decisions are carried out by the dev guys -- there is no detached observer.
HAL.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, no, I really have no problem with criticism of Linux. The article is strange because he thinks there's a currently a lack of criticism, whereas I see tons of it everywhere.
Somehow the author seems to have missed the copious blog posts, mailing list messages, software reviews, and competitor astroturf all criticising Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a BIG difference between criticism and spreading fear and propaganda.
If a clued in person can't take the "criticism" in it's raw form, plug it into the relevant bug tracker and have that be meaningful then it's not really "criticism".
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Developers may be critical of their own code, but they see it from their view, not from the view of the users. I've seen many cases where bug reports were "written off" or were closed and the developers' responses were either, "We're not going to implement that because it's too much work," (even when the bug or issue or request has a lot of votes) or some other excuse that indicates they're trying to just write it off, but don't see how important it is to others.
It's the case that those inside looking out are talking about how great they are, but often they refuse to listen to those outside looking in. It's the same issue with Windows. Linuxers wonder how people can think Windows is so good, but it's because people in that world ignore external criticism. Linux and FOSS developers are they same way, they just pretend they aren't: They listen to the criticisms that match their views and ignore or write off those they don't want to hear.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Linux is that yes there are critics... BUT the Linux community dismisses them as twits who don't understand or appreciate Linux...
If the Linux community were to take end users seriously and start solving their problems then maybe Linux would move on...
Here is a simple question, why on earth when I have multiple applications that need the sound card have problems sharing the sound card? Who on freaken earth thought that one out...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux needs more NON-GEEK critics. We all know techies are going to be critical of the software; however, if they really want the "Year of Linux" they need to listen to more people like my computer illiterate mother to be critical. Trying to explain to the average whose been using Windows their entire life that, "the command prompt is just so much easier" typically results in an awkward, blank stare...
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Being critical of your own code doesn't mean you're open to criticism. And IMO the article is right on the spot.
If I were to say Linux sucks because it doesn't have X or Y, most Linux users/developers would just reply that I should code it myself or shut up.
On the other hand most of the same people would consider it acceptable to criticize Windows in the same manner just because it's closed source.
Some of us just want to use them as tools, and not extend them every time something's missing. The tired and old reply of "code it yourself" just goes on further to spread the notion that the tool you're trying to use may soon become a source of more work for you, instead of a solution.
Free is no excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I totally agree. Linux has many, many critics, from users, "prousers / powerusers", developers, and other corporations e.g. M$ (although agreed, these are more often just attacks.)
Where I thought his article was very insightful, however, was the typical response "Linux is free..." where I agree with his analysis. This, however, reflects on us, the Linux community. I cringe when I see somebody say, "It is free, what do you expect?" or "you have no right to complain." Users have every right to (nonabusively and in a civil fashion) criticize software.
If Debian (stable) suddenly stopped working, my organization would lose thousands of person-hours of lost productivity. In many ways, doing somebody a half-favor is often worse than doing them nothing at all:
Imagine if I volunteered to repair your garage, but then did a half-assed job and quit halfway through. It would cost you MORE in the end to clean up and switch to another provider. Would it be then ok to say "I did that for FREE, how can you complain?"
Obviously this is a continuum, and many of the criticisms are unfounded or just whining. But, as a whole, if we want Linux to continue to succeed we, as developers and users alike, should listen and respond constructively ourselves to any (also constructive) criticism that is provided by the community.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
That assumes that you either know the language the kernel or a program is written in, AND have the time to investigate and make the change. Often even professional coders don't have the time to make all the changes to FOSS programs they'd like.
I know it sounds like a good argument for FOSS, but in reality, only a small, and I mean very small, percentage of users, actually have the resources to make changes in a FOSS program.
That's like saying, "This is great for 3% of all users out there so EVERYONE should use it because of that." It totally ignores the needs of 97% of all users.
No wonder there's a problem with criticism for Linux and FOSS: those involved are too busy being right and making statements that make sense to themselves to take time to listen to what most users can actually use or would need.
All users benefit from FOSS (Score:5, Insightful)
You are ignoring the fact that 100% of the users benefit from improvements made by the few that have the time and resources to get involved with the code.
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
The option of offering constructive criticism should be there as well, but, with the understanding that if a developer is not working towards linux gaining a larger share of the desktop market, there's no reason for them to listen to constructive criticism. They should either hack it to do what they want, or wait for someone to pay them to develop.
If the developer is interested in linux being adopted by average end users more often, then the constructive criticism needs to be accepted and dealt with. Not meaning do everything everybody says, but at least accept it as constructive criticism and look at ways of overcoming the problem that the criticism highlights.
I think a lot of the people that say "Linux should do XYZ to make it more popular!" don't realize that not everyone is working towards the same goal. If average end-user adoption is not a goal, then the opinions of average end-users don't really matter and the (hack|pay|be grateful) options make sense.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet no.
I change things occasionally. This instantly creates what I'll call a "dead fork".
You send the code back, maybe it gets incorporated into the project, but maybe not. If not, then your custom addition is a perpetual pain in the ass, because you'll have to add it back in every time you update the software.
God help you if you move on, because all the people trying to support your stuff will have more trouble with those changed apps than anything else you leave.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
Only if you happen to be a programmer and have no life.
I'm on slashdot posting about the fact that if you don't like linux you can change it. it's a given isn't it ?
They are in there (Score:5, Insightful)
The critics in open source world are the young ones that get a big head one day and call your project stupid because it uses language X instead of their favorite language. Then they fork the code, write their own crappy software, get some distribution to decide to use it and then the original project gets dumped one day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Could you give some examples? I don't feel like googling for "young one complain language foss project crappy fork code get distro use".
Ok dammit I just did, first result was your parent comment.
I criticized Linux.... (Score:5, Funny)
...and all I got was this lousy mod rating
Re:I criticized Linux.... (Score:4, Insightful)
What about BugTracker websites or discussion forums that expose software warts to the general public? Doesn't posting to these count as criticizing? Sure, the mass media doesn't track these issues because they are generally not very exciting, but I'd think the unexciting bug reports are more a symptom that these software projects are either not extensively used (which I know is false for FireFox, Ubuntu, OpenOffice, and Apache) or that they're stable "done" products. Responding to the accusaction that "things can never get better", I'd agree. The products I just named are damned good. Let them stagnate. I like the way current versions work.
And if you'd like criticism... I'll give you some. Linux has piss-poor support for high-definition video editing software. The last time I investigated this was 6 months ago and no suitable tools were available that could run on my 3 year old laptop. Now, I know this might be symptomatic of my lack of processing power... but the same computer loaded with Windows was able to run a video editing product from Ulead to do high definition video editing in 2006, so I'd hope that sometime soon this capability becomes available for Linux.
Thank you.
Agreed. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit, the fanbois are making me homicidal.
I LOVE Linux. I love plain old Unix. I love the command line, and the cryptic commands, and man pages, and lynx and apt/yum. I like X windows and MC. I love building from source. The whole environment is clean, somehow. It's got a sort of serenity for me that I don't see very often in my job.
And yet...It's just a tool. It's a good tool. It's my favorite tool. But it's just a tool. There is room for improvement, and, like any tool, there are places where it's not useful.
The thing that drives me nuts is the pure unthinking zealotry. I got started on old proprietary unix, and while linux has more zest and more wild features, there are things that were worthwhile in the old systems. But if you say that, then you get slapped down as a heretic.
Everything benefits from criticism, so in that sense, he's right, but really Linux has plenty of critics. Install linux for someone who is used to something else, and you'll get plenty of criticisms. What I think Linux needs is the same thing I think Mac needs and Windows needs: the people on the inside need to start listening to people who aren't already sold on their product. We have just as many fanbois as the Mac and Windows people, and we've got some of that persecution complex that makes the fanbois extra loathesome.
Just calm down, take a breath, go use something different for a while. Get some perspective. The real zealots make it harder for me to sell *nix solutions to the phbs because they're coming to expect a bias.
Re:Agreed. (Score:5, Funny)
HERETIC!
Oh I'm sorry, this is abuse. Arguments is in 12a.
Re:Agreed. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just Linux though, it's just the fanboy attitude in general.
The fanboy mindset is an odd one. You defend something you love or attack something you hate no matter how little you owe the company or creators, in fact, if you paid for it, they fucking owe you and if they did a shit job then yes they should hear about it. If as an example scenario Nintendo mess something up in a Wii update then people should have every right to complain about it and voice their frustration at the problem - fanboys telling them to stop whining or shut up achieves what? It lets the company get away easier with not fixing a problem. Surely pressuring companies into fixing problems is in everyones interests even if it doesn't effect you personally right now it might in future!
I know OSS is a different beast, people do it off their own backs in their spare time, but as the saying goes, if a jobs worth doing it's worth doing right. What's the point developing an application and releasing it along with the source code for everyone to use if no one wants to use it because you wont listen to their criticisms?
The problem is this, people take criticism as a personal attack even if it's just a product they purchased that someone is complaining about. Similarly people write code are often defensive in the face of criticism.
But you have to step back and look at why you're doing it, if you are just developing something for yourself and release it as a courtesy but without a care of what other people think then yeah, no problem just ignore the criticism and put a note up along with the downloads saying "Not interested in feedback". If you are developing it with the aim of user adoption then you have to accept criticism, sure not all is valid but sometimes we see projects where nearly the entire userbase is up in arms and are still ignored! If half the userbase is up in arms and half are defensive of a change then make it an option but convince people to move over to the change by making it worthwhile and phase it out. Don't just ignore half your fanbase and cut a popular feature out outright!!
Linux does need it's critics, everyone producing something needs their critics in fact. They're valuable for continued improvement and sure sometimes they come up with idiotic ideas but other times it's you, the developer that doesn't understand what your user actually wants and the sooner all developers accept this the better. I know full well I can write good code, I know full well I can design applications, but what I can't ever possibly claim to know is what my users want because I am not them.
Re:Agreed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to be too critical, but it sure reads as if you also needs to calm down and take a breath. Fanboism [urbandictionary.com] has been around long before there was linux, unix, or even computers for that matter. And don't get me wrong, I too at times need to step back and simply ignore the illogical rants from all sides.
I read TFA and Keir's blog post [pcworld.com] to which he was referring and all I can say to Keir is that he needs to grow thicker skin. If he intends to continue as a journalist on any topic he'll need to train himself to ignore the rants that make no sense.
In reading the responses in his blog post I'd say he had comments from the open source user community but absolutely no comments from the open source developer community. And he had plenty of Apple and Windows fainbois joining in for some perverse circle jerking so I don't see any basis for the wide stroke with which he paints the open source community.
What Keir needs to understand is that criticism of open source is not going to be focused and centralized on his personal blog, it takes place within the developer community and all one has to do is read the archives of the mailing lists to see the flames of debate that take place within the developer community.
As far as convincing your PHB goes, I'd suggest you hit him up with the language he understands, fixed costs, gross margins, return on investment, pay back, etc. If he is making business decisions based on some end user's wailing on an obscure journalist blog you have much bigger problems than fanbois who get you tweaked.
So lets all just chill and let the fanbois be fanbois.
I hear lots of negative criticism about Linux. (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly from uneducated haters, but there's no lack of it.
Oh, and in lots of cases, it IS ready for the desktop. Either in a managed environment with a guru at the top, for those who know what they're doing, and for locked down spoon fed distros.
Re:I hear lots of negative criticism about Linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that most critics are dismissed summarily as people who don't understand *nix properly. This is where the "snob" syndrome comes into play.
I took a RHEL class a while back, and the teacher (who was FROM Red Hat) spent ample amounts of time talking about BSOD and other stupid things, most of which I looked at him and just wondered, why didn't he check XYZ, because that would have solved his issue. No, instead, he went off on a rant about how useless Windows was.
It's no wonder that Linux fans can't take criticism, when a lot of their nature is built up to bash other OSes. Mac gets a pass because it has a bash terminal, but in reality no real security (see: Pwn2Own), and Windows is the giant on the hill that gets bashed regularly. Occasionally I'll see a Slashdotter here mention that IIS is a pretty decent product or something slightly complimentary, only to be modded down as flamebait.
And Linux has critics? Please. The critics TFA is talking about is more about code, it's about 'the whole package'. And while *nix on the server side is something I'd readily deploy for database backends, for web farms, for much more -- there's no way in hell I'd deploy it on an enterprise desktop because it's simply not ready to be used or administered.
But I'll expect my bad mod rating shortly, arguing that *nix fans have lots of critics, and that I'm simply one more of the "uneducated" ones.
Re:I hear lots of negative criticism about Linux. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hear lots of negative criticism about Linux. Mostly from uneducated haters, but there's no lack of it.
My problem is the opposite, uneducated Linux developers. I'll submit a bug asking for feature parity with Windows or OS X and get a response back that clearly misunderstands how those OS's work. I then spend a week educating the person and explaining to them why (from and end user perspective) the way Linux does things now really isn't better and what the other OS in question does. In the the end they usually agree, it would be cool to improve Linux to work that way, but too much work or would be incompatible with other distros, so they ignore it.
Alternately, I submit a usability bug (I have worked as a UI/usability expert in the past) and then spend hours trying to explain to a server engineer working on making a desktop, why their design ignores all the research in the field and (if they did testing) is going to be a huge problem when they test it.
Don't get me wrong. I like and use Linux. In many ways it has leapt ahead of other OS's and provides a model for them to follow. It just does have some serious flaws and problems that have gone unaddressed for a long time and don't seem likely to be fixed anytime soon.
Oh, and in lots of cases, it IS ready for the desktop. Either in a managed environment with a guru at the top, for those who know what they're doing, and for locked down spoon fed distros.
I agree it can work and save money in certain uses.
Re:I hear lots of negative criticism about Linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
I realise this is beside the point, but that's the exact same situation with Windows. In any given corporate environment, for example, there are a handful of people who know what they're doing, and then the slavering masses who know nothing and are constantly screwing things up until someone decides to lock down the desktops.
Considering how quickly the average user can completely obliterate a Windows box without even trying, it amazes me that anyone can say Windows is "desktop-ready" while something like Ubuntu isn't.
Half the problem in this particular area isn't the choice of OS -- it's that users aren't ready for the desktop.
Critics (Score:5, Funny)
On the positive side, there are more Linux critics than Mac critics.
If you are critical of Linux, you are just berated.
If you are critical of Mac, you are mobbed, beaten, lynched and never allowed to buy a cappuccino again.
Er (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you've heard some of the non fanboi mac users rant..
They are brutal
Especially about the OS X finder which while working isn't where it needs to be yet.
Don't get them started on the Dock.
Like Dividing By Zero (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux Needs Critics
Oh how true that is. I myself love to criticize things (I'm reading Slashdot, after all). But why don't I constructively criticize Linux?
I think a lot of has to do with what every argument or analysis starts with: base assumptions. So let's start with comparing Linux to the leading commercial operating systems and the most important thing to consumers--price. And the guy mentions this in his blog. But we can't get to questions like "Is feature X really worth Y dollars to me?" Because Linux does not cost money to install. It's like dividing by zero. It makes criticism of a missing component difficult because it doesn't cost me anything! How can I criticize it?! You will see people like Steve Ballmer have to dig and dig into imaginary costs of retraining, supporting and maintaining Linux to give it a "hidden cost" so that Windows can even begin to contend with Linux in price (you'll notice these concerns were suspiciously left out of advertisements when discussing the switch from XP to Vista).
Another important aspect of operating systems (at least to me) is security. And, being a pedantic ass, I cannot even comment on the security of the Microsoft operating system because I have no idea what they are doing. I can get the Linux source code pretty quickly if I felt the need to understand why it is that the userspace/kernelspace concept has failed (although, I have never done this, the option is there). So, again, we enter this point where I can't even get to criticizing Linux for susceptibility to a botnet or trojan because it doesn't practice security through obfuscation like leading operating systems.
On top of this, as a Linux user (and as evidenced above) my priorities and performance parameters are all out of whack and completely divorced from the mainstream (or so my perception goes). If they weren't, I would be using Windows primarily at home.
So I think that unless more free open source operating systems arise to compete with Linux, criticism will remain low. And you've got the cult barrier to break down where people have lived with the burden of paying out their ass for software so how can you criticize something after suffering for so long under the blah blah blah religious spiel blah blah blah.
The problem is more complicated... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is full of critics (Score:5, Insightful)
There is plenty of disagreement about every aspect of Linux. The kernel, the GUI, the apps, everything. And if you examined Linux, or a distro you aren't familiar with, you would probably find something you didn't like about it and you are quite free to criticise it.
Linux has no deficiency of people who criticise and no deficiency of people who listen and act on it.
Windows has no deficiency of people who criticise and a seemingly complete deficiency of people who listen and act on it.
MacOSX has worse than deficiency of people who criticise as they have people who actively criticise the critics and even attempt to silence them. MacOSX has a deficiency of people who listen and act on it. ...just to put it out the way I see it.
Bullshit... (Score:5, Funny)
...Linux is above criticism. What we actually need is a: "-1, Microsoft fanboy" mod... or how about "-1, Dissing Linux"... or even better "-1, Heresy"...
What Linux needs is (Score:4, Insightful)
More developers that can handle being criticized.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who are the ones that can't? I spend a bit of time of freenode with other developers of many different open source projects. If I go into a channel and ask why some feature works a certain way or why something is missing or broken, I generally get a response that they could use help in fixing the issue.
Maybe Linux needs more trolling journalists? (Score:3, Interesting)
From mailing lists and public bug trackers, my sense is that there are plenty of critics, and they are frequently able to find the right place to criticize.
I think that the extent of criticism within the system reduces the need for lobbying in the press to get your pet peeve addressed.
o... k... (Score:3, Insightful)
"...Linux people tend to see genuine critical evaluation as a bad thing."
Ok first of all, are we talking about users or developers? Because if we're talking about developers I doubt he's ever read one of Torvalds gentle mails about piece of code he doesn't like. And if we're talking about users I would like to have him sit down with my mother when I first installed Ubuntu on her PC. Do that and then come tell me there's no critisism towards Linux.
Critcism == "Wrong vs. Right" (Score:5, Funny)
In order to critique something you must have a baseline of what is correct and what is incorrect. The only thing incorrect in the linux/GNU OSes are coding bugs, not design features, and I think we have enough coders critiquing linux/GNU in that way. If the author wishes a community to criticize Linux, I think he should pick a distro and start there.
You should look into linuxhaters (Score:5, Informative)
Let me attempt to summarize. A) PulseAudio needs to work with existing applications, so it implements an ALSA emulation layer, except, it's not complete. Only 70% of ALSA applications work. So it's like, totally ready. B) So, in the true open source fashion, you should port your app to be a native PulseAudio client. Except that you can't. There's this yet-another-audio-library called libsidney, but it's not ready yet. (Hmm, this sounds familiar...) C) Fedora led the way in incorporating PulseAudio before it was ready, breaking audio for thousands of users. Then because open source is about copying good ideas and bad ones, a ton of other distros adopted it as well. Amazing guys. In a way, you've spread bad code that breaks audio on thousands of computers faster than a virus could have. And it's immune to antivirus! D) so now that we're in this "mess" (as the lead developer of PulseAudio calls it*), LSB comes along and says "we're going to standardize how your write audio apps!" Oh, but wait, ALSA's now "old" (we hardly knew ye), and I can't directly program PulseAudio. Hmm... So the article's brilliant solution? Standardize on the PulseAudio-safe subset of ALSA. WHAT THE FUCK. I can just imagine the future alsa man page. A big listing of functions, with a nice little asterisk next to those functions that you shouldn't use unless you want your app to totally FAIL on a system which has been sodomized by Pulse Audio. I can just see the developers of commercial Linux sound apps (all three of them) jumping for joy. And thus unfolds another chapter in long history of failed sound systems on Linux. Can they make it much worse? I, for one, am excited to see how much worse they can make it until we all go back to listening to square waves on our PC speakers. * BTW, also notice that it's the PulseAudio guy calling Linux audio a mess. Did he forget that it was his project that took the existing mess, and unloaded a giant steaming turd on it? Congratufuckinglations. You've just made it worse. You're a truly a worthy OSS contributor.
He's pretty harsh, but he always has a point behind it.
Re:You should look into linuxhaters (Score:5, Interesting)
For some reason which I have yet to understand, they picked option 2 and ALSA was born. Meanwhile, FreeBSD just kept OSS in the tree and kept up to date with (backwards-compatible) improvements to the API (and ABI). To play a sound on FreeBSD I (as a developer) open /dev/dsp, issue ioctls to set the sample rate, number of channels, and so on, and then write the data there. In total, it's around five lines of code (less if you want the default sample rate and number of channels) and uses the standard UNIX system calls so I don't need to link (and worry about the existence of) any libraries. Starting with FreeBSD 4, the kernel did mixing in software if the sound card didn't support it. Starting with FreeBSD 5 (around 2003), the kernel would automatically assign new virtual channels whenever a new app opened /dev/dsp. With FreeBSD 8 (7 if you add some out-of-tree patches) each vchan gets its own volume control and the mixing performance is improved with a new fixed-point algorithm.
Now let's compare this to Linux. On Linux, the OSS APIs may work. For some value of 'work,' because there are four different ways in which OSS may be implemented on Linux:
In some of these cases, only one program can be using the OSS device at once. In others, you get proper sound mixing. In the OSS 4 configuration, you get per-vchan volume controls. Most Linux systems, however, ship with ALSA. Unlike OSS, which is supported on *BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, and so on, ALSA is Linux-only. It is also very poorly documented. Because ALSA isn't ubiquitous (and for a long time didn't handle mixing), a lot of systems started shipping with userspace sound daemons, which did this mixing. These all came with their own APIs, their own client libraries, and a complete inability to work together.
The Linux solution to this mess? Add another userspace sound daemon, but this time call it 'standard'.
Don't ignore critics (Score:4, Insightful)
April Fools? (Score:5, Insightful)
Has this dude visited any community involving Linux users... ever?
The standard general Linux criticisms:
1. Driver support. Usually from a lack of manufacturer support.
2. No central focus on meeting business needs (tech support). This complaint is changing with such a large amount of development occurring with programmers employed by business communities for open source development.
3. Have to give up favorite Windows programs (apps & games). This improves over time, but yes, it is a different environment, again with a different historical focus.
Plus lots more, like programmer IDEs, look & feel issues, etc., etc. Criticisms, constructive or otherwise are everywhere Linux is discussed, including countless published sources.
I've certainly encountered folks with an unconstructive beef against Linux who make complaints that it gets unfair praise for being mediocre, merely catching up to Microsoft. With those folks, yes, complaints are sometimes muted because the target of their ire is usually changing so often that their rants are stale before they speak them - so they can become embarrassed by being contradicted in the heat of a discussion too often. But even then, such complaints are still extremely commonplace in both print and online.
I really don't understand where this dude is coming from.
Ryan Fenton
No, Linux needs... (Score:3, Insightful)
...adherents and users who will accept and will act upon constructive criticism. Generally, any constructive criticism of Linux is answered in three ways:
1. "We're not here to help newbs figure out how Linux works, do the research and solve the problem yourself."
2. "There is no problem, that's the way it's supposed to work, Linux is not (Windows, OSX,....)
3. "Yes there is a problem, but Linux is open source so fix it yourself."
To prove my point, I will be modded down.
Linux Hater (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is quite right; there is too much groupthink and myopia. The Linux Hater's blog [blogspot.com] is a must-read as an antidote to all that, and he or she has some useful points to make. The articles on Linux Weekly News still have a Linux-centric viewpoint, naturally, but usually aren't afraid to point out shortcomings (especially when quoting the latest Linus flaming on the kernel list).
constructive Criticism. (Score:5, Insightful)
I critisize Linux all the time, and I try and criticize it for very good reasons.
Let me give you an example.
The most wide spread Groupware Suite that is freely availible in the Linux world to challenge Exchange that I can see is eGroupware. eGroupware is an excellent suite in my opinion. Now. Linux has three dedicated Groupware Clients. Kontact, which is part of KDE-PIM. Evolution, which is part of Gnome, and Thunderbird.
Now. To do anything with eGroupware other than E-mail you need XML-RPC.
Kontact has XML-RPC Support, but it has a nasty bug where if it becomes De-Synchronized, it will respawn the same events on the Calendar over and over.
Evolution has no XML-RPC support. You can rig up GroupDAV
Mozilla Sunbird has no XML-RPC Support.
What does it say about Linux's productivity-ware when two of the three Groupware clients produced by Linux developers cannot communicate with its intended native Groupware servers?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Says that the OSS community doesn't really care about Groupware, which is something I've been saying for years and years.
How I'd love to drop Exchange for good. Wow, what a dream. And people always go nuts when you say something like, "I had to have Exchange."
They say stupid shit like, "D00d U shuld use Evolution," which just misses the entire point of Exchange...
Sigh. Old rant. Anyway, I agree with you. To throw stones at another sacred cow, fricking OpenOffice still needs a lot of work. Exchange, Office,
Re: (Score:3)
Not to say that Linux doesn't have problems (they do: see ALSA/PulseAudio, open source video drivers for anything that's nVidia, lack of open-source firmware for wireless networking support). The problem with labeling groupware problems as "Linux problems" is that they're really not. They're larger than Linux.
Evolution, Kontact, and Thunderbird all run under multiple operating systems, including Windows. Would you say that it's a "Windows problem" if these programs can't do XML-RPC? No, you wouldn't.
The
Linux loves critics (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux just doesn't love critics who won't roll up their sleeves and fix things.
Ideas are cheap.
Re:Linux loves critics (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is precisely why Linux doesn't get much penetration outside of techies. I'm not saying it's wrong, but that's why Linux is NOT on the desktop.
So if the goal is Linux on the desktop then that attitude has got to change.
Needs PAID critics - and PAID developers (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some things that simply won't be corrected out of love of the subject. Heck, some of those things won't even be found (and reported).
What a successful software company does that can ONLY be done by PAYING people is persuade people to analyze & create requirements, code, test, and fix ALL of the system. Yeah, the OSS community does most of it pretty well, but they simply won't do it as pervasively or as rigorously as needed unless motivated to, which usually comes in the form of being PAID (to wit: be able to eat).
This is why corporations pay managers: people who are responsible for figuring out what all actually needs to be done, paying other people to get it done, and confirming that it actually has been done. Managers are paid critics who are on the hook for following thru on their criticism. Much of the success of Linux comes precisely from companies like Ubuntu, Red Hat, IBM, Mozilla, and others who actually do pay people to get those annoying unpopular little things right.
In contrast, we end up with the situation that keeps driving me away from Linux: stuff that I need to work just doesn't, and nobody has sufficient motivation to announce the problem, and nobody has sufficient motivation to fix the problem even if known. So instead, I go to someplace like Apple & friends, who - being PAID - are fanatical about making every little thing right (ok, they make mistakes too, but are more motivated to find & fix the little things).
Hence the ultimate failing of "free software": like it or not, money motivates people to do necessary but unpopular jobs, including finding & fixing software flaws.
Poppycock (Score:4, Insightful)
There's tons of critics of Linux. They are writing tons of articles critical of Linux. If you take a look at who they are, they are mostly columnists who for one reason or another have a vested interest in writing articles favorable to Windows or Mac OS. Unsurprisingly enough, most of the critics of Windows or Mac OS are, if not Linux users, then users of the other of these three operating systems (get it? Kind of convoluted, sorry.) And you will see tons of criticism of Linux and various Linux distributions right here on Slashdot (check my posting history, heh.)
Telling (Score:4, Insightful)
I like how the first tag on this story is "flamebait."
Linux isn't ready (Score:3, Insightful)
Fact is Linux isn't ready. Period. STILL.
Before I go much further, let me just say that Linux has come a long way and is getting very close. But it has been this way for years.
The problems that exist are still fundamental, and aren't being addressed. I'm a normal computer professional, and I know a thing to two from my nearly 30 years of computing.
My story summary, DRIVER PROBLEMS:
I was building a big RAID box using a nice SATA Controller and a bunch of gig SATA drives. I got Ubuntu fully installed and then the fun began. I got the open source drivers from the Company and went to compile them for the kernel. The compiler errored out because Ubuntu is using a different build system than the script was expecting.
No problem, I know enough to edit the script and get the driver to compile and build right. Except the driver only sort of works. The whole system crashed for no reason (sitting idle) several times, but not kernel crash, just Gnome crash. Telnet still worked, and I could shutdown -r the server and it would reboot. Without the driver loaded, the system was rock solid, with the driver it was flakey as hell. Again, not a kernel issue, just Gnome crashing.
After several days of futzing with the setup, I grabbed a Windows Server disk and loaded it, installed the drivers and it hasn't had a hiccup once.
I REALLY wanted Linux to work, and I really tried everything I knew how to do to get it to work. And yes, it might be a "driver" problem. But the average user isn't going to say it is a driver problem, they are going to say it is a Linux problem. It is a Linux problem when stuff that is supposed to work, doesn't.
Now the driver in question had installers for Debian, Redhat, SuSE and FreeBSD, but not for Ubuntu. Shouldn't Linux be Linux? Three different flavors of Linux, and each requires its own installer? And why did I have to edit a install script to build the module at all?
Again, this isn't a bash against Linux itself, as I use it all the time for all sorts of things. But I run into issues all the time where stuff just doesn't work right, or at all, or I have to spend three days futzing trying to get it to work.
I tend to return to Mac and Windows to actually get stuff done, because I don't have to fight the system to work right.
These types of problems have come along way from the early days of Linux. But they still are there. And blaming the Driver manufacturer for the problems isn't good enough. It isn't the driver's fault that they have to make three or more versions to cover all the distributions out there.
It still needs a lot of work, and often in the same areas that needed work 5 years ago.
The problem with Linux criticism (Score:5, Funny)
Things usually go like this:
Why does Linux HAVE to be better? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with the premise that Linux lacks critics. What may be lacking is a certain degree of understanding on the part of Linux fans when people who don't "get" Linux have a problem with it.
I am reminded of Linus Torvald's answer to the question, "What if Linux never catches on?" He just shrugged his shoulders and said, "I'll just keep working on it."
It doesn't matter if anyone likes it. It doesn't matter if Linux is "damned to an eternity of navel-gazing". The people who want to work on it will keep working on it, and the people who want to use it will keep using it. Like any other perfectly innocuous activity (bird watching, knitting, woodcarving) its relative popularity is unimportant.
There are plenty of critics (Score:5, Informative)
I've been complaining about the dumbing down of Gnome (they think gnome users are idiots - just look at the file dialog for one example), the crappy Flash player Adobe puts out for Firefox (why can't DHTML float over flash like it can in MSIE? Is the problem Flash or Firefox? Either way, it's been broken since day one and needs fixing), OpenOffice is spaghetti code and I/O is very slow, *something* needs to be done so more preconfigured systems can be shipped (NVidia & GPL "license" incompatibility creates legal issues when it comes to shipping preinstalled systems), X11 and VNC are horribly inefficient over a WAN, whereas Windows' Remote Desktop Protocol works great even over dial-up connections, oh, and yeah, developers still suck when it comes with users who bother to submit bug reports - especially the OpenOffice folks. They just don't want to fix horrid architectural issues or bugs, because developing new buggy features is more interesting than fixing their previous garbage.
Having said that, I do recommend Linux whenever and wherever it makes sense. I've slowly been convincing the Rabbi at my congregation to go F/OSS at home, the congregation's infrastructure is going to be 90% linux, my business is >90% Linux, and some of my customers run Linux. However, there are many cases where Linux just is not a good fit. It's not the one-size-fits-all BFH. Sometimes a a screwdriver or wrench is a more appropriate tool.
Where is AutoCAD?
Where is the Adobe Creative Suite? (I personally get by with inkscape + gimp + pdfedit + Krita, but my art director NEEDS the Adobe CS (So it's Windows at work and OS X at home for him). It takes me ~3 hours to do a task that takes him under a half hour in Illustrator or Gimp, because to get the same final product requires a lot more manual steps in Gimp and Inkscape; no layer effects, no droplets, Macro recording and playback doesn't exist in any user-friendly way (and no I am NOT about to get into scripting gimp. I'll stick to shell scripting server maintenance and monitoring, and writing installers. thanks anyway!)
Where is Quickbooks for Linux? They have a server component that runs on Linux, but where is the Quickbooks Pro desktop app?
Where are Linux-based embroidery apps? Windows XP is going to be on my new Dell Precision notebook so I can design embroidery patterns. I draw them in Inkscape but I need them to be converted to an embroidery format my machine can understand. So, I do the design AND conversion in Windows, then I don't have to reboot to run the embroidery machine.
Also, more specific to Linux itself (meaning the kernel, not the integrated distro end users refer to as Linux): Where are the merges from RedHat, Ubuntu, Novell, and so forth? Each vendor has incredible extensions to the kernel which makes automounting, user-space drivers, WiFi, and various other features work better than the vanilla kernel. Why can't LSB become a reality, and along with that, a more stable-yet-almost-bleeding-edge kernel come from kernel.org? That would make it much easier for users of $foo and $bar distros to run new hardware without losing fixes and enhancements added by the various vendors? Ubuntu works extremely well with WiFi (but I hate their standard desktops, and I hate ubuntu's administrative GUI) and with 11.x OpenSuse works almost-but-not-quite as well as Ubuntu. DeadRat, er, RedHat/Centos, not so much. Fedora? Every time I've tried it, it's been on bleeding-edge motherboards and would kernel panic or simply not boot, whereas (K)Ubuntu and OpenSuSE would always Just Work(TM). Centos/RedHat? I run it on servers, but hate it for desktops.
I love running Linux, but it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. I can't even use it as my sole OS at home any more because embroidery software I need doesn't exist. :(
Lots of us users are plenty critical of Linux, even though we are Linux evangelists. It's just that while many/most developers take feedback readily (the KDE team is particularly good in this regard!) others
Volunteering (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd happily volunteer my services.
I'm blunt, hypercritical and am allergic to excuses, stupidity, bullshit, and responsibility cop-outs.
I'll even give a couple for free:
If I have to tinker with it to make it work, it's crap and needs improvement.
If I have to edit a text file instead of using a configuration GUI, it's crap and needs improvement.
And yes, I use Linux at work, but Windows XP at home because game support is crap (see #1 above).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you know, everything is free noadays. Or it should be. If I can't get services, software and media for free or via illegal methods, then you are dumb. *sarc*
Re:shut up (Score:5, Insightful)
it's free, why are you complaining?
This should be the OSS equivalent of Godwins Law. As soon as you trot out the "it's free, why are you complaining?" argument - you lose!
Anonymous Coward's law? (Score:5, Funny)
As the discussion grows even longer, the probability that someone will mod that post insightful approaches 1.
Re:Anonymous Coward's law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually given the assumption that there is a non zero probability of fresh content, as any discussion grows long enough the probability of anything being mentioned approaches 1.
This includes random noise; such as this post.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You keep using that word [answers.com]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Keir Thomas has just proved that Linux does have critics.
That was a critique of the community and development process, not the product itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I suggest you use PDC.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're conflating a 'customer-support' interaction with the criticism role. I won't dispute that lots of linuxy and open-sourcey communities are not safe for tenderfeet: you're absolutely right.
But it's a different topic.
Re:Hit the nail on the head (Score:4, Interesting)
Well none of that is (completely) true. It's (mostly) just your perception. Also your analogy is nearly meaningless, speak plainly.
I think the biggest flaw of Linux for a Windows user is that it's different. Of course that flaw is the same for an old Unix user too, Linux is just different enough from Unix to be a little confusing too.
I am not sure what "community" you are referring to, there are several of them that operate independently and have little interaction with one another. I tend to favor LKML, but that's a highly technical community. There is usually a LUG in most areas, if you want a generally far more laid back community that might actually help a new person out.
Most people on the internet would rather insult you and beat you over the head when you ask questions that have been answered before, that's not something that is unique to the Linux crowd. If you wish to use the Internet to help you out with learning Linux (or with learning just about anything else), you'll either have to tolerate the bullshit people do or find some other resources.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I think the GP was spot on based on plenty of my prior experiences...
"Why can't I make an icon on my desktop like I have for the last thirteen years?"
"Desktops are not places for icons! You are a BAD person for wanting to clutter up your workspace with them! Can't you see how much BETTER this new way is? WHY DON'T YOU APPRECIATE OUR WORK TO FREE YOU FROM THE DESKTOP PARADIGM!?!?!?!?!"
That pretty much sums up my experiences
Re:Bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, because he is an end-user, you know the target audience of all those Linux Install Days, and not a programmer and not much of a geek, he has no right to criticize Linux and his implying that Linux needs criticism and that the Linux community needs to listen to that criticism is a rant.
And, because you label it a rant, you don't have to pay attention to his criticism.
You do understand you are proving his point, right?