Page 1 of 2

Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:18 pm
by JAB Creations
I'm not trying to bash Linux but we could probably get a productive thread going here on how Linux needs to improve if the average every day Joe and Windows die-hard producers like myself are to use it. I think this will encompass more of the design aspects of Linux more so then the development aspects.

My biggest beef with Linux is the fact that you have to use the console to get anything done in Linux such as installing software while I've encountered GUI programs that will let you ping...it's the opposite on Windows, you go to DOS and type "pinle google.com" and you have a GUI to install a program. Linux has it backwards and I unfortunately have to attribute that to the developer mentality.

Not to talk negatively about developers (as I'm learning to become one myself at least web-wise) but there are so few exceptional examples of people who excel at both design and development. By development I mean making something that achieves a goal and by design I mean the implementations of how that goal or those goals are achieved.

One good design example I've found in Linux is the program installer that automates installing programs provided to you in a list...the downside is if the program you need isn't in that list you're almost entirely doomed to not find a RPM installer (the *.EXE or *.MSI equivalents to windows installers). I'm not sure if this is completely or partially attributable to either or both the software makers and or the distribution vendors. Either way it is an issue that has to be addressed.

Another issue is the lack of software support in general in Linux. There are lots of various little apps and programs and plenty of choices as far as desktop environments go but there need to be more standards that make supporting and updating major software viable. Is Photoshop (as much as I can't stand how long Adobe products take to load) supported on Linux? How about Advanced Find & Replace? Of course most Linux users initial impression is, 'Oh hey, just open the console and...' and you've already lost me. What is the point of having a GUI if you're constantly going back to a non-GUI console?

Linux is awesome in a lot of ways and with Windows 7 being nothing more then Vista++ Windows XP will only hang on for so long. Linux has the greatest opportunity to work on gaining Windows defectors now if the developer crowd can make Linux a viable platform not just for the every day Joe but also producers like many of us who want it to work quickly so we get working and get things done.

Now that I've opened a 12 pack full of worms, thoughts? :twisted:

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:15 pm
by alex.barylski
My biggest beef with Linux is the fact that you have to use the console to get anything done in Linux such as installing software while I've encountered GUI programs that will let you ping...it's the opposite on Windows, you go to DOS and type "pinle google.com" and you have a GUI to install a program. Linux has it backwards and I unfortunately have to attribute that to the developer mentali
Aptitude for Ubuntu? Does a pretty good job but won't install everything. There are many CLI applications which are easily installed via apt-get

MySQL, PHP, Perl, Python, SLOCCOUNT and the list goes on.

Part of the reason Linux apps are so difficult to install is the dependencies. That is also what makes automaticall installation sp difficult. Resolving the dependecies, etc.

Windows has the benefit of beig a fully compiled, binary only system controlled by one company. If an application in WIndows typically relies on a third party, say a open source regex library, Windows developers will include that library with their application.

You rarely have applications that share common libraries like this, unless they are developed by the same team. Whereas in contrast to Linux, it seems everything requires at least one dependency to be installed.

A commercialized version of Linux that used a light weight (fast -- native Linux) desktop (GNome is slow I find) that bundled togather every known peice of software and provided an GUI installer would be one way I suppose, although somewhat impossible as there are so many applications.

That being said have you tried Ubuntu or Lindows?

Cheers,
Alex

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:08 am
by josh
I don't think it has any problems.I think the only "problem" is lack of vendor support.

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:19 am
by jack_indigo
Does every technical website have this thread? How many times have I seen this thread? It doesn't go anywhere. No offense against the thread creator though. I mean, I sort of understand what he means. I use Ubuntu Linux and I'm cool with it's lack of this or that. I just work around it. I gave up on promoting Ubuntu for the masses. I just promote Apple Macs now. If they don't want to spend just a few dollars on a mini Mac, then I recommend getting a free copy of Ubuntu and just live with its deficiencies (deficiencies that the average Joe, non-geek might encounter), and use the ubuntuforums.org site (or actually *GASP* pay for the support at Canononononical, however you spell it or pronounce it).

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:05 am
by alex.barylski
It's like that pie chart that dictates quality:

1. Fast
2. Good
3. Cheap (Free)

Pick two...

My biggest grief with open source software is that people want ALL three -- which simply isn't to be expected as it would break the natural forces that govern our every day lives. :P

Like wanting unlimited power but not requiring fuel -- it doesn't work that way.

Cheers,
Alex

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 am
by papa
To be honest I've never used Ubuntu but I've been discussing Mac vs PC in numerous threads on other forums and they are all pointless more or less. Which I feel this type of threads are too.

I have a Mac in my studio which I love working with. I have a PC at home which I built from scratch which also runs smooth. Use it for gaming etc.

My point is, use what you are comfortable with. I program on a PC using Wamp because I don't have time/ is too lazy to install a new environment. And why fix what isn't broken?

Most of the people complaining on Mac are the ones that havn't used it or just tried it for 5 minutes and didn't understand why there is only one button on the mouse. Does it mean it sucks? No, it's different.

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:53 am
by VladSun
I posted an answer earlier, but after a while I deleted it - I realized that "Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!" was not the discussion I was willing to participate in.
JAB - I'm a happy Windows user since 3.1 (not to mention DOS ... hm, I don't remember - the version before 5.0) and I'm also a happy Linux (Slackware and Debian) user since 2003 year. So - who is more objective - you or me? Just because you still don't know anything about using Linux (I can see it from your posts) doesn't make it "it sux!".

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:31 am
by JAB Creations
Vladsun, I'm not trying to create a flame thread, just trying to get other people's perspectives on the topic in general. I have always said I want Linux to improve but if you aren't critical of something that doesn't meet your standards then no progress will be made. The thing is you may feel in example that there shouldn't be a GUI option to disable the page file. My argument is that if the user isn't actively using it then it doesn't belong in memory and the only legitimate thing that can be considered memory is RAM, not a bloated 2GB file on a hard drive that is hello, no faster then the original files themselves! That reiterates my point in the other thread of why XP rocks and Vista and 7 suck: no amount of polish can make up for removing useful parts of an OS. No amount of whatever the benefits you may see in Linux that I don't make it up to me when I can't operate the environment in a way that empowers me. Good design adapts to the user regardless of what the user wants. If all you want already exists in Linux then either the glove perfectly fits the hand by chance or you simply haven't considered some of the standards I hold my production environment to (not to say that you don't have yours of course). I read your original post but I want you to know that I'm not trying to put Linux down in any way, I'm simply hoping it'll adapt to being a more flexible OS.

So it really seems that the issue most applications on Linux have it the lack of finding and installing required dependencies. The installer "list" program seems to be one good though still somewhat limited attempt to remedy that issue. Have any of the distros considered enforcing a dependency requirement detection policy of some sort for standalone installers?

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:55 am
by matthijs
Just a short question: what's "GUI option to disable the page file"?

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:56 am
by Bill H
(not to mention DOS ... hm, I don't remember - the version before 5.0)
4.0, which was such a total mess that after they sold eight copies those eight people screamed loud enough that nobody else ever bought it. Well, 423 geeks did, just to prove to themselves that it was as bed as the original eight claimed. They actually found it was even worse.

3.11, best os ever designed. I still miss it.

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:37 am
by mintedjo
matthijs wrote:Just a short question: what's "GUI option to disable the page file"?
GUI option - an option in the graphical user interface
disable - prevent usage of (or break legs of)
page file - a file on the hard disk which is used as additional storage space for stuff that's in memory.
My argument is that if the user isn't actively using it then it doesn't belong in memory
...which is why it goes into virtual memory, surely?
the only legitimate thing that can be considered memory is RAM
..thats why it's called virtual memory - its not real memory.
...a bloated 2GB file on a hard drive that is hello, no faster then the original files themselves!
...surely using 2GB of a hard disk of a size over 160GB is better than using up 2GB of your 4GB RAM just to hold information that you aren't using.

Was that a terrible rant...? I mean... i dont even have an argument there I'm just complaining really...
Work is soooo boring....

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:11 am
by JAB Creations
The point about the page file is that the overwhelming vast majority of situations people don't need a page file. If your computer is built correctly the only time you'll need more memory is when you start using new software or your existing software's new version uses more memory...and you don't have anything in the memory that you're not using. To create a page file on the hard drive the hard drive has to write the page file. Vista is a perfect example of an OS treating memory like a RAM disk. By having the page file disabled you may crash a program because there isn't enough memory sure, but at least now you know you need to buy more memory whereas having a page file all you notice is the system getting slower over time. Gee, that doesn't seem to be an issue in the Windows XP thread now does it? :roll:

A GUI option is XP's ability to change the size and location of the page file or to disable it altogether.

A good implementation of a page file would to only create it in highly sensitive situations such as a web server. Writing the file before it's needed is a waste and it's hardly ever needed except again in perhaps a web server environment. However I would attribute that more to the fact that web hosts don't really put enough memory in servers to begin with, a different issue altogether.

Bill, version 3 and 4 of what? I presume you mean KDE?

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:01 am
by Jenk
JAB Creations wrote:I'm not trying to bash Linux but we could probably get a productive thread going here on how Linux needs to improve if the average every day Joe and Windows die-hard producers like myself are to use it.
I stopped reading after that bit, because Linux doesn't care about windows. Linux doesn't actually want to compete with Windows. Some nub at Ubuntu put up the mission statement/"bug" about taking over the Windows market, but you'll soon find they actually don't care.

So if you don't like Linux, don't use it. If you do like it, use it.

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:07 am
by matthijs
JAB Creations wrote:The point about the page file is that the overwhelming vast majority of situations people don't need a page file.
Well and the vast majority of people will not even know what a page file is, let alone want to have an interface cluttered up with an option to disable it.

The last thing you want to do to "improve linux" is add so many GUI options until it does look like microsoft office.

My suggestion would be: just use your computer to make things and if you're running photoshop+10 other big programs and start to notice a slowdown put in some more memory.

Re: Why Linux Still Sucks & how to improve it!

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:51 am
by Jenk
what is this talk of page file? What do you think /dev/swap is for?