Why Linux sucks

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by faded glory
You cant dual boot with Linux and Windows. You need Partition Magic/Boot magic.

As for Windows, its something you use. Linux is something you learn to use

i know, i actually set it up. durrrr.

[Ted Striker]

This is the truth.

Linux has never made it to the desktop. Because it sucks. And it never will. It's a hack. Still, even the most refined version of Redhat, is still a hack.

Redhat is the best version. And now they are doing what? Charging lots of money for their most stable versions.


It's too bad FreeBSD doesn't have application support. Because it blows Linux OUT OF THE WATER.

Until then Win XP is the best desktop OS ever.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
You cant dual boot with Linux and Windows. You need Partition Magic/Boot magic.

Sure you can, with grub or lilo.

Originally posted by faded glory
As for Windows, its something you use. Linux is something you learn to use

Nope. You also have to learn to use Windows. It's just that you forgot about the learning bit after awhile.

[Ari Rahikkala]

You want to mess around with the inside of an OS, yet you want it to somehow magically remain stable? You can't even ask that of a car, which is a lot more simpler than an OS.

Methinks you are asking for too much.

Yep, I am. I mentioned that some of the aspectss I asked for were rather unrealistic, remember? The most positive way to interpret what I said is that the underlying operation of the operating system should always be as transparent and unastonishing as possible so that geeks will be able to know what they are doing as often as possible. Good documentation and intuitive administration tools are a given, of course.

However... in fact, this is one place where there was a bad flaw in my original post. I started out by discussing about how Linux does not deliver what is promised about it but ended up discussing how there is no Linux distro that caters to everyone's needs. There is no distro like that, and it is quite impossible to create one. I believe, however, that it is possible to create a distro that delivers all the (realistic) Good Things That Poeple Have Been Told About Linux. Stability, being free both as in beer and as in speech, commercial support, elegance, etc.. You just have to be pretty damn good to do it.

There, got the most important thing said...

Wow, a "Linux sucks" thread from Ari sure is surprising

It shouldn't be. See (hear) http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/1241/1241156.html . I'm an operating system nihilist...

I like Linux but I can't play any of my games on it and for me, that's the killer. Iknow there are windows emulators out there but I hear they're slow and don't always work correctly. So until game developers start designing my favorite games for Linux, I'll be running windows.

As I've said many more times than anyone considers healthy... Gentoo Linux is one damn great computer game. I have basically played just a little ADOM but otherwise frobnicating my software has been fun enough .

As for Windows "emulators" ("emulator" isn't really the right term if you're talking about Wine - Wine is an implementation of some APIs)... the big problem usually is that things just don't work with it. Performance tends to vary wildly; For DirectX games, you need WineX which implements Direct3d on top of OpenGL, which basically means that you need a rather beefy computer for using it. OTOH, there are some cases (pretty rare and isolated, though, AFAIK) where Wine's implementation is faster than Windows's native implementation.

god. i tried so damn hard to convert to linux, and i game up 3 times. i tried doing a dual boot twice, but i kept going into windows, because i just didn't NEED to go into linux. i tried to do things in linux, but Photoshop > GIMP, etc etc. forget gaming. then i tried making a whole box ONLY linux, for server purposes, and i ran into problems again, so i said fsck it, and went with windows again.

Paraphrasing the venerable mr. Torvalds, some people try out Linux only to find out that they do not have anything to do in it. And that's fine - hey, I don't have a PDA and I don't think I would get used to using one even if I could get one for free since I simply don't have the need for a PDA.

The running into problems part can be fixed, though. It's just a matter of documentation, design, transparency, etc.. basically, just being a Damn Good Developer. Or, on your part, reading whatever documentation is available, asking questions at the right channels, having patience, etc.. You should not have to do too much of those if you used that mythical Distro That Does Not Suck.

You cant dual boot with Linux and Windows. You need Partition Magic/Boot magic.

AFAICT at least newer versions of Windows should give you the choice of installing their bootmanager in a partition's boot sector instead of the MBR. So, you should be able to have Windows on one partition and Linux on some other, grub/lilo/whatever on the main boot record, the bootloader of Windows on the Windows partition's boot sector and... er... whatever on the boot sector of the Linux partition. Heck, I'm not sure if I'm using Linux or DOS terminology...

Redhat is the best version.

I consider people who go around saying that distro $foo is the best to be on rather shaky grounds, even in the very unlikely case that they provide any real arguments. Well, actually, if someone just came and asked me what the best Linux distro is and told that I can't evade the question in any way, I'd answer Debian . But still, Debian sucks, too. Ask me if you want to know why, I can't be bothered to write out the reasons here .

[Ted Striker]

Shaky grounds, or maybe having a 90% market share and the most usable interface.

Put XP on your desktops, Macs for the art people, UNIX on the backend, and BSD for your support servers (DNS, Mail, Apache).

Linux has no business in any of my shops.

[Ari Rahikkala]

As for the market-share, do you think I would really care about that ?

As for the most usable interface... it's just GNOME with some modifications. That I don't even know, in fact. Or a rebranded KDE...

[Ted Striker]

I don't care what YOU think, I want my shop to run stable and with a minimum of maintenance. Linux doesn't meet those requirements.

And who cares WHAT the interface is, I just want it to WORK.

[Asher]

Ted for president!

[Ted Striker]

Thanks Ash.

[Whaleboy]

It would seem that one trades useability for power. I use a combination of Slackware Linux 9.0, and FreeBSD 4.8 (will switch to 5.x when its stable).

When I used to use WinXP, I could do only basic stuff, but found my computer to become more of an appliance than anything else, with limited capabilities, for the sake of being easy to use. I like to think that I have more than 2 brain cells, and I dont need to use a mouse, so WinXP wasnt for me... I wanted to up my productivity. It also crashed sometimes, I couldnt get an uptime of more than 4 days.

A friend recommended Knoppix linux, so I tried it. It loaded up, similar type of interface (KDE 3.0) to XP, but even though it ran from the CD, I could tell that it was somehow more powerful. Not as intuitive, but I got over it.

Learned basic UNIX concepts, learned the commandline, tried it out with Knoppix, then got Slackware 8.1. Read the manual (key thing there). Installed and configured with little hassle. After reading the manual and the literature, I found it suprisingly easy to get up to speed.

Its not easy to use if you're coming from Windows, used to a simplistic idiot-proof interface. I still think people should at least switch to Linux then BSD in the meantime because of Windows lousy security, lock-in to Microsoft, and most importantly the hole in the crypto modules that allow the NSA access to any windows machine on the internet (no im not paranoid hehe).

I worked with slackware, then installed 9.0, pretty much the same but newer software. Got a great interface, never needed to reboot, save when I put in a new graphics card, because I didnt wanna get electrocuted.

Heared that FreeBSD was similar to Slackware, but better than Linux. Again read the manual, engaged my brain, and got it working with no major problem. I have a system that uses all my 2.8 GHz for me, and not bloat, and as of now, has been running for 3 weeks (I download stuff). Its a little faster, but I hear it is more secure and stable, so I'm happy. Contrary to what others say, I find it to be an effective desktop system, as long as you put in a couple of hours of reading, and 30 mins of tinkering.

I guess windows is a system where you easily get a system that is moderatelly adapted to your needs, whereas *nix is a system where you get a system perfectly adapted for your needs with more effort.

Linux is OK, its better than windows, especially the easy to use distros, whereas BSD is better than all.

The whole thing about ease of use is silly though. For someone new to computing, I have found for them the best interface is Gnome 2.2!!

People who like windows, stick with it, but be aware of the consequences of placing your trust in the hands of Master Gates. Id rather trust thousands of 40 year old virgins with questionable personal hygiene, than one man motivated not by the interests of the users, but by the almight dollar.

I think a system should be reasonable, but should not sacrifice usability and "infinite possibilities" (what made the PC great), for the sake of placing the user far above the silicon.

Reverse-engineering to actively reduce the users options (like preventing non-DRM content from running etc [different issue]) really irritates me!

Remember, the only intuitive interface is the nipple, from there its all learned (some fortune cookie).

[Whaleboy]

Whoaa... that post was way too long... sorry!

[Ted Striker]

Nice analysis but you lost me with the Master Gates rhetoric.

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
Whoaa... that post was way too long... sorry!

The length of the post isn't the problem, it's the content that's laughable.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I don't care what YOU think, I want my shop to run stable and with a minimum of maintenance. Linux doesn't meet those requirements.

Hey, you're posting in a thread of mine which is titled "Why Linux sucks" for crying out loud, there's no need to treat me like a rabid fanboy. I'm just a rabid fanboy who likes to pretend he's a nihilist .

One thing I should rant about, BTW, (and yes, this is on-topic if you reflect it to the thread at large) is XFree86... namely, XFree86 on Linux. When I came home today and started up my computer, all I got when trying to start X was a black screen and one flashing monitor LED. Rebooted, tried it again, it worked. I can expect stuff like this to happen a lot in the future - it's happened in the past. In fact, XFree86 has caused a lot of complete freezes and forced many a hard reboot.

What I wonder about is... would it be better on some other OS? Would, say, XFree86 on FreeBSD be more stable? Or is it simply that XFree86 itself is so damn crappy?

And who cares WHAT the interface is, I just want it to WORK.

I care. You know, GNOME and KDE are different. GNOME is known for being a good interface for those who are using computers for the first time or are coming from $random_background. KDE is nice for people who are used to Windows. And so on. An interface does not "Just Work". You can't say "here, this interface is broken, nobody can use it" and "here, this interface works, everybody likes using it". I find it extremely likely that I'm not the only person who would disagree with you.

If you're talking about how a complete system should Just Work... we have to leave that to the mythical One Perfect Distro, again.

[Whaleboy]

Thats a good point. Does one blame windows when a piece of software is lame?

Linux is just the kernel, although you could probably safely extend that to any of the major stuff up to a multi-user non-X runlevel (runlevel 3 on slackware, I think 2 on Debian/RH).

The extra stuff is externel, you could theoretically replace it (like XFree86) and still call it linux/bsd.

Why is the content laughable?