10 Reasons why Linux sucks

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by George Russe » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



A long rant. Read on only if not likely to be offended by dislike of
Unix like systems, and their inherent baggage.

1.

The Help system - or lack thereof
No unified indices or serious attempts at them,

command -? or command --help sometimes works, sometimes not.

man command - apropos command

There is nothing less comprehensible than a man page. There is nothing
worse than a man page (last changed 1992 - see info page for details)

The perl documentation is bad enough that thrid party documentation is
needed to learn to use perl - in a reasonable timescale, at any rate.

info - an abomination of a hypertext broswer
.txt files - some times you get them, sometimes not.
html help  - best of the bunch, but still isolated from the rest of
the help system.
quite often, nothing.

2.

Unix cloned tool sets.  Yes, some of them are useful, but the original
Unix philsophy has been lost. It is no longer one tool, one task.  GNU
tar will both archive and compress - recent versions will use bzip2 as
well as gzip etc.  The command switches are haphazardly assigned, so
go to relevant man page (if it exists)

Unix was designed for use on slow character terminals, which had mono
displays.  Few console apps can do colour, and enableing those that do
is not simple.

3.

The X Windows System.  Too horrible to die, too vital to be replaced,
and too large to be redesigned.

Almost any worthwhile end user tool for linux uses the X Windows
System for its display.  Its a shame that X on Linux is a mess unless
you pay ( when you are then liable for a mess with a reciept)

Some applications are hardcoded for one colour depth ie 8bpp and die
on higher depths.  Some are so colour intensive they take the entire
colour set when running, and pallette clash when more than one app is
running. You can't change color depth on the fly. Your X server will
be a bloated user level process, since it includes code for the
thousand almost, but not quite, compatible video adapters.  Its
performance will suck, and beware that your hardware is supported in
only some resoloutions and depths, while recent hardware requires new
anf buggy drivers, and no one works on old drivers since no one wants
that hardware anymore.

Intelligently guessing setup tools for X can and do guess wrong.  Who
would have thought that some S3 models use S3server and some
SVGAserver?  Who would have thought a monitor setup would not provide
defaults for common setups (SVGA - ie 800x600) VGA(640x480) etc.

Font handling.  Prehistoric. Toolkits - many, but all different, in
programming API, look and feel, and configuration method. Consistency?
Not achieveable, ever, imho.

4.

Lack of basic standards.

The only things that a Linux distribution has in common with another
Linux distribution is that the kernel will be approximately the same
version.  All else is optional.

Some boot from CD, some not.  Some offer netbased or diskbased instal.
Some auto detect hardware - some not.  Some offer install programs
with help - some not.  Some have fdisk frontends etc...

There is no Universal linux install application.  There, imho, should
be.  A curses based menu system to put the most basic linux system
into the machine ie kernel, some utils and shell, so we can say to
newbies pick the menu option for foo from bar menu.  After that, the
package manager would handle package installs ( whatever package
manager - rpm, deb or tgz) from whatever source (at least CD, five
million floppies, nfs, ftp, and DOS / companion OS filesystem).
The install program would then allow editing etc of config files plus
some help files access while doing so.  Where the config files would
go would be that distros own choice - so long as they can be found.

Installing applications on one linux system may be fine - on another,
not. packages for Deb 2.1 will give grief installed on 2.0 - Redhats
RPMS are in no way likely to work seamlessly with suse or caldera.

5.

Assumptions made about users of the system.

You will be made sysadmin. It will be assumed you are wanting 24/7
operation, permanent net connection and more servers than you can
shake a stick at, and that you are experienced in the use of a) Unix
b)Dos c)a and b.

It is not yet as easy to install non server linux systems as it could
be.

6.

The software available for it.

How many Window managers?  How many icq/ irc clients?  How many mod
players , mp3 front ends and cd players can a system want? How many
games of solitaire can you play?

Fill the gaps in the range of linux software, not merely iterate
through a set of new UI's for the same old programs.

Still no DTP program free.

7.

The hardware support.

Not bad, not great.  Lacking for USB, DVD, video adapters, sound
cards, and those supported are not usually very well supported. With
the exception of Networking, where Linux is usually deployed.

8.

The user community ( some of it - The Taliban)

They don't want new users. They don't want disagreements with their
viewpoints, nor commercial adaptation of Linux. They want freedom
before usability.  They want yoursoftware under their license, or not
at all. Close is not good enough.

Makes you feel really welcome, doesn't it.

9.

Rapid pace of change.

The user is the last to know, and the first to suffer.  Binary
incompatible changes in core libraries can bite a lot of users.

10.

The lack of universal configuration.

Edit 1000 different files in a 100 different formats with the
unfriendly texteditor of your choice (vi - ughhh, but better than
emacs)

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by David M. Co » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:>info - an abomination of a hypertext broswer

Actually, I like info because it is easy to use from an editor like emacs or
jed.  Maybe you need a better reader like tkinfo.

Dave Cook

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by jed » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:56:31 GMT, George Russell <george.russ...@clara.net> wrote:
>A long rant. Read on only if not likely to be offended by dislike of
>Unix like systems, and their inherent baggage.

>1.

>The Help system - or lack thereof
>No unified indices or serious attempts at them,

>command -? or command --help sometimes works, sometimes not.

>man command - apropos command

        Yet despite this one can still find system documentation,
        find system documentation by keyword and actually get
        something informative out of it.

>There is nothing less comprehensible than a man page. There is nothing
>worse than a man page (last changed 1992 - see info page for details)

>The perl documentation is bad enough that thrid party documentation is
>needed to learn to use perl - in a reasonable timescale, at any rate.

        A manual needed to learn a programming language, imagine
        that? That's certainly an unusual situation now isn't it?

>info - an abomination of a hypertext broswer
>..txt files - some times you get them, sometimes not.
>html help  - best of the bunch, but still isolated from the rest of
>the help system.
>quite often, nothing.

>2.

>Unix cloned tool sets.  Yes, some of them are useful, but the original
>Unix philsophy has been lost. It is no longer one tool, one task.  GNU
>tar will both archive and compress - recent versions will use bzip2 as
>well as gzip etc.  The command switches are haphazardly assigned, so
>go to relevant man page (if it exists)

        The same can be said of a *.hlp file. Neither are very
        useful if the developer hasn't bothered to deliver one.

>Unix was designed for use on slow character terminals, which had mono
>displays.  Few console apps can do colour, and enableing those that do
>is not simple.

        Actually, the unix terminal library supports color as well.
        There are things vastly more interesting in terms of terminals
        than mere mono vt100's and there has been for quite some time.

>3.

>The X Windows System.  Too horrible to die, too vital to be replaced,
>and too large to be redesigned.

>Almost any worthwhile end user tool for linux uses the X Windows
>System for its display.  Its a shame that X on Linux is a mess unless
>you pay ( when you are then liable for a mess with a reciept)

>Some applications are hardcoded for one colour depth ie 8bpp and die

        That's nothing limited to X. Mind you, the lack of being
        able to run 'xfishtank' really doesn't bother me much.

>on higher depths.  Some are so colour intensive they take the entire
>colour set when running, and pallette clash when more than one app is

        Buy a video card made less than 5 years ago.

>running. You can't change color depth on the fly. Your X server will
>be a bloated user level process, since it includes code for the
>thousand almost, but not quite, compatible video adapters.  Its
>performance will suck, and beware that your hardware is supported in
>only some resoloutions and depths, while recent hardware requires new
>anf buggy drivers, and no one works on old drivers since no one wants
>that hardware anymore.

>Intelligently guessing setup tools for X can and do guess wrong.  Who
>would have thought that some S3 models use S3server and some
>SVGAserver?  Who would have thought a monitor setup would not provide
>defaults for common setups (SVGA - ie 800x600) VGA(640x480) etc.

        Those aren't common on X at all, actually. Unix Workstations
        have been running at 1280x1024 since the 80's.

        Although, if you really want MS-DOS era resolutions, even the
        most primitive X configurators will easily allow you to subject
        yourself to such a thing.

>Font handling.  Prehistoric. Toolkits - many, but all different, in
>programming API, look and feel, and configuration method. Consistency?
>Not achieveable, ever, imho.

        So? There are only so many ways that you can artificially
        make multiple WIMP toolkits distinct.

>4.

>Lack of basic standards.

>The only things that a Linux distribution has in common with another
>Linux distribution is that the kernel will be approximately the same
>version.  All else is optional.

>Some boot from CD, some not.  Some offer netbased or diskbased instal.
>Some auto detect hardware - some not.  Some offer install programs
>with help - some not.  Some have fdisk frontends etc...

>There is no Universal linux install application.  There, imho, should
>be.  A curses based menu system to put the most basic linux system
>into the machine ie kernel, some utils and shell, so we can say to
>newbies pick the menu option for foo from bar menu.  After that, the

        Which is what all of the distros have offered since there
        have ever been any distros. Someone who can't deal with a
        arbitrary menu (never mind command arcana) really have no
        business using any general purpose computer.

>package manager would handle package installs ( whatever package
>manager - rpm, deb or tgz) from whatever source (at least CD, five
>million floppies, nfs, ftp, and DOS / companion OS filesystem).
>The install program would then allow editing etc of config files plus
>some help files access while doing so.  Where the config files would
>go would be that distros own choice - so long as they can be found.

>Installing applications on one linux system may be fine - on another,
>not. packages for Deb 2.1 will give grief installed on 2.0 - Redhats
>RPMS are in no way likely to work seamlessly with suse or caldera.

        That can be true regardless of what package manager is
        being used. However, that is as much a philosophical issue
        of not just merely stomping all over system files as it
        is anything else.

>5.

>Assumptions made about users of the system.

>You will be made sysadmin. It will be assumed you are wanting 24/7
>operation, permanent net connection and more servers than you can
>shake a stick at, and that you are experienced in the use of a) Unix
>b)Dos c)a and b.

>It is not yet as easy to install non server linux systems as it could
>be.

        Sure it is. Just stick the CD into a well behaved machine
        and follow the wizard. A not well behaved machine could be
        as bad or even worse under Win9x or NT.

>6.

>The software available for it.

>How many Window managers?  How many icq/ irc clients?  How many mod
>players , mp3 front ends and cd players can a system want? How many
>games of solitaire can you play?

>Fill the gaps in the range of linux software, not merely iterate
>through a set of new UI's for the same old programs.

>Still no DTP program free.

        Then buy one.

>7.

>The hardware support.

>Not bad, not great.  Lacking for USB, DVD, video adapters, sound

        USB is redundant, DVD is questionable as multimedia tech
        as they tend to function primarily as an external device
        attached to an ntsc input would and video and sound are
        supported better than what credit you don't give.

        While the Live is not supported, I'm not quite sure what
        I would do with it even if it were supported and I had
        the entire corporate game library at my disposal.

>cards, and those supported are not usually very well supported. With
>the exception of Networking, where Linux is usually deployed.

>8.

>The user community ( some of it - The Taliban)

>They don't want new users. They don't want disagreements with their
>viewpoints, nor commercial adaptation of Linux. They want freedom
>before usability.  They want yoursoftware under their license, or not
>at all. Close is not good enough.

>Makes you feel really welcome, doesn't it.

        Sure. We've survived fine without YOU and we will continue
        surviving just fine without YOU. If we wanted pointless
        compromises we could have just kept running WinDOS.

>9.

>Rapid pace of change.

>The user is the last to know, and the first to suffer.  Binary
>incompatible changes in core libraries can bite a lot of users.

        Versus application installers doing what ever they please
        to your system in a similar situation of rapid change in
        core libraries.

        Nevermind that developers can shield users from any of that.
        Infact, that's what developers do regardless of the platform.
        If StarDivision chooses not to, that's just a bad reflection
        on them alone.

>10.

>The lack of universal configuration.

>Edit 1000 different files in a 100 different formats with the
>unfriendly texteditor of your choice (vi - ughhh, but better than
>emacs)

        This is not 1994. That has pretty much been a non-issue
        for people not interested in dealing with rcfiles for
        quite some time now.

        The facilities may not all be universal. However, with
        WIMP, they need not be to begin with. Otherwise WIMP is
        fairly pointless now isn't it?

--

  "I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die      |||
   while you discuss this a invasion in committe."        / | \

        In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by Mr. Tinkertrai » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


and may i ask what os is better than linux?? nt? yeah right.  macos?
nope.  95? not even close...
 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by Mr. Tinkertrai » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> You make a lot of sense George and without rehashing you're points are
> solid indeed.

> The Linux advocates will tar and feather you however for speaking the
> truth (BG!)...Steve

you're being sarcastic, right?
 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by jed » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>and may i ask what os is better than linux?? nt? yeah right.  macos?
>nope.  95? not even close...

        MacOS has some engineering advantages when considered from the
        point of view of the user that wants to put no effort into the
        whole affair and has no intention of ever really learning
        anything.

        Windows is certainly not the better of Linux when it comes
        to the naieve user. While more difficult to configure, it
        can be counted on to STAY THAT WAY much like that overused
        analogy: the car.

        The MacOS also trumps Windows in that it can be counted on
        to not eat itself (configuration). It may crash more, however
        it's more likely to come back up in one piece.

        That fragility in Windows is what finally drove me from it.
        If I had had money to burn at the time I might have even
        defected to Macdom...

--

  "I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die      |||
   while you discuss this a invasion in committe."        / | \

        In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by jed » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:40:31 GMT, George Russell <george.russ...@clara.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:11:31 -0800, j...@dementia.mishnet (jedi)
>wrote:

>>On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 20:56:31 GMT, George Russell <george.russ...@clara.net> wrote:

>>        Yet despite this one can still find system documentation,
>>        find system documentation by keyword and actually get
>>        something informative out of it.

>And the question following RTFM is which FM?  With the howtos, program
>docs, ldp, man pages, html help, PS, tex, dvi, PDF and info help
>finding anything in the help system is tedious in the extreme.

>Linux documentations is of course still incomplete. And there is no
>help system - there are several, all incomplete and seperate.

        Yes there is. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

        The online documentation is supplementary to the rather
        ancient and mundane man standard. It's existence hardly
        negates man as a standard no more than a useful online
        doc of MSWord (ala applix) would negate the existence of
        winhelp.exe.

>>        A manual needed to learn a programming language, imagine
>>        that? That's certainly an unusual situation now isn't it?

>I was spoiled by java, which had some excellent documentation
>included.

        Learning java without a manual and 100 tall tales...

>>>Unix cloned tool sets.  Yes, some of them are useful, but the original
>>>Unix philsophy has been lost. It is no longer one tool, one task.  GNU
>>>tar will both archive and compress - recent versions will use bzip2 as
>>>well as gzip etc.  The command switches are haphazardly assigned, so
>>>go to relevant man page (if it exists)

>>        The same can be said of a *.hlp file. Neither are very
>>        useful if the developer hasn't bothered to deliver one.

>The scourge of the linux user is a developer of a complex application
>not creating documentation.

        The same can be said of Windows applications as well.
        In fact, that can be said more so of Windows apps as
        they do tend to be more complex, less well documented
        online and not at all documented offline.

>>        Actually, the unix terminal library supports color as well.
>>        There are things vastly more interesting in terms of terminals
>>        than mere mono vt100's and there has been for quite some time.

>Seems strange that few console apps use colour then.  Probably due to
>compatibility.

        Quite a few of them don't even use character cell addressing
        so lack of color support is hardly damning.

>>>Some applications are hardcoded for one colour depth ie 8bpp and die

>>        That's nothing limited to X. Mind you, the lack of being
>>        able to run 'xfishtank' really doesn't bother me much.

>Last I heard , X fishtank was patched to run at 16bpp as well.  But
>inability to change colour depth on the fly is a bad thing (imho)

        That's a bad hack kludge to work around badly coded apps.
        As much as you like to whine about alleged Unix kludges
        you should be able to recognize that.

        The notion that one would have to change resolution or
        colordepth to just run some other app is so Atari ST.

>>>on higher depths.  Some are so colour intensive they take the entire
>>>colour set when running, and pallette clash when more than one app is

>>        Buy a video card made less than 5 years ago.

>I did.  If you have more than 16Mb ram ( I have 40Mb) then its 8bit
>colour only. CL card.

        Funny, I've run truecolor on several Cirrus based cards actually.
        None of them had over 2M on them.

>It was cheaper to buy another video card than an Xserver from metro X
>etc.
>>        Those aren't common on X at all, actually. Unix Workstations
>>        have been running at 1280x1024 since the 80's.

>workstations yes. PC's no.  A PC != Workstation despite how some
>people and vendors would like you to believe.

>And some Unix workstations do 8bpp only (Alphas at Uni)

>The point was that on certain other OS's I can pick a resolution and
>get a monitor setup for generic SVGA ie as above, without entering
>scan rates etc for the monitor.

        The same is true for Linux as well. You don't ENTER anything.
        You just choose whatever your monitor is capable. The clue
        impaired can even just enter in the lowest spec that suits their
        resolution needs.

        That trumps the generic options that Windows offers considerably.

>>        Although, if you really want MS-DOS era resolutions, even the
>>        most primitive X configurators will easily allow you to subject
>>        yourself to such a thing.

>But they want to ask for monitor details as well. Unnecessarily.

        Scanrates don't really constitute 'details' and one can
        be completely ignorant of them and still configure X. It
        just requires some computational capacity beyond a mere
        turing machine.

>>        So? There are only so many ways that you can artificially
>>        make multiple WIMP toolkits distinct.

>Can I set my ~12 GUI toolkits to have the same colour scheme easily?
>No. Bad design.

        I guess that depends on whether or not 'doesnt eat itself'
        is lower down on the list than 'can easily set widget colors'.

        Although, the visual blandness of Athena is a rather good
        visible cue.

>>>There is no Universal linux install application.  There, imho, should
>>>be.  A curses based menu system to put the most basic linux system
>>>into the machine ie kernel, some utils and shell, so we can say to
>>>newbies pick the menu option for foo from bar menu.  After that, the

>>        Which is what all of the distros have offered since there
>>        have ever been any distros. Someone who can't deal with a
>>        arbitrary menu (never mind command arcana) really have no
>>        business using any general purpose computer.

>It would stop books from having different chapters for each distros
>install, and get on with basic unix help instead.

        That's what general purpose unix help is for.
        Next you're going to tell us that Solaris and
        HP/UX should use the same installer so that
        their manuals can both include basic unix help  
        instead.

        'basic unix help' has nothing whatsoever to do
        with any particular unix flavor.

>>>It is not yet as easy to install non server linux systems as it could
>>>be.

>>        Sure it is. Just stick the CD into a well behaved machine
>>        and follow the wizard. A not well behaved machine could be
>>        as bad or even worse under Win9x or NT.

>And end up with a machine without a printer setup, configured X,
>useful applications for a desktop, which needs a kernel compilation to

        Quit lying to everyone.

>use the soundcard or put ppp / cdrom drivers into kernel rather than
>modular, which doesnt deal with parallel port discs or scanners.

        No one with a clue wants to put up with them.
        The ones with the clues are the ones that write the drivers.

        In this particular area, USB will be some welcome relief.

>>>Still no DTP program free.

>>        Then buy one.

>And what DTP program runs on Linux?  Some jumped up wordprocessors,
>but no DTP.

        Actually, what passes for Word Processors these days are
        for the most part wp's that have mutated into DTPs.

- Show quoted text -

>and thats progress from what there used to be.

>>>The user community ( some of it - The Taliban)

>>>They don't want new users. They don't want disagreements with their
>>>viewpoints, nor commercial adaptation of Linux. They want freedom
>>>before usability.  They want yoursoftware under their license, or not
>>>at all. Close is not good enough.

>>>Makes you feel really welcome, doesn't it.

>>        Sure. We've survived fine without YOU and we will continue
>>        surviving just fine without YOU. If we wanted pointless
>>        compromises we could have just kept running WinDOS.

>sure. live on in your elitist paradise.  Without an influx of users,
>hardware support will dry up like spit on a stove.  It'll be back to

        It's been doing fine so far. That's the real problem with
        all of this 'you must get more users now' bullshit. We're
        already doing just fine in the desert.

>reverse engineering, slow development, and buggy drivers. See how the

        You mean like the NT drivers for the SBLive, or Diamond drivers?

>absence of newbies with money means the end of Linux as a useful
>system? Unless your a techno luddite and will run your current
>hardware till the end of time, that is.

        Actually, I have a flatbed scanner, 3D graphics accelerator
        and a video capture card so if anyone looks like a luddite
        around here, it is likely you... running that glorified
        CP/M shell...

--

  "I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die      |||
   while you discuss this a invasion in committe."        / | \

        In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by George Russe » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





>    Yet despite this one can still find system documentation,
>    find system documentation by keyword and actually get
>    something informative out of it.

And the question following RTFM is which FM?  With the howtos, program
docs, ldp, man pages, html help, PS, tex, dvi, PDF and info help
finding anything in the help system is tedious in the extreme.

Linux documentations is of course still incomplete. And there is no
help system - there are several, all incomplete and seperate.

Quote:>    A manual needed to learn a programming language, imagine
>    that? That's certainly an unusual situation now isn't it?

I was spoiled by java, which had some excellent documentation
included.

Quote:>>Unix cloned tool sets.  Yes, some of them are useful, but the original
>>Unix philsophy has been lost. It is no longer one tool, one task.  GNU
>>tar will both archive and compress - recent versions will use bzip2 as
>>well as gzip etc.  The command switches are haphazardly assigned, so
>>go to relevant man page (if it exists)

>    The same can be said of a *.hlp file. Neither are very
>    useful if the developer hasn't bothered to deliver one.

The scourge of the linux user is a developer of a complex application
not creating documentation.

Quote:

>    Actually, the unix terminal library supports color as well.
>    There are things vastly more interesting in terms of terminals
>    than mere mono vt100's and there has been for quite some time.

Seems strange that few console apps use colour then.  Probably due to
compatibility.

Quote:>>Some applications are hardcoded for one colour depth ie 8bpp and die

>    That's nothing limited to X. Mind you, the lack of being
>    able to run 'xfishtank' really doesn't bother me much.

Last I heard , X fishtank was patched to run at 16bpp as well.  But
inability to change colour depth on the fly is a bad thing (imho)

Quote:>>on higher depths.  Some are so colour intensive they take the entire
>>colour set when running, and pallette clash when more than one app is

>    Buy a video card made less than 5 years ago.

I did.  If you have more than 16Mb ram ( I have 40Mb) then its 8bit
colour only. CL card.

It was cheaper to buy another video card than an Xserver from metro X
etc.

Quote:>    Those aren't common on X at all, actually. Unix Workstations
>    have been running at 1280x1024 since the 80's.

workstations yes. PC's no.  A PC != Workstation despite how some
people and vendors would like you to believe.

And some Unix workstations do 8bpp only (Alphas at Uni)

The point was that on certain other OS's I can pick a resolution and
get a monitor setup for generic SVGA ie as above, without entering
scan rates etc for the monitor.

Quote:>    Although, if you really want MS-DOS era resolutions, even the
>    most primitive X configurators will easily allow you to subject
>    yourself to such a thing.

But they want to ask for monitor details as well. Unnecessarily.

Quote:>    So? There are only so many ways that you can artificially
>    make multiple WIMP toolkits distinct.

Can I set my ~12 GUI toolkits to have the same colour scheme easily?
No. Bad design.

Quote:>>There is no Universal linux install application.  There, imho, should
>>be.  A curses based menu system to put the most basic linux system
>>into the machine ie kernel, some utils and shell, so we can say to
>>newbies pick the menu option for foo from bar menu.  After that, the

>    Which is what all of the distros have offered since there
>    have ever been any distros. Someone who can't deal with a
>    arbitrary menu (never mind command arcana) really have no
>    business using any general purpose computer.

It would stop books from having different chapters for each distros
install, and get on with basic unix help instead.

Quote:>>It is not yet as easy to install non server linux systems as it could
>>be.

>    Sure it is. Just stick the CD into a well behaved machine
>    and follow the wizard. A not well behaved machine could be
>    as bad or even worse under Win9x or NT.

And end up with a machine without a printer setup, configured X,
useful applications for a desktop, which needs a kernel compilation to
use the soundcard or put ppp / cdrom drivers into kernel rather than
modular, which doesnt deal with parallel port discs or scanners.

Quote:

>>Still no DTP program free.

>    Then buy one.

And what DTP program runs on Linux?  Some jumped up wordprocessors,
but no DTP.

and thats progress from what there used to be.

Quote:

>>The user community ( some of it - The Taliban)

>>They don't want new users. They don't want disagreements with their
>>viewpoints, nor commercial adaptation of Linux. They want freedom
>>before usability.  They want yoursoftware under their license, or not
>>at all. Close is not good enough.

>>Makes you feel really welcome, doesn't it.

>    Sure. We've survived fine without YOU and we will continue
>    surviving just fine without YOU. If we wanted pointless
>    compromises we could have just kept running WinDOS.

sure. live on in your elitist paradise.  Without an influx of users,
hardware support will dry up like spit on a stove.  It'll be back to
reverse engineering, slow development, and buggy drivers. See how the
absence of newbies with money means the end of Linux as a useful
system? Unless your a techno luddite and will run your current
hardware till the end of time, that is.

Quote:>    In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

Now, in a linux that didn't suck, wouldn't ppp be simple?

George Russell

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by George Russe » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:>>info - an abomination of a hypertext broswer
>Actually, I like info because it is easy to use from an editor like emacs or
>jed.  Maybe you need a better reader like tkinfo.

Thanks, but i'll never use emacs or emacs like editors as info
browsers.  I'll read it in kdehelp. I don't find jed easy, despite
having used it for ~2 years as my console editor.

George Russell

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by Stev » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


You make a lot of sense George and without rehashing you're points are
solid indeed.

The Linux advocates will tar and feather you however for speaking the
truth (BG!)...Steve






>>        Yet despite this one can still find system documentation,
>>        find system documentation by keyword and actually get
>>        something informative out of it.

>And the question following RTFM is which FM?  With the howtos, program
>docs, ldp, man pages, html help, PS, tex, dvi, PDF and info help
>finding anything in the help system is tedious in the extreme.

>Linux documentations is of course still incomplete. And there is no
>help system - there are several, all incomplete and seperate.

>>        A manual needed to learn a programming language, imagine
>>        that? That's certainly an unusual situation now isn't it?

>I was spoiled by java, which had some excellent documentation
>included.

>>>Unix cloned tool sets.  Yes, some of them are useful, but the original
>>>Unix philsophy has been lost. It is no longer one tool, one task.  GNU
>>>tar will both archive and compress - recent versions will use bzip2 as
>>>well as gzip etc.  The command switches are haphazardly assigned, so
>>>go to relevant man page (if it exists)

>>        The same can be said of a *.hlp file. Neither are very
>>        useful if the developer hasn't bothered to deliver one.

>The scourge of the linux user is a developer of a complex application
>not creating documentation.

>>        Actually, the unix terminal library supports color as well.
>>        There are things vastly more interesting in terms of terminals
>>        than mere mono vt100's and there has been for quite some time.

>Seems strange that few console apps use colour then.  Probably due to
>compatibility.

>>>Some applications are hardcoded for one colour depth ie 8bpp and die

>>        That's nothing limited to X. Mind you, the lack of being
>>        able to run 'xfishtank' really doesn't bother me much.

>Last I heard , X fishtank was patched to run at 16bpp as well.  But
>inability to change colour depth on the fly is a bad thing (imho)

>>>on higher depths.  Some are so colour intensive they take the entire
>>>colour set when running, and pallette clash when more than one app is

>>        Buy a video card made less than 5 years ago.

>I did.  If you have more than 16Mb ram ( I have 40Mb) then its 8bit
>colour only. CL card.

>It was cheaper to buy another video card than an Xserver from metro X
>etc.
>>        Those aren't common on X at all, actually. Unix Workstations
>>        have been running at 1280x1024 since the 80's.

>workstations yes. PC's no.  A PC != Workstation despite how some
>people and vendors would like you to believe.

>And some Unix workstations do 8bpp only (Alphas at Uni)

>The point was that on certain other OS's I can pick a resolution and
>get a monitor setup for generic SVGA ie as above, without entering
>scan rates etc for the monitor.

>>        Although, if you really want MS-DOS era resolutions, even the
>>        most primitive X configurators will easily allow you to subject
>>        yourself to such a thing.

>But they want to ask for monitor details as well. Unnecessarily.

>>        So? There are only so many ways that you can artificially
>>        make multiple WIMP toolkits distinct.

>Can I set my ~12 GUI toolkits to have the same colour scheme easily?
>No. Bad design.

>>>There is no Universal linux install application.  There, imho, should
>>>be.  A curses based menu system to put the most basic linux system
>>>into the machine ie kernel, some utils and shell, so we can say to
>>>newbies pick the menu option for foo from bar menu.  After that, the

>>        Which is what all of the distros have offered since there
>>        have ever been any distros. Someone who can't deal with a
>>        arbitrary menu (never mind command arcana) really have no
>>        business using any general purpose computer.

>It would stop books from having different chapters for each distros
>install, and get on with basic unix help instead.

>>>It is not yet as easy to install non server linux systems as it could
>>>be.

>>        Sure it is. Just stick the CD into a well behaved machine
>>        and follow the wizard. A not well behaved machine could be
>>        as bad or even worse under Win9x or NT.

>And end up with a machine without a printer setup, configured X,
>useful applications for a desktop, which needs a kernel compilation to
>use the soundcard or put ppp / cdrom drivers into kernel rather than
>modular, which doesnt deal with parallel port discs or scanners.

>>>Still no DTP program free.

>>        Then buy one.

>And what DTP program runs on Linux?  Some jumped up wordprocessors,
>but no DTP.

>and thats progress from what there used to be.

>>>The user community ( some of it - The Taliban)

>>>They don't want new users. They don't want disagreements with their
>>>viewpoints, nor commercial adaptation of Linux. They want freedom
>>>before usability.  They want yoursoftware under their license, or not
>>>at all. Close is not good enough.

>>>Makes you feel really welcome, doesn't it.

>>        Sure. We've survived fine without YOU and we will continue
>>        surviving just fine without YOU. If we wanted pointless
>>        compromises we could have just kept running WinDOS.

>sure. live on in your elitist paradise.  Without an influx of users,
>hardware support will dry up like spit on a stove.  It'll be back to
>reverse engineering, slow development, and buggy drivers. See how the
>absence of newbies with money means the end of Linux as a useful
>system? Unless your a techno luddite and will run your current
>hardware till the end of time, that is.

>>        In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
>Now, in a linux that didn't suck, wouldn't ppp be simple?

>George Russell

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by David M. Co » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:>Thanks, but i'll never use emacs or emacs like editors as info
>browsers.  

I was using them as examples: info is easy to hook into editors.  HTML is
not so easy because there is no standard way to do that.  

Dave Cook

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by Tim Smi » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>There is nothing less comprehensible than a man page. There is nothing
>worse than a man page (last changed 1992 - see info page for details)

You misunderstand the purpose of a man page.  A man page is a *reference*
for people who *already* know how to use the command.  A man page is not
meant to teach you how to use the program, or to teach you the theory
behind it, or other such things.  It is meant to jog the memory of the
wizard who can't quite recall which option is which, or under what
circumstances the return value is non-zero, or what environment variables
the command uses, or where it searches for config files, and other things
like that.

--Tim Smith

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by Joe_B.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> A long rant. Read on only if not likely to be offended by dislike of
> Unix like systems, and their inherent baggage.

"inherent baggage" is a relative term and doesn't mean much, in my opinion.
I'm not going to run databases of any size on NT so I accept the "baggage"
(I also happen to like it so I'm biased).

Quote:> Unix cloned tool sets.  Yes, some of them are useful, but the original

I don't see the problem here. What's a "cloned toolset?"

Quote:> The X Windows System.  Too horrible to die, too vital to be replaced,
> and too large to be redesigned.

> Almost any worthwhile end user tool for linux uses the X Windows
> System for its display.  Its a shame that X on Linux is a mess unless
> you pay ( when you are then liable for a mess with a reciept)

One could argue that X on any unix is a "mess." This is not a fault of
linux itself.

Quote:> Intelligently guessing setup tools for X can and do guess wrong.  Who

Any automated setup tool can make incorrect guesses. To set up X on linux I
need to know a few things about my monitor and video card. Not very many to
get it to run but possibly quite a bit to write new modelines for the exact
monitor/borad combo I have. On NT I probably don't need to know these
things.

Quote:> would have thought that some S3 models use S3server and some
> SVGAserver?  Who would have thought a monitor setup would not provide
> defaults for common setups (SVGA - ie 800x600) VGA(640x480) etc.

Traditionally, people who have used XFree like to be able to push their
card/monitor combo as far as they can. Defaults would be nice and some
distributions have gone a long way to make this setup easier (see "sax" on
SUSE).

Quote:

> Font handling.  Prehistoric. Toolkits - many, but all different, in
> programming API, look and feel, and configuration method. Consistency?
> Not achieveable, ever, imho.

I wouldn't say never. A properly written X app can and does run no matter
what window manager is used. Many commercial apps use Motif. It seems that
"look and feel" is usually provided by the widget set being used.

Quote:> 4.

> Lack of basic standards.

> some help files access while doing so.  Where the config files would
> go would be that distros own choice - so long as they can be found.

The distributions should follow either the SysV or BSD style (and I think
they all use one or the other). No config files should be put anywhere
other than the directories these de facto standards specify. Doing anything
else would make linux too different from "real unix" in my opinion and is
to be avoided. "Standards" already exist for this, why change linux? If you
don't like where they're installed you can put them anywhere but I wouldn't
change the install programs to force this.

Quote:

> Assumptions made about users of the system.

> You will be made sysadmin. It will be assumed you are wanting 24/7

Be assumed by whom? You will eventually have to learn at least a bit about
system administration to use linux.

Quote:> It is not yet as easy to install non server linux systems as it could
> be.

What do you mean by "non server?" My desktop PCs are "server class"
(whatever that means) but they aren't really working as "servers."

Quote:

> 6.

> The software available for it.

This will get better over time.

Quote:> The hardware support.

> Not bad, not great.  Lacking for USB, DVD, video adapters, sound

Even NT doesn't really support USB without some fiddling around, I don't
think. This too will probably improve with time, just like time was needed
to get support for these into NT.

Quote:

> 8.

> The user community ( some of it - The Taliban)

> They don't want new users. They don't want disagreements with their

If you base your opinion of linux on the posts made to the advocacy group
then I'm not surprised you think this way. cola is not all there is to the
linux "community."

I'm not saying that linux is better than NT or NT is better. I think that
debate is a waste of time. I use linux and NT (and AIX, and HP-UX, and
win95). I think each has it's place and talk of who is "winning" or
"losing" the "war for the desktop" is a fools' game.

 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by Davorin Mestri » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





>>workstations yes. PC's no.  A PC != Workstation despite how some
>>people and vendors would like you to believe.

funny thing to say.  what is a workstation then, by your definition.
please, be specific.
 
 
 

10 Reasons why Linux sucks

Post by Stev » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


        :)

Steve

On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:27:18 -0500, "Mr. Tinkertrain"



>> You make a lot of sense George and without rehashing you're points are
>> solid indeed.

>> The Linux advocates will tar and feather you however for speaking the
>> truth (BG!)...Steve

>you're being sarcastic, right?