What Needs Fixing In Linux

An anonymous reader writes "Infoweek's Fixing Linux: What's Broken And What To Do About It argues that the 17-year-old open-source operating system still has problems. Leading the list is author Serdar Yegulap's complaint that the kernel application binary interfaces are a moving target. He writes: 'The sheer breadth of kernel interfaces means it's entirely possible for something to break in a way that might not even show up in a fairly rigorous code review.' Also on his list of needed fixes are: a consistent configuration system, to enable distribution; native file versioning; audio APIs; and the integration of X11 with apps. Finally, he argues that Linux needs a committee to insure that all GUIs work consistently and integrate better on the back-end with the kernel."

Comments

Almost everything he complains about is wrong

[Eunuchswear]

He complains:

1. Poor package management.

   The way packages are managed within any individual distribution is entirely up to the maintainers of that distribution.

   Who else should do it?
   He complains the distribution differences make life hard for people selling software. Well, tough, if they want money maybe they should work for it?

2. Configuration files.

   There needs to be a consistent -- and whenever possible, self-documenting -- configuration system throughout, from the kernel to userland tools and user applications

   I know! Let's recreate the windows registry, but this time better!. Yawn.

3. Unstable Kernel ABI. FUD.
4. He wants a versioning filesystem. Like Windows has. (Does it?) I want a poney.
5. Audio API. He says there are too many of them.
6. The GUI is anarchic. (I see no black flags).
7. X11 is not integrated with the apps. What the fuck does this mean.
8. He wants "commercially hosted backup and restore". Maybe if he thinks there's money in it he should start a company instead of sitting on his fat ass and whining.
9. Conclusion "Most of what's wrong with Linux isn't fatal", replacing it by a Vista look-alike would save all his problems.

Just about the shittiest article I've read for a long time.

Re:Linux is like Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

> 1. Filesystem metadata/permissions. An example would be that a file should be able to keep a list of all the dates it was accessed.

Makes things slow. Most distros turn off logging the 'atime' (access time) because this requires writing to the disk on every read.

> Why can a file only have one owner/group?
To keep things simple, the GUI is kept this way. You can make it as complicated as want though with Access Control Lists - just like you do in Windows.
For a GUI way to set this, see something like: http://rofi.roger-ferrer.org/eiciel/?s=5

2. Root is God. This must really be fixed. There should be a way for root to irrevocably divest its powers, and root does not need to access users file.

This is called SELinux and is installed with pretty much every distribution. But for what you want, the users should instead use encrypted home directories.

> 3. They lie about everything is a file. Why not extend this to networking resources ('cd http://www.gnu.org/ [gnu.org] would be cool ).

This is called FUSE, and is included with every distribution.

Re:What linux ACTUALLY needs

[mrsbrisby]

We don't want that support. Those vendors have a tendency to produce low-quality drivers, and reduce the overall stability of the system.

Most Vista and XP (and previously, Windows 98) apologists agree that the biggest reason Windows is perceived as unstable is due to low-quality drivers for low-quality hardware.

By selecting hardware known to work with Free Software, I'm pretty much guaranteed a solid and stable experience.

Committee??

[ThePhilips]

the kernel application binary interfaces are a moving target.

That's why we have glibc, which abstracts that ABI from applications.

Kernel driver interface - the horse was already beaten to death many times ( see here ).

a consistent configuration system, to enable distribution;

Windows tried that with Registry - and it didn't worked. And it will never work since "one size never fits all" requirements of all applications.

native file versioning;

Was tried many times before and failed miserably. As long as majority of files are blobs, versioning on level of file system makes no sense. Versioning on level of applications is implemented already more or less everywhere it was needed and SVN/git is there for the rest of applications.

audio APIs;

See ALSA and its user-space libraries.

See SDL.

and the integration of X11 with apps.

As was shown by FreeDesktop initiative not really needed nor X folks want to be bothered by all the end user bells and whistles.

Finally, he argues that Linux needs a committee to insure that all GUIs work consistently and integrate better on the back-end with the kernel.

Committee?? Buahahhahahaha!!!1!!cos(0)!!!!!!!

All what he says was tried before (see (11)) and generally can be described as "failed".