Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Call me old fashioned or whatever the cute term is now. But fuck that! If I ever see programs like cp become bloated with X library calls because some news reporter needs to see a GUI progress bar, I'm going to be very angry.
1. Why is Linux blamed for configuration files that are written by application developers? Linux is a kernel and is not responsible for Sendmail. Further I fail to see how the point and click method of configuration is better than editing a text file than can be searched, backed up and version controlled.
2. Why is it the responsibility of Linux distribution maintainers to provide a means for commericial vendors to package their product? Vendors had to spend money to get certified for other operating systems. How about putting a little work into understanding and using a Linux distribution.
3. X freezing? Umm...
Perhaps I've just feed the troll but, I'm sure the pointy hairs will read the artical and think it's all true.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
In the sense that there is little originality, and it seems anything added to linux has to have occurred in another operating system.
Linux/Unix has plenty shortcomings, but its evangelists believe it's so perfect it cannot be improved. Here is my short list of major peeves.
1. Filesystem metadata/permissions. Why do files still have to have rudimentary metadata? Drives are massive and a few bytes would not harm. MacOS has added metadata. An example would be that a file should be able to keep a list of all the dates it was accessed. Why can a file only have one owner/group?
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. A user should explicitly grant root permission to read his files. It will always be a major security issue because all one has to do is become root. Plan9 managed to do that.
3. They lie about everything is a file. Why not extend this to networking resources ('cd http://www.gnu.org/ would be cool ). Plan9 also succeeded there.
I am sure linux evangelists are going to propose (hack-filled) workarounds or reasons it can't work, but I don't buy it. That is why I left linux.
I use Linux and FOSS almost exclusively for my photography workflow.
Almost.
See, when I work in film, I need to have a Mac around to handle the flatbed scanner. Because, unfortunately, Linux support for flatbed scanners really sucks rocks.
gimp has some shortcomings as well but I understand they are being actively addressed so I won't bitch about that.
What I find in *most* of these sorts of pieces is that they are either cynically or subconsciously pushing for the winozification of Linux. He makes some good points along with the bad.
(1) Package Management
This is a good point if the debian people and redhat people could work toward a solution, it could be fixed as both systems have a great deal in common.
(2) Configuration Files /etc are, IHO, better and can be backed up and diff-ed.
Bzzzt. Wrong. The foolish part of this subject is that while the Windows registry provides a standardized access to the data store, it only defines types and not what they are supposed to be. Lunux configuration files under
(3) Kernel Application Binary Interfaces
I would like to see a stabilized and standardized device interface API for standard devices, something exposing a limited subset of the kernel that would simplify simple devices like block, serial, and network types of devices.
(4)Native File Versioning
Bzzt. Its called automatic backup people. This is a relatively new feature in Macs and barely working in Windows. Would be nice, but can't characterize it as something that's broken.
(5)Audio Application Programming Interfaces
This I 100% agree with. Choice is nice, but the geometric product of "choice" in system services means that rich multimedia applications are much harder to develop.
(6)Graphical User Interface
He sort of has a point about this and it has often been a problem.
(7)Integration Of X11 With Apps
Bzzt Wrong. X11 is a HUGELY powerful system and if you encounter a bug that crashes your session, that's a bug. Fortunately I haven't seen one of these in about 6 years.
(8)Commercially Hosted Backup And Restore
Bzzt Wrong. This is not "Linux" being broken, it is 3rd party vendors being stupid.
Video drivers. Video drivers. Video drivers. Or possibly X11. Or possibly the whole multi-layered graphics approach.
I'm not sure whether it's the fault of the Linux kernel or the graphics card companies that won't release their hardware specs / open-source drivers. To the "newbie" Linux user, that's more-or-less irrelevant. I just know that I installed Linux for the first time two months ago on a brand new computer (AMD Athlon X2 6400+, Asus M3N78-VM with onboard GeForce 8200 graphics, 2 x 2 GB DDR2-800 [PC2-6400] memory) and gave up last week and installed Windows XP after spending eight weeks dicking around with video drivers / KDE vs. GNOME / xorg.conf / etc. trying to get the desktop performance up to the level where it doesn't take a good half-second for a bloody Firefox window to stutter its way up to full-screen from the minimized state.
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
How can you blame anyone for coming to this conclusion? When you "face the facts" and clearly come to the conclusion that the pros do infact weigh heavier than the cons you have to ask yourself, "And why aren't we all using OSS yet?". Thus beating Microsoft is not relevant, but beating proprietary code is, and thus indirectly also Microsoft, Apple etc.
I am the lawn!
"When talking to grandma about trying Linux since all she wants to do is check e-mail, look at pictures of the grand kids and keep her MySpace page updated, you get the question thrown back..."why so many different ones? Are they all different?"
Why the hell is your grandma worried about which Linux is she going to use? Does she knows about the differences between distros? Just grab her a Fedora or an Ubuntu and get over it.
"Stop being so darn elitist! You want people to use it, then be friendly about it.". No. They will come when they are willing to learn. GNU/Linux is not a shrink-wrapped product - it's a very versatile and configurable tool. And no. I don't want them just to use it. I want them realizing it is a better choice and, if for them it's not, I want them to use whatever makes sense for them. There is Windows and there is OSX. There is a lot of choice around.
"We should be able to point the average Windows user to "Linux", a single cohesive product."
No. Because GNU/Linux is not a single product. It's not even a product. It's, like I said before, an immensely versatile tool backed by a community of fairly bright people. It's made by them and for themselves. If you want to try it, fine. But don't start making suggestions or bossing them around. Did you pay for it? No? Then don't be surprised if they don't feel like they are your employees.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
If Linux beat Microsoft, it would probably mean Adobe programs and most or all commercial games would be released for Linux, which would mean I could stop dual-booting.
Consequently, the single greatest "feature" that Linux could work toward in terms of improving my experience as a user would be to "beat" Microsoft. Really, everything else works fine for me; I can't think of anything else I want. It's better for me than Microsoft products in every other way except those. Oh, wireless drivers I guess. More and better wireless drivers. And you know what? That's another problem that would solve itself if Linux took over as the market leader.
Games. Adobe programs. Working 100% at release. That's what I want, and it likely means beating Microsoft. Or, beating Adobe to become the industry standard in its arena(s), then still beating Microsoft to bring in gaming. Either way.
(I understand and respect your sentiment, just giving one perspective on why it can be reasonable to want Linux to "win" for reasons other than "M$ is teh suxor!")
Why the hell should we have to? I prefer having a choice. Windows users have plenty of choices when it comes to desktops -- Litestep, emerge, talisman, Aston and many more -- so why shouldn't Linux users? Simple answer: NO.
Clearly what you want is Mac OS X, not Linux. So use it instead of bitching that Linux isn't what you want.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
I was citing one office as an example, not as the definitive sole issue holding back linux. Be realistic. No one piece of software will make or break an OS, but my use of Solidworks, Pro-E, and Lightwave are, in this case, definite examples that keep this particular office from looking at linux. Denying the existence of the elephant in the room does not make its actual presence a fact.
You can extrapolate from that to include Photoshop (no, GIMP is not good enough for serious work), accounting software, 3DS max, and much more.
The point was that by presenting a real moving target, that the lack of software is rather self-inflicted.
Windows presents much less of a moving target that linux ever has. Games that ran on my 2000 desktop over 8 years ago work just fine on my Vista desktop. Old Photoshop works fine too.
I'd love to see real graphics packages ported to linux. Having Photoshop and a real 3D package (3DS or Lightwave) available would go a LONG way to making it my primary desktop and not just my development box.
UNIX, and Linux doubly-so, aims for source compatibility and improved architectural simplicity at the cost of some administrative complexity, aka 'Worse is Better'
Which "UNIX" would that be ? Of all the remotely mainstream "UNIXes", Linux is the only one that has serious problems with binary compatibility.
GNU/Linux is absolutely the Free Market. Not a free market of MONEY, but a free market of IDEAS. The very same principles that make Capitalism work are the ones that make GNU/Linux work. Only here people are doing it for Merit or personal satisfaction/need rather than money (Although there are plenty of people that make good money off of Open Source work as well.)
The key difference is the mechanic. In Communism, everything is directed by the Central Planning group. Whether that group be a committee, or a single "strong man" everything runs through that central group, and there can be NO WORK DONE without prior central approval. This means that communistic or centralized economies (and organizations) are slow to react to change, prone to error, and monolithic in approach to any issue. It's a poor way of getting things done.
In Free Market Capitalism, people make their own decisions on where to work, what work to do, and whom (if anyone) to work for. They work to fulfill their OWN NEEDS FIRST. Whether that need be for money, or merit. By each individual fulfilling their own needs, the "invisible hand" of the Market brings together all those disparate desires into a cogent whole. This is the very definition of Open Source. GNU/Linux falls quite neatly into this arena.
In other words: Proprietary Software is Communism, Open Source is the Free Market.
The sooner we all understand this, the better off GNU/OSS will be.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Oh, and would someone do some work on documentation?
I wrote documentation for professional software for years, including Linux software. I had numerous colleagues ask me if there was a way they could write docs for OSS projects as a way of contributing and I tried really, really hard to help hook them up with projects... any projects. It was almost always a failure. Developers of OSS don't seem interested in the help and rarely take the time to explain parts of the software the writer can't figure out on their own, even though that explanation would then have made it into the hands of all the users. Good documenters are also user advocates who approach software from the end user perspective and thus tend to come across and point out a lot of usability issues in the course of their job. OSS developers tend to not only ignore such input, but often became rude and abusive when provided with such feedback (which companies usually have to pay big bucks to get). Finally, I've done graphics work professionally and can tell you the same is true for their attempts at contributions. One of the best graphics guys I know, who makes big bucks for his work, was so poorly treated when he tried to submit some free textures to an OSS game he played, he has vowed to never again try to work with "OSS nutcases" as he now calls them.
All that said, if you're developing an OSS project and would like documentation help and you're willing to commit to actually working with a professional documenter, I can probably hook you up with a recent college grad, or a professional looking to do some free work to expand their resume to include OSS.