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

Re:Linux is like Wikipedia

[amorsen]

An example would be that a file should be able to keep a list of all the dates it was accessed.

Fixed already. Extra attributes have been available for a long time. Feel free to use them.

Root is God.

Fixed. SELinux.

Why not extend this to networking resources ('cd http://www.gnu.org/ [gnu.org] would be cool ).

Hard to do in kernel space. We're getting there in user space.

Not bad, but...

[mlwmohawk]

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
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 /etc are, IHO, better and can be backed up and diff-ed.

(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.

Re:Problems:

[Mistshadow2k4]

pick one desktop.

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.

It comes down to this summary: Windows users are not used to choice, thus, don't give them any. Market linux to them as more secure. Be honest about some devices not working, explaining that the Microsoft marketing machine is simply more powerful, but Linux will get there someday. We should be able to point the average Windows user to "Linux", a single cohesive product.

Clearly what you want is Mac OS X, not Linux. So use it instead of bitching that Linux isn't what you want.