Slashdot Mirror
Linux Needs Critics
An anonymous reader writes "Keir Thomas berates the fact that the world of Linux almost entirely lacks critics. In fact, he says, Linux people tend to see genuine critical evaluation as a bad thing. FTA: 'The problem with this anti-criticism approach is that it's damning Linux to an eternity of navel gazing. Nothing can ever get any better. The best hope we have are the instances where a few bright sparks, with their heads screwed on the right way, get together and make something cool (as happened with, say, Firefox back in the day). But that's rare and can't be relied upon.'"
Mostly from uneducated haters, but there's no lack of it.
Oh, and in lots of cases, it IS ready for the desktop. Either in a managed environment with a guru at the top, for those who know what they're doing, and for locked down spoon fed distros.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
From mailing lists and public bug trackers, my sense is that there are plenty of critics, and they are frequently able to find the right place to criticize.
I think that the extent of criticism within the system reduces the need for lobbying in the press to get your pet peeve addressed.
Indeed. What a strange article.
I would even go so far as to say that Linux (and the Free Software ecosystem that surrounds it) has a lot more critics than closed software - or at least more effective critics.
Large software companies pay PR departments to generate positive coverage. Most Open Source projects have no PR effort behind them at all. So criticism of the software is less likely to be drowned out by astroturf.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Well none of that is (completely) true. It's (mostly) just your perception. Also your analogy is nearly meaningless, speak plainly.
I think the biggest flaw of Linux for a Windows user is that it's different. Of course that flaw is the same for an old Unix user too, Linux is just different enough from Unix to be a little confusing too.
I am not sure what "community" you are referring to, there are several of them that operate independently and have little interaction with one another. I tend to favor LKML, but that's a highly technical community. There is usually a LUG in most areas, if you want a generally far more laid back community that might actually help a new person out.
Most people on the internet would rather insult you and beat you over the head when you ask questions that have been answered before, that's not something that is unique to the Linux crowd. If you wish to use the Internet to help you out with learning Linux (or with learning just about anything else), you'll either have to tolerate the bullshit people do or find some other resources.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't think you've heard some of the non fanboi mac users rant..
They are brutal
Especially about the OS X finder which while working isn't where it needs to be yet.
Don't get them started on the Dock.
Not to be too critical, but it sure reads as if you also needs to calm down and take a breath. Fanboism has been around long before there was linux, unix, or even computers for that matter. And don't get me wrong, I too at times need to step back and simply ignore the illogical rants from all sides.
I read TFA and Keir's blog post to which he was referring and all I can say to Keir is that he needs to grow thicker skin. If he intends to continue as a journalist on any topic he'll need to train himself to ignore the rants that make no sense.
In reading the responses in his blog post I'd say he had comments from the open source user community but absolutely no comments from the open source developer community. And he had plenty of Apple and Windows fainbois joining in for some perverse circle jerking so I don't see any basis for the wide stroke with which he paints the open source community.
What Keir needs to understand is that criticism of open source is not going to be focused and centralized on his personal blog, it takes place within the developer community and all one has to do is read the archives of the mailing lists to see the flames of debate that take place within the developer community.
As far as convincing your PHB goes, I'd suggest you hit him up with the language he understands, fixed costs, gross margins, return on investment, pay back, etc. If he is making business decisions based on some end user's wailing on an obscure journalist blog you have much bigger problems than fanbois who get you tweaked.
So lets all just chill and let the fanbois be fanbois.
For some reason which I have yet to understand, they picked option 2 and ALSA was born. Meanwhile, FreeBSD just kept OSS in the tree and kept up to date with (backwards-compatible) improvements to the API (and ABI). To play a sound on FreeBSD I (as a developer) open /dev/dsp, issue ioctls to set the sample rate, number of channels, and so on, and then write the data there. In total, it's around five lines of code (less if you want the default sample rate and number of channels) and uses the standard UNIX system calls so I don't need to link (and worry about the existence of) any libraries. Starting with FreeBSD 4, the kernel did mixing in software if the sound card didn't support it. Starting with FreeBSD 5 (around 2003), the kernel would automatically assign new virtual channels whenever a new app opened /dev/dsp. With FreeBSD 8 (7 if you add some out-of-tree patches) each vchan gets its own volume control and the mixing performance is improved with a new fixed-point algorithm.
Now let's compare this to Linux. On Linux, the OSS APIs may work. For some value of 'work,' because there are four different ways in which OSS may be implemented on Linux:
In some of these cases, only one program can be using the OSS device at once. In others, you get proper sound mixing. In the OSS 4 configuration, you get per-vchan volume controls. Most Linux systems, however, ship with ALSA. Unlike OSS, which is supported on *BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, and so on, ALSA is Linux-only. It is also very poorly documented. Because ALSA isn't ubiquitous (and for a long time didn't handle mixing), a lot of systems started shipping with userspace sound daemons, which did this mixing. These all came with their own APIs, their own client libraries, and a complete inability to work together.
The Linux solution to this mess? Add another userspace sound daemon, but this time call it 'standard'.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's true a lot of that is lacking in Linux. But on the flip side, you have a lot more power to make the machine do what you actually want, rather than just working around what you're given. DRM tilt bits causing HDMI dropouts, 15 different media players depending on what format you want to play, having to use the awful half-assed applications included with your hardware. Ever installed anything from HP?
Anyone saying Linux lacks consistency is looking at Windows through rose-colored glasses, and possibly ignorant of the current repository based Linux architecture. Windows is consistent, but none of the applications you get are, and you have to go hunt down some random application from some dodgy site to get anything other than checking email and surfing the web done. That's 180 degrees from Linux, where applications to do almost everything you need are right in the software repositories. Just use the install new programs application (which actually does like it says, unlike Windows) and install what you want.
There are benefits and drawbacks to every OS. It depends on what you're looking to get out of it as to what you choose. I personally want a system that does what I want (even if it takes a little hacking), rather than choosing from what it allows me to do. Therefore, I choose Linux. You're obviously quite happy with choosing something predefined but easy, so Windows is great.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Sometimes you cannot just *make* a driver. Some hardware is overwhelmingly complicated, and if the hardware manufacturer cannot or will not release the source for their driver or technical documents for the hardware, then you are SOL. My laptop's integrated modem has no free drivers, and the only Linux driver available is from a team that is under an NDA. The attempts to write a free driver were nothing even close to something useful, and those attempts have been undertaken for 10 years.
Palm trees and 8
I would *like* to voice my support for Thomas's here, but I don't feel like enduring a barrage of Linux fanboys jumping down my throat with long-winded posts about how every Linux "flaw" is actually a great "feature." The last time I dared complain about how hard it was to set up Ubuntu for dual monitors, I had them howling "Manually editing a xorg config file in a command line editor is EASY!!!!!" at me for days. In fact, AFAIK, no distro of Linux has or has ever had a flaw or shortcoming. New versions don't so much "fix" things as make them even more goddamn wonderful.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Some couple of years ago, Brazil's government cut taxes for "popular" computers - low-end machines that came with Linux out-of-the-box. The idea was to create a competitive atmosphere and offer a cheap alternative to Windows XP.
This was an epic fail. The UI was so badly done - obviously by a Linux nerd who spent too much time in his life with fluxbox, that Linux looked, 2 years ago, something out of the stone age.
Massive uninstalls was what happened. A great time for computer technicians to install XP.
You talk to people who used those out-of-the-box Linux and they shudder just to hear about it. They describe it as something terribly outdated. The other day I was talking to a sales guys at the audio/video section at FNAC (a French chain also present in Brazil). I told him he should install Linux on one the PlayStation 3 units and show people how flexible the PS3 is - you get a BluRay DVD player, a video game that's the best on the market AND a nice operating system for the home. Do you know what he said? "Oh, but isn't Linux kinda old - it looks very old." Of course, I was thinking about gorgeous Englightement TerraSoft used on PS3's, but he was thinking about the pathetic thingies he saw.
Now, you might not care about killing a niche for Linux on a big market, but many people do. But when linux developers act like autistic nerds (when they're not autistic), then it's suicidal.
See: http://www.linux.com/articles/59637
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts