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.'"
Linux has plenty of critics. Developers are critical of their own code. Just look through the lkml or read the code, there are plenty of places where there is constructive criticism about how something is done.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
The critics in open source world are the young ones that get a big head one day and call your project stupid because it uses language X instead of their favorite language. Then they fork the code, write their own crappy software, get some distribution to decide to use it and then the original project gets dumped one day.
...and all I got was this lousy mod rating
Linux has driver issues!!
I have to admit, the fanbois are making me homicidal.
I LOVE Linux. I love plain old Unix. I love the command line, and the cryptic commands, and man pages, and lynx and apt/yum. I like X windows and MC. I love building from source. The whole environment is clean, somehow. It's got a sort of serenity for me that I don't see very often in my job.
And yet...It's just a tool. It's a good tool. It's my favorite tool. But it's just a tool. There is room for improvement, and, like any tool, there are places where it's not useful.
The thing that drives me nuts is the pure unthinking zealotry. I got started on old proprietary unix, and while linux has more zest and more wild features, there are things that were worthwhile in the old systems. But if you say that, then you get slapped down as a heretic.
Everything benefits from criticism, so in that sense, he's right, but really Linux has plenty of critics. Install linux for someone who is used to something else, and you'll get plenty of criticisms. What I think Linux needs is the same thing I think Mac needs and Windows needs: the people on the inside need to start listening to people who aren't already sold on their product. We have just as many fanbois as the Mac and Windows people, and we've got some of that persecution complex that makes the fanbois extra loathesome.
Just calm down, take a breath, go use something different for a while. Get some perspective. The real zealots make it harder for me to sell *nix solutions to the phbs because they're coming to expect a bias.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Don't you know, everything is free noadays. Or it should be. If I can't get services, software and media for free or via illegal methods, then you are dumb. *sarc*
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.
On the positive side, there are more Linux critics than Mac critics.
If you are critical of Linux, you are just berated.
If you are critical of Mac, you are mobbed, beaten, lynched and never allowed to buy a cappuccino again.
As a non Linux guy, I've been interested in installing Linux several times but the community has turned me off. If you go on a forum or something similar and suggest a feature you're often told that you're doing it wrong. That's probably true, but it's poor attitude for growing a client base. Me: I'd like mirrors on my car to assist in backing up. Linux community: The best way to back up is to turn around and look out your rear window. While technically correct, how many people back up using their mirrors?
Linux Needs Critics
Oh how true that is. I myself love to criticize things (I'm reading Slashdot, after all). But why don't I constructively criticize Linux?
I think a lot of has to do with what every argument or analysis starts with: base assumptions. So let's start with comparing Linux to the leading commercial operating systems and the most important thing to consumers--price. And the guy mentions this in his blog. But we can't get to questions like "Is feature X really worth Y dollars to me?" Because Linux does not cost money to install. It's like dividing by zero. It makes criticism of a missing component difficult because it doesn't cost me anything! How can I criticize it?! You will see people like Steve Ballmer have to dig and dig into imaginary costs of retraining, supporting and maintaining Linux to give it a "hidden cost" so that Windows can even begin to contend with Linux in price (you'll notice these concerns were suspiciously left out of advertisements when discussing the switch from XP to Vista).
Another important aspect of operating systems (at least to me) is security. And, being a pedantic ass, I cannot even comment on the security of the Microsoft operating system because I have no idea what they are doing. I can get the Linux source code pretty quickly if I felt the need to understand why it is that the userspace/kernelspace concept has failed (although, I have never done this, the option is there). So, again, we enter this point where I can't even get to criticizing Linux for susceptibility to a botnet or trojan because it doesn't practice security through obfuscation like leading operating systems.
On top of this, as a Linux user (and as evidenced above) my priorities and performance parameters are all out of whack and completely divorced from the mainstream (or so my perception goes). If they weren't, I would be using Windows primarily at home.
So I think that unless more free open source operating systems arise to compete with Linux, criticism will remain low. And you've got the cult barrier to break down where people have lived with the burden of paying out their ass for software so how can you criticize something after suffering for so long under the blah blah blah religious spiel blah blah blah.
My work here is dung.
There are critics out there for Linux. But how many of them offer quality criticism, instead of complaining? And there are developers out there who are willing to listen to quality criticism, but how many of the few critics out there comment on any specific piece of software that goes into a complete Linux system? Both sides could do more- critics could write white papers with suggested corrections. Developers could take the "Linux sux" as an indication that they need a top down audit of their project. But both of those solutions are asking too much of either side. There should be better practices on both sides. And of course, this all ignores the good work on both sides that are being done, where there is constructive criticism and receptive developers. You can always use more of both, so there is never enough of either.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
There is plenty of disagreement about every aspect of Linux. The kernel, the GUI, the apps, everything. And if you examined Linux, or a distro you aren't familiar with, you would probably find something you didn't like about it and you are quite free to criticise it.
Linux has no deficiency of people who criticise and no deficiency of people who listen and act on it.
Windows has no deficiency of people who criticise and a seemingly complete deficiency of people who listen and act on it.
MacOSX has worse than deficiency of people who criticise as they have people who actively criticise the critics and even attempt to silence them. MacOSX has a deficiency of people who listen and act on it. ...just to put it out the way I see it.
...Linux is above criticism. What we actually need is a: "-1, Microsoft fanboy" mod... or how about "-1, Dissing Linux"... or even better "-1, Heresy"...
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Keir Thomas has just proved that Linux does have critics.
That was a critique of the community and development process, not the product itself.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
More developers that can handle being criticized.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Yes, it's free. Nobody *has* to listen to you and that's the problem in a nutshell. Nobody gives a rat's patoot about the fact that the wondrous Ubuntu can't see my USB drives and half of my other devices. Since this will never be fixed and I don't have time or inclination to dick with solving the problem, it's back to Windows. Sorry guys. That's reality. It either works like a toaster or it's crap. No OS does this now. Windows comes closer. The Mac OS is closest to true toasterhood yet, but too expensive.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
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.
it's free, why are you complaining?
This should be the OSS equivalent of Godwins Law. As soon as you trot out the "it's free, why are you complaining?" argument - you lose!
"...Linux people tend to see genuine critical evaluation as a bad thing."
Ok first of all, are we talking about users or developers? Because if we're talking about developers I doubt he's ever read one of Torvalds gentle mails about piece of code he doesn't like. And if we're talking about users I would like to have him sit down with my mother when I first installed Ubuntu on her PC. Do that and then come tell me there's no critisism towards Linux.
I am the lawn!
There isnt any lack of critisism against Linux at all. Its all over mailing lists, irc channels, blogs and whatnot and much of it is very down to earth and true.
The problem is that it drowns out in the torrent of FUD coming from Microsofts, its apologists, astroturfers and partners. Its like shouting next to a freight train.
HTTP/1.1 400
In order to critique something you must have a baseline of what is correct and what is incorrect. The only thing incorrect in the linux/GNU OSes are coding bugs, not design features, and I think we have enough coders critiquing linux/GNU in that way. If the author wishes a community to criticize Linux, I think he should pick a distro and start there.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Let me attempt to summarize. A) PulseAudio needs to work with existing applications, so it implements an ALSA emulation layer, except, it's not complete. Only 70% of ALSA applications work. So it's like, totally ready. B) So, in the true open source fashion, you should port your app to be a native PulseAudio client. Except that you can't. There's this yet-another-audio-library called libsidney, but it's not ready yet. (Hmm, this sounds familiar...) C) Fedora led the way in incorporating PulseAudio before it was ready, breaking audio for thousands of users. Then because open source is about copying good ideas and bad ones, a ton of other distros adopted it as well. Amazing guys. In a way, you've spread bad code that breaks audio on thousands of computers faster than a virus could have. And it's immune to antivirus! D) so now that we're in this "mess" (as the lead developer of PulseAudio calls it*), LSB comes along and says "we're going to standardize how your write audio apps!" Oh, but wait, ALSA's now "old" (we hardly knew ye), and I can't directly program PulseAudio. Hmm... So the article's brilliant solution? Standardize on the PulseAudio-safe subset of ALSA. WHAT THE FUCK. I can just imagine the future alsa man page. A big listing of functions, with a nice little asterisk next to those functions that you shouldn't use unless you want your app to totally FAIL on a system which has been sodomized by Pulse Audio. I can just see the developers of commercial Linux sound apps (all three of them) jumping for joy. And thus unfolds another chapter in long history of failed sound systems on Linux. Can they make it much worse? I, for one, am excited to see how much worse they can make it until we all go back to listening to square waves on our PC speakers. * BTW, also notice that it's the PulseAudio guy calling Linux audio a mess. Did he forget that it was his project that took the existing mess, and unloaded a giant steaming turd on it? Congratufuckinglations. You've just made it worse. You're a truly a worthy OSS contributor.
He's pretty harsh, but he always has a point behind it.
FOSS / Linux needs more developers who don't ignore critics. Critics (yes, even legitimate ones) abound.
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.
Has this dude visited any community involving Linux users... ever?
The standard general Linux criticisms:
1. Driver support. Usually from a lack of manufacturer support.
2. No central focus on meeting business needs (tech support). This complaint is changing with such a large amount of development occurring with programmers employed by business communities for open source development.
3. Have to give up favorite Windows programs (apps & games). This improves over time, but yes, it is a different environment, again with a different historical focus.
Plus lots more, like programmer IDEs, look & feel issues, etc., etc. Criticisms, constructive or otherwise are everywhere Linux is discussed, including countless published sources.
I've certainly encountered folks with an unconstructive beef against Linux who make complaints that it gets unfair praise for being mediocre, merely catching up to Microsoft. With those folks, yes, complaints are sometimes muted because the target of their ire is usually changing so often that their rants are stale before they speak them - so they can become embarrassed by being contradicted in the heat of a discussion too often. But even then, such complaints are still extremely commonplace in both print and online.
I really don't understand where this dude is coming from.
Ryan Fenton
...adherents and users who will accept and will act upon constructive criticism. Generally, any constructive criticism of Linux is answered in three ways:
1. "We're not here to help newbs figure out how Linux works, do the research and solve the problem yourself."
2. "There is no problem, that's the way it's supposed to work, Linux is not (Windows, OSX,....)
3. "Yes there is a problem, but Linux is open source so fix it yourself."
To prove my point, I will be modded down.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The article is quite right; there is too much groupthink and myopia. The Linux Hater's blog is a must-read as an antidote to all that, and he or she has some useful points to make. The articles on Linux Weekly News still have a Linux-centric viewpoint, naturally, but usually aren't afraid to point out shortcomings (especially when quoting the latest Linus flaming on the kernel list).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I critisize Linux all the time, and I try and criticize it for very good reasons.
Let me give you an example.
The most wide spread Groupware Suite that is freely availible in the Linux world to challenge Exchange that I can see is eGroupware. eGroupware is an excellent suite in my opinion. Now. Linux has three dedicated Groupware Clients. Kontact, which is part of KDE-PIM. Evolution, which is part of Gnome, and Thunderbird.
Now. To do anything with eGroupware other than E-mail you need XML-RPC.
Kontact has XML-RPC Support, but it has a nasty bug where if it becomes De-Synchronized, it will respawn the same events on the Calendar over and over.
Evolution has no XML-RPC support. You can rig up GroupDAV
Mozilla Sunbird has no XML-RPC Support.
What does it say about Linux's productivity-ware when two of the three Groupware clients produced by Linux developers cannot communicate with its intended native Groupware servers?
Linux just doesn't love critics who won't roll up their sleeves and fix things.
Ideas are cheap.
Game... blouses.
There are some things that simply won't be corrected out of love of the subject. Heck, some of those things won't even be found (and reported).
What a successful software company does that can ONLY be done by PAYING people is persuade people to analyze & create requirements, code, test, and fix ALL of the system. Yeah, the OSS community does most of it pretty well, but they simply won't do it as pervasively or as rigorously as needed unless motivated to, which usually comes in the form of being PAID (to wit: be able to eat).
This is why corporations pay managers: people who are responsible for figuring out what all actually needs to be done, paying other people to get it done, and confirming that it actually has been done. Managers are paid critics who are on the hook for following thru on their criticism. Much of the success of Linux comes precisely from companies like Ubuntu, Red Hat, IBM, Mozilla, and others who actually do pay people to get those annoying unpopular little things right.
In contrast, we end up with the situation that keeps driving me away from Linux: stuff that I need to work just doesn't, and nobody has sufficient motivation to announce the problem, and nobody has sufficient motivation to fix the problem even if known. So instead, I go to someplace like Apple & friends, who - being PAID - are fanatical about making every little thing right (ok, they make mistakes too, but are more motivated to find & fix the little things).
Hence the ultimate failing of "free software": like it or not, money motivates people to do necessary but unpopular jobs, including finding & fixing software flaws.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I presume the poster doesn't read the kernel list, or other development lists. There is no lack of constructive and informed (or otherwise) critique.
If he talks about the user experience, critique is more complicated because Linux is not that well defined when leaving the kernel. There is usually always a patch or package or distribution that does it in another way, which you will tend to be told if you just address your critique vaguely to "Linux".
It makes much more sense to critique a specific distribution, which is what is responsible for the user experience, but again, there is not really a lack of distribution specific critique either, partly due to the competition between distributions.
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning that Linux is free and thus impervious to criticism approaches 1.
As the discussion grows even longer, the probability that someone will mod that post insightful approaches 1.
Commercial apps for linux are few and far between.
Games on linux (that are available for Windows and OSX) basically suck and are usually bad clones of games that are awesome on other OSes.
I feel I have to step in. While this is true to a degree it's not the fault of linux. Unless game's developers port their code to linux or better yet use APIs like openGL over DX then games on linux will never happen in a meaningful way.
My main rig runs windows vista, why? Because vista has DX10 and all my games run under it without installing extra applications or APIs.
The day and hour the games I play come out in a linux version then I will wipe that vista partition so quick your head will spin.
It's a massive catch 22, Publishers won't publish linux games due to the lack of market. There is a lack of market as Gamers *MUST* use windows to play their games.
My Ideal install on my main rig is a small kernel that when booted takes me to a commandline menu:
Choose Action:
1) Play a Game
--1) Company of Heroes
--2) Battlefield 2
--3) Back to main Menu
2) Install a Game
--1) From CD/DVD ROM
--2) From ISO
--3) Back to main Menu
3) Uninstall a Game
--1) Company of Heroes
--2) Battlefield 2
--3) Back to main Menu
and that's it. We are talking a 500Mb install tops (to allow for gfx APIs and libraries), with a 20Mb memory footprint.
I don't want anymore than that on my machine, my rig is only for playing games, my laptop is for working on, so a heavier install with GUI and more apps is on it.
Without critics Linux can't improve, yet it has improved steadily year after year.
Something just doesn't add up here.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
There's tons of critics of Linux. They are writing tons of articles critical of Linux. If you take a look at who they are, they are mostly columnists who for one reason or another have a vested interest in writing articles favorable to Windows or Mac OS. Unsurprisingly enough, most of the critics of Windows or Mac OS are, if not Linux users, then users of the other of these three operating systems (get it? Kind of convoluted, sorry.) And you will see tons of criticism of Linux and various Linux distributions right here on Slashdot (check my posting history, heh.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, I totally agree. Linux has many, many critics, from users, "prousers / powerusers", developers, and other corporations e.g. M$ (although agreed, these are more often just attacks.)
Where I thought his article was very insightful, however, was the typical response "Linux is free..." where I agree with his analysis. This, however, reflects on us, the Linux community. I cringe when I see somebody say, "It is free, what do you expect?" or "you have no right to complain." Users have every right to (nonabusively and in a civil fashion) criticize software.
If Debian (stable) suddenly stopped working, my organization would lose thousands of person-hours of lost productivity. In many ways, doing somebody a half-favor is often worse than doing them nothing at all:
Imagine if I volunteered to repair your garage, but then did a half-assed job and quit halfway through. It would cost you MORE in the end to clean up and switch to another provider. Would it be then ok to say "I did that for FREE, how can you complain?"
Obviously this is a continuum, and many of the criticisms are unfounded or just whining. But, as a whole, if we want Linux to continue to succeed we, as developers and users alike, should listen and respond constructively ourselves to any (also constructive) criticism that is provided by the community.
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
I like how the first tag on this story is "flamebait."
You are ignoring the fact that 100% of the users benefit from improvements made by the few that have the time and resources to get involved with the code.
Fact is Linux isn't ready. Period. STILL.
Before I go much further, let me just say that Linux has come a long way and is getting very close. But it has been this way for years.
The problems that exist are still fundamental, and aren't being addressed. I'm a normal computer professional, and I know a thing to two from my nearly 30 years of computing.
My story summary, DRIVER PROBLEMS:
I was building a big RAID box using a nice SATA Controller and a bunch of gig SATA drives. I got Ubuntu fully installed and then the fun began. I got the open source drivers from the Company and went to compile them for the kernel. The compiler errored out because Ubuntu is using a different build system than the script was expecting.
No problem, I know enough to edit the script and get the driver to compile and build right. Except the driver only sort of works. The whole system crashed for no reason (sitting idle) several times, but not kernel crash, just Gnome crash. Telnet still worked, and I could shutdown -r the server and it would reboot. Without the driver loaded, the system was rock solid, with the driver it was flakey as hell. Again, not a kernel issue, just Gnome crashing.
After several days of futzing with the setup, I grabbed a Windows Server disk and loaded it, installed the drivers and it hasn't had a hiccup once.
I REALLY wanted Linux to work, and I really tried everything I knew how to do to get it to work. And yes, it might be a "driver" problem. But the average user isn't going to say it is a driver problem, they are going to say it is a Linux problem. It is a Linux problem when stuff that is supposed to work, doesn't.
Now the driver in question had installers for Debian, Redhat, SuSE and FreeBSD, but not for Ubuntu. Shouldn't Linux be Linux? Three different flavors of Linux, and each requires its own installer? And why did I have to edit a install script to build the module at all?
Again, this isn't a bash against Linux itself, as I use it all the time for all sorts of things. But I run into issues all the time where stuff just doesn't work right, or at all, or I have to spend three days futzing trying to get it to work.
I tend to return to Mac and Windows to actually get stuff done, because I don't have to fight the system to work right.
These types of problems have come along way from the early days of Linux. But they still are there. And blaming the Driver manufacturer for the problems isn't good enough. It isn't the driver's fault that they have to make three or more versions to cover all the distributions out there.
It still needs a lot of work, and often in the same areas that needed work 5 years ago.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
To be fair, I think you have managed to provide a perfect case study of exactly what SerpantCage was saying. Rather than listen to the criticism, you've basically told him to GTFO. (That or it was a very bad attempt at a +1 funny).
You missed the point. You make a statement "its not their problem" but then the argument you use is about assigning blame. Like the guy said, its *not* the developer's fault but it *IS* their problem. The problem is that a lot of people have all this hardware that won't work with Linux and won't just spend money that they probably don't have just so they can use Linux. Why switch to something that only works with x% of the hardware out there when you can use something that works with (x+y)% of the hardware, where "y" is usually a significantly sized number. So its their problem insofar as they have to figure out a way to pass this hurdle, otherwise you'll never reach critical mass in terms of people adopting Linux.
Things usually go like this:
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
So, because he is an end-user, you know the target audience of all those Linux Install Days, and not a programmer and not much of a geek, he has no right to criticize Linux and his implying that Linux needs criticism and that the Linux community needs to listen to that criticism is a rant.
And, because you label it a rant, you don't have to pay attention to his criticism.
You do understand you are proving his point, right?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Your use of "fault" suggests you don't understand what Moryath said. And your example seems to support Moryath's conclusion very well.
If a manufacturer makes a MOBO that doesn't support a type of HDD that PC World is selling, it isn't the manufacturer's fault, but it is their problem. At least, it is their problem if they want more people to buy their MOBOs. If you support a fraction of the hardware out there, you get a fraction of the customers. That fraction consists of people that bought pieces specifically to work with your product and people that just happen to have pieces that work with your product.
Its not about fault. Its about figuring out a goal. If your goal is to get more desktop users to run Linux on their DVR, then available hardware thats incompatible with your software becomes your problem. It becomes a challenge you have to overcome to reach your goal.
As far as linux spreading on the desktop, I couldn't guess at how many developers actually have a goal of making an OS for the average desktop user. I've spoken with a few that set goals of making the platform stable, or fast, or capable of doing a specific task they are interested in. All of that is fine and, I believe, necessary. But if there are people that actually want linux to gain market share on the desktop, they will have to face the problems of achieving that goal, even if its not their fault the problems exist.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
I disagree with the premise that Linux lacks critics. What may be lacking is a certain degree of understanding on the part of Linux fans when people who don't "get" Linux have a problem with it.
I am reminded of Linus Torvald's answer to the question, "What if Linux never catches on?" He just shrugged his shoulders and said, "I'll just keep working on it."
It doesn't matter if anyone likes it. It doesn't matter if Linux is "damned to an eternity of navel-gazing". The people who want to work on it will keep working on it, and the people who want to use it will keep using it. Like any other perfectly innocuous activity (bird watching, knitting, woodcarving) its relative popularity is unimportant.
Proverbs 21:19
*SIGH.*
There are three possible reactions to finding out that a piece of hardware doesn't work with an OS (that you are trying to convince other people to use):
#1 - Write the drivers yourself (doable if you're a code-monkey, not doable for the majority of people, even the majority of Linux users).
#2 - Convince the company that made the product to write the drivers.
#3 - Run around screaming about how much the company "sucks", and what an "idiot" anyone who bought the hardware (using another OS where the support is present) is for buying hardware that isn't supported under an OS they probably had no intention of running.
Most Linux guys tend to go with #3. Unfortunately, the reality is that #3 not only does nothing to help get new users into your platform, but actually causes them to turn away from it on the basis that "those guys are fucking nuts."
Self-identified underdog psychology is the worst of in-group/out-group behaviors.
When a group forms and identifies itself as an underdog, it closes ranks and will not criticize the prevailing dogma because it perceives itself as too weak already.
This is in dramatic contrast to psychological compensation, or cognitive dissonance, wherein people who paid too much for an art deco Macintosh need to invent some moral superiority to what they do as no evidence suggests technical superiority.
Linux advocates can escape underdog psychology by looking at the positive data first: Linux has a firmly entrenched market share doing what it does best. It will always have this base and it has a growing hobbyist base, which is where all the interesting stuff (IMO) occurs in computing anyway.
Anti-Microsoft rants, etc. conceal the fact that Windows still rules the desktop and Linux may never be ready to take on the software base of win32 applications developed over the past thirty years. When Linux users rant at Microsoft, they reinforce the sense of inferiority that fuels the underdog complex.
Futurist Traditionalism
Well being a programmer myself and using Linux as my main desktop, this is "also" my problem. I'm an end-user as well.
The last irritating things I have found: I just installed opensuse 11, running KDE 4. Well I love it and I don't understand all the fuss around it. Anyway I had to zip several files. I had to send them by email to a client....So simple is it? I openned this new dolhpin. I selected them, right click,actions and then the list appeared:
What kind of paranoid menu is this ? I've got 4 encryption features out of six. I simply need a very simple "compress..." or "Archive" like KDE 3.X to make a simple "zip file" or a tar.gz, I will attach it to my email and that's it. I couldn't find it, so I openned terminal and I typed the proper command line...
See how stupid it is?
Sometimes you feel like what Linux lacks the most is simply "common sense". Sure I will customise that annoying/stupid action submenu when I will have the required time to document myself...But It is truly annoying, even if you are a developer. Some guy out there was so proud of his encryption scheme that he puts 4 commands.
Not all problems are driver related, user-friendliness is also a "big" problem.
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
Linuxers wonder how people can think Windows is so good
My experience with Windows users is that they don't necessarily think Windows is "so good". Rather, they use it because (a) it's what they know, (b) it came with the computer they bought, (c) it's what their friends use, or (d) all of the above.
My GF uses Windows and will continue doing so despite all of the grief she has to put up with from malware, crapware, nagware, viruses, etc. She comes over to my place, uses my Linux machine, and absolutely loves it, but gets irritable and defensive if I suggest that she could install it on her own machine, too. Dell gave her Windows with her computer, and maybe running Linux would break it or cause it to explode... or something.
I've been complaining about the dumbing down of Gnome (they think gnome users are idiots - just look at the file dialog for one example), the crappy Flash player Adobe puts out for Firefox (why can't DHTML float over flash like it can in MSIE? Is the problem Flash or Firefox? Either way, it's been broken since day one and needs fixing), OpenOffice is spaghetti code and I/O is very slow, *something* needs to be done so more preconfigured systems can be shipped (NVidia & GPL "license" incompatibility creates legal issues when it comes to shipping preinstalled systems), X11 and VNC are horribly inefficient over a WAN, whereas Windows' Remote Desktop Protocol works great even over dial-up connections, oh, and yeah, developers still suck when it comes with users who bother to submit bug reports - especially the OpenOffice folks. They just don't want to fix horrid architectural issues or bugs, because developing new buggy features is more interesting than fixing their previous garbage.
Having said that, I do recommend Linux whenever and wherever it makes sense. I've slowly been convincing the Rabbi at my congregation to go F/OSS at home, the congregation's infrastructure is going to be 90% linux, my business is >90% Linux, and some of my customers run Linux. However, there are many cases where Linux just is not a good fit. It's not the one-size-fits-all BFH. Sometimes a a screwdriver or wrench is a more appropriate tool.
Where is AutoCAD?
Where is the Adobe Creative Suite? (I personally get by with inkscape + gimp + pdfedit + Krita, but my art director NEEDS the Adobe CS (So it's Windows at work and OS X at home for him). It takes me ~3 hours to do a task that takes him under a half hour in Illustrator or Gimp, because to get the same final product requires a lot more manual steps in Gimp and Inkscape; no layer effects, no droplets, Macro recording and playback doesn't exist in any user-friendly way (and no I am NOT about to get into scripting gimp. I'll stick to shell scripting server maintenance and monitoring, and writing installers. thanks anyway!)
Where is Quickbooks for Linux? They have a server component that runs on Linux, but where is the Quickbooks Pro desktop app?
Where are Linux-based embroidery apps? Windows XP is going to be on my new Dell Precision notebook so I can design embroidery patterns. I draw them in Inkscape but I need them to be converted to an embroidery format my machine can understand. So, I do the design AND conversion in Windows, then I don't have to reboot to run the embroidery machine.
Also, more specific to Linux itself (meaning the kernel, not the integrated distro end users refer to as Linux): Where are the merges from RedHat, Ubuntu, Novell, and so forth? Each vendor has incredible extensions to the kernel which makes automounting, user-space drivers, WiFi, and various other features work better than the vanilla kernel. Why can't LSB become a reality, and along with that, a more stable-yet-almost-bleeding-edge kernel come from kernel.org? That would make it much easier for users of $foo and $bar distros to run new hardware without losing fixes and enhancements added by the various vendors? Ubuntu works extremely well with WiFi (but I hate their standard desktops, and I hate ubuntu's administrative GUI) and with 11.x OpenSuse works almost-but-not-quite as well as Ubuntu. DeadRat, er, RedHat/Centos, not so much. Fedora? Every time I've tried it, it's been on bleeding-edge motherboards and would kernel panic or simply not boot, whereas (K)Ubuntu and OpenSuSE would always Just Work(TM). Centos/RedHat? I run it on servers, but hate it for desktops.
I love running Linux, but it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. I can't even use it as my sole OS at home any more because embroidery software I need doesn't exist. :(
Lots of us users are plenty critical of Linux, even though we are Linux evangelists. It's just that while many/most developers take feedback readily (the KDE team is particularly good in this regard!) others
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I'd happily volunteer my services.
I'm blunt, hypercritical and am allergic to excuses, stupidity, bullshit, and responsibility cop-outs.
I'll even give a couple for free:
If I have to tinker with it to make it work, it's crap and needs improvement.
If I have to edit a text file instead of using a configuration GUI, it's crap and needs improvement.
And yes, I use Linux at work, but Windows XP at home because game support is crap (see #1 above).
Question everything
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Linux doesn't have its Roger Ebert, that's the problem. Someone who brings up issues, and someone to whom people actually listen. someone who makes consistently good points, enough that the "won't fix" bugs turn into "Roger Ebert ripped us a new one and he has a point, so let's at least try" bugs.
There are many people who are critical, but no one is a true critic, trusted and proven and consistent. Linus makes good points, but many app teams dismiss him as the low-level guy. Stallman can be polarizing and principled, instead of pragmatic. Many others have their areas of concern, but stay out of other more wide-ranging issues. that ends up being a sci-fi critic, a drama critic, a cinematography critic, an indy film critic, but still no Roger Ebert.
Ebert is of course not always right, and doesn't know everything about everything, but there are lots of people who will at least consider his opinion where they would dismiss the average joker.
Like the guy said, its *not* the developer's fault but it *IS* their problem.
No it's not. That kind of absurd expectation (that every piece of hardware in the world will work flawlessly, despite the apathy and even animosity of manufacturers) is put on no one else, because it's ridiculous.
Look, it's like this. You buy a doodad, let's say a TV card, from LittleGuyPCI Inc. Try to stick it in your Windows box, it doesn't work. "Goddamn LittleGuy!" Try to stick it in your Mac, it doesn't work. "Goddamn LittleGuy!" Try to stick it in your Linux box, it doesn't work. "Goddamn Linux!"
Do you see a disconnect there anywhere?
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
This is precisely where the disconnect is, and why you can't talk about issues that a set of users have as being a problem that belongs to a developer of a set of software that the user wants to use.
Because FOSS developers don't have a profit motive, things that you would typically consider to be a problem for a company who wants to ship lots of units aren't a problem for a FOSS developer. A failure to understand the motives of the developers who are actually doing the work is just going to annoy the developers and the people who think that the developers should solve the user's problems.
This very thread is a classic example of this misunderstanding, as it's seeking to figure out whose problem it is, or who is at fault, so they can be browbeaten into submission. What should be done instead is to identify the problem, and figure out how you can get people who can solve the problem to want to solve the problem. Sometimes that often means recognizing that the person who can solve the problem is yourself, and getting yourself to solve it by learning about the problem is the way to solve the problem. In cases when it isn't, making it as easy, as fun, and as painless as possible for the FOSS developers who can is what you want to do.
After all, if a FOSS developer isn't having fun solving your problem, why should they bother with it?
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Perfect example of the mentality.
Linux is forever locked in the engineer mindset: "look at all the power you have! Isn't it great?" Well, sometimes. Actually, more specifically, no. If things don't Just Work, then it isn't great. Anything less is shoddy engineering, plain and simple. And I say that as a developer. Getting things to the point where they shouldn't have many bugs doesn't mean you're done, it means you can start working on the usability issues that directly affect users.
I don't want to edit a configuration file.
I don't want to download the firmware from my wireless card to use with drivers.
I don't want to choose a sound server.
All these things should either happen automatically (warning me if it is dangerous) or have some sort of intuitive UI. Requiring users to read the README file is not acceptable. Worse still is expecting users to read through your bug list on SF or whatnot and ascertain that they "shouldn't use such and such feature."
Many packages just reek of this amateur nonsense where they write all the 'fun' parts of code and then shirk away from doing the boring stuff. In other words, know that users do not suspend judgment just because something's free. And they shouldn't.
Sometimes you feel like what Linux lacks the most is simply "common sense"
Linux, IMHO, lacks an 80/20 filter. Windows has a pretty good one in parts; menus hide things that haven't been used recently. Linux types are so big on making sure that it can do *everything* they lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of the time a single option would have sufficed. Allowing an extended set of choices is fine but there has to be some way to hide it so that life can be simple. Sometimes people actually want to get something accomplished and not just play with their OS.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What about, oh I don't know, the entirety of the mainstream software industry? Every major proprietary developer? Every company and individual that has ever looked at the (generally cost-free) open source software and yet decided to go with something else? They're all critics you know, and they're all the people Linux (et al) are working very hard to try to impress.
And there are internal critics too- just look at the so-called "distribution wars". Every time a new distro starts, it is generally as a response to something that the developers believe is being done wrong. Take Ubuntu- originally it was launched to take the tech of Debian and put it in a professional development environment (specifically, regular releases more than once every 3 years). Take also KDE/GNOME/XFCE/etc. All of them are constantly competing on their respective merits, and all of their adherents are constantly criticizing the rivals.
Criticism is there if you look for it. It just doesn't have as many critics as Windows, due entirely to the fact that it isn't quite so mind numbingly awful.
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
Look, it's like this. You buy a doodad, let's say a TV card, from LittleGuyPCI Inc. Try to stick it in your Windows box, it doesn't work. "Goddamn LittleGuy!" Try to stick it in your Mac, it doesn't work. "Goddamn LittleGuy!" Try to stick it in your Linux box, it doesn't work. "Goddamn Linux!"
Do you see a disconnect there anywhere?
Yes, absolutely. When I stick it into the Windows box, it actually works, so the rest is all meaningless conjecture. ~
Seriously though, I wouldn't say that the problem is "developer's problem", really - this implies that developers care about adoption, which they often do not. But it is a problem of those who wish Linux to be adopted. It doesn't matter whose fault it really is - but if it hinders adoption rate, and you want that to change, then it is your problem; it's really that simple.
Part of the issue is that you're talking about two completely different groups of people with two completely different views of computers and you're equating them directly as if they were interchangeable parts.
The developer doesn't have a problem from the user not using his software due to idiosyncratic hardware unless the developer actually cares that the user uses his software. If the developer makes the software for those who want it and user X doesn't want it, then user X may not be of any concern to the developer.
Another difference is that many people think of software as "something to use on my computer". That's understandable since the physical computer is what usually gets marketed at them, but it is a totally naive notion. That's not how software people think. To a software person, and properly I might add, the software is what people really want. The computer is the means to run the software.
It makes no sense to want the computer except for the software it can run. So why not specify the hardware for the software? Sure, that's difficult when you specify high-end specialized IBM, HP, SGI or Sun hardware for your software. Specifying commodity PC hardware that costs a few dollars more shouldn't be an issue if the user really wants the software to work with it.
In the stated anecdotal example of Windows vs. Linux for this guy's media center, he's using hardware specced to the software already. The hardware is specced to Windows almost exclusively. That's why it works decently there. If he wants his hardware to work with Linux, he needs to buy hardware that works with Linux. It's not as if there's a paucity of affordable hardware that works well enough with it. Most of what works for Linux is also better quality hardware that will offer better service under Windows, too. The manufacturers who make things work under Linux are the kind who think about their customers enough to make it work for more people, after all.
A majority of Linux users are total fucking assholes. I'm not going to sugar coat it to keep my karma high. They believe they are superior because they believe they are using a superior OS. Every criticism will be drown in a sea of fallacies, lies, and ignorance. Because attacking Linux means you are attacking their choice. A choice they made in large part to be different.
Could the same be said about Windows or Mac users? Or perhaps people who prefer GM over Toyota? Yes, but it's not black and white. The percentage ratio of "normal people" to "real assholes" is way off balance with Linux. Something I believe was inherited by old Unix veterans themselves.
Does Linux need more critics? Not really. It's users just need to grow up so they will listen to the ones they have now. It won't happen.
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
You're making the problem out to be that people aren't switching to Linux because hardware that didn't work in the first place won't work now. People aren't switching because hardware that IS working now WON'T work with Linux. So if you want people to switch, you need to support that hardware. That's the problem. NOW, who benefits the most from answering that problem? The hardware manufacturer? No, or else it'd be done already. The end user? they can'd to anything about it but spend more money. The Linux community? Yes.
Your situation isn't the problematic one, though it may be an issue itself. The problem that is being presented here, the problem that I'm saying the developers should address (even if its not their fault) is this: Person A has a 3 boxes, Windows, Mac, and some Linux distro. They put the card in the Windows box and it works. They put the card in the Mac box and it works. They put the card in the Linux box and lo and behold, it doesn't work.
Who's problem is that? The manufacturer is losing very little by not having Linux drivers. The Linux community is losing A LOT because they're trying to increase market share and this is one of the biggest hurdles they have. So, who is this a problem for? The Linux community. It's not their fault, but they suffer. So, they should fix it. I don't understand the purpose of this elitist idea that if its not your fault, you shouldn't have to fix it. Or if you're unjustly blamed, you shouldn't have to fix it. Again, you made the same mistake as another post. We're not placing the blame on Linux, but its causing a problem for Linux. They need to solve it or else they won't succeed. I don't care whose fault it is, its an obstruction to Linux's success so why are people like you avoiding trying to solve it?
Weird. Every time I stick a piece of hardware in a Windows box it doesn't work. Then I install the drivers from the CD and it still doesn't work. Next I get the drivers from the vendors site and then it sometimes works. In the final step I figure out the chipset and get a driver from its creator and then it works most of the time.
With Linux all I do is check about the state of the hardware support before buying and most of the time it just works without doing any of the above.
I'm running YDL 6.1 which is CentOS based for stability so it's got older packages. So, intrigued by your post, I start up d3lphin,
and right click on a folder and choose Actions. The actions listed are:
Which is slightly more sensible than your actions listing. So obviously someone has been messing with it.
Here's my unedumacated and unsolicited opinion about this. Think of the "average OSS developer", what sort of image springs to your head. It might be something like the following.
uses emacs as their desktop environment from within GNU screen.
uses IRC from within emacs
browses the web within emacs
if they use IM they use a command line client and only use the Jabber protocol.
This is the sort of person who would change an actions dialog to have a half dozen signing/encryption options, because of course, they sign all their mail with gnupg..from within emacs, and want everyone else to use gnupg too. They're just that much privacy oriented that they don't understand why most people don't care, and would rarely, if ever, encypt any folder.
My version of d3lphin lists the developers e-mail address so why don't you contact them and explain how the "average non-developer" would use d3lphin.
You miss the point. I want to learn to drive stick-shift, however I won't make my next car purchase a stick shift unless I already know I can drive stick shift. Its sorta the same thing with OSes. I'll buy new hardware with an OS I know how to use, but I won't buy hardware specced for an OS that I'm unsure I'll like. I'd rather test drive it and learn how to use it first. You can't expect people to just take that kind of cost just to try something out. You need to allow them to enter gradually. It's not so much that the hardware is specced to Windows, its just the software is within specs. Linux specs needs to try and overlap more with Windows specs so people can give it a test drive on their own hardware. Why would I spend more money on more hardware and then possibly find out that I don't enjoy the experience? Plus, you're not thinking like the average user. To them, an OS controls the hardware. If some newfangled OS can't even control what I'm already using, why should I switch to it? Plus, which distro are they gonna spec to? Not all hardware works out of the box on every distro and if it doesn't work out of the box, you can forget it. You just lost the average user.
You might be able to get new users when they're switching out their old hardware, but what about people who want to give this Linux a shot but don't want to invest in new hardware. They'll see it won't work and bam, bad impression of Linux for a long time, if not forever. Virtually everyone on slashdot is not your average user so you gotta stop thinking like you do and think thats just the way it is. What we see is the real problem isn't the problem that the average user sees. We gotta solve their problem, not try to make them understand that they're just doing it wrong.