Why Linux sucks and will never compete with Windows or OS X
dvorak.org
dvorak.org
* proper resolution grub
* proprietary (fast, feature complete) drivers
due to the nvidia drivers not supporting fbdev properly (AFAIK).
also you should see how slowly grub draws its menu on 4k resolution. My whole system is booted half way in that time.
I guess I'm looking for consistency in the argument the great-grandparent was making.
either way, you're proving the inconsistency. ATI drivers for windows suck, but you don't blame windows. NVidia drivers suck in Linux (to the point that Linus Torvalds says "Fuck you NVidia", creating news headlines), and you blame Linux.
GRUB is using it's default config, I didn't hardcode any resolutions or anything.
Whatever your issue is, its not caused by Grub or Nvidia's binary drivers.
* Audio works perfect (Astro mixamp)
* Video works perfect (NVidia)
* Installed several games on Steam
* TF2, CS, Factorio, Kerbal, etc all run great
* Rust is laggy, however is alpha, I am not sure how much time they have spent optimizing linux at this point
* XBox 360 controller works perfect* GnuCash wouldn't open the file saved from the windows version
* Installed a sqlite lib to resolve this
* TrueCrypt volume mounts OK* A few sites fail to detect Chromium properly, I use FF to work around this
* Crashplan backups work without issues
* Cisco VPN client works great
* Remote desktop software works OK
The development experience on Linux is a lot better. You get a nice shell, package manager, and compilers. Docker containers launch very quickly. No more windows path limits. Unity has grown on me as well. I couldn't be happier with my choice right now.
What does that mean?
It's <year>.<month> and they release a new version almost always in April and in October, meaning that the past few Ubuntu versions were 14.04, 14.10, 15.04, 15.10 and now 16.04, which is what you're running.
They then have the usual dot-releases appended to that, so you're probably actually running 16.04.1, the first revision of 16.04.
So, yeah, you would usually say that you're running "16.04", not just "16", as 16.10 will be a completely different version, again...
Firefox and Chrome have worked ok.
But not really being able to update or install software from the GUI is frustrating. I can do it myself from the command line, but the girlfriend is not a command line user at all.
With a serious time investment I've managed to assemble a system that far surpasses OSX in usability, performance, and aesthetics (see /r/unixporn). I also bought a laptop with Linux in mind with 100% driver support in the kernel.
It wasn't easy learning to use ArchLinux, customizing it, learning how to not break it [1], and finding the right combination of window managers/desktop env/themes/fonts/etc. But it was worth it because I like hacking on systems and learning how they work. Plus I spend all day, every workday on it.
[1] my install has become very low maintenance now that I no longer feel the need to spend hours tweaking every detail, I now know which /etc/ or /usr/ files not to mess with, and have hardware and software that is well supported across every ArchLinux update.
sxhkd managing keyboard shortcuts
xmobar statusbar
Gnome/GTK 3.x with built-in dark theme
Rofi app launcher and window switcher (like Alfred on OSX)
Termite terminal with ZSH
Not using a display manager like GDM or XDM, I just run startx via .zlogin
https://www.google.com/search?q=macalope+john+dvorak+site:ma...
https://www.google.com/search?q=john+dvorak+site:daringfireb...
Edit: s/author/site's host/
But don't worry, it's the fault of the average user if we have mass surveillance, if only they cared enough to avoid proprietary software...
me? I have karma to burn, so I worry less about being greyed-out.
For instance, here is a screenshot I took in 2003 showing several the file open dialogs from several different programs: http://i.imgur.com/Wcwaiwu.jpg
Note that there is almost no consistency between these dialogs. That's because the file open dialog that a program presented was determined by what GUI toolkit the developer picked to use to develop their program.
Compare to Mac and Windows, where file selection dialogs are part of the system, and so almost all applications use them.
People tried to tell me the Linux way was better, because it means the OS vendor wasn't forcing their choice on everyone. Cool...I like choice, but how about putting the choice in the hands of the user, rather than the individual app developers (or rather the GUI toolkit developers)?
It seems to me that the right way to do this is for the system to provide a standardized API for file selection, and provide a way to register multiple implementations, and to provide a way for a user to tell the system which implementation they prefer in general and perhaps for specific programs.
Each toolkit could continue to provide its own implementations of file selection dialogs, but could register those with the system, and access them via the standard API so that if the user prefers the dialogs from a different toolkit the user gets their preferred dialog.
Linux is ready for prime time, and is getting better every year. Microsoft is struggling to maintain it's market share of the OS market which it used to dominate without any trouble, so the article is nonsense, really.
Windows is not more user friendly than a modern Ubuntu or Debian installation. What's actually happened is that users have become familiar with the various Quirks of operating Windows, the same way they would become familiar with any OS after years of use, including Linux.
* something (guessing nvidia driver) prevents resume from suspend to ram, the machine just sits with a black screen. I have to hard reset
* if you install nvidia from their blob and upgrade your kernel without recompiling the kernel module, it won't let you shut down and one of the cpu cores will lock up
* I tried to use the usb3 hub in my dell monitor and the driver complains about too little bandwidth. forums tell me to disable xhci in the kernel config or bios, I just plugged it into a usb2 port
* I wish there was an easier way to update the kernel with custom options, like automated re-compiling
* I have a usb key with kubuntu that I sometimes boot my macbook air with. Even with not a lot going on, it will get a lot hotter than osx. can the usb3 controller running the boot drive really add that much?
* good luck unmounting a nfs mount that is slow due to network/vpn issues. there is a workaround in creating a dummy network that looks like the nfs server is up and which somehow unclogs the filesystem.
* why can't gvim maximize properly after how many years?
* no netflix or hbo unless you install some deprecated HAL library from untrusted sources
* cannot tell apt to only update specific packages from some repo - adding the spotify repo could replace god knows what on your system
* I love kde plasma, it is what made me try linux as my default boot option again, but why does it have to consume so much ram and why does it crash so often? Thank god it can just be restarted easily, I hope this will still be possible with wayland which promotes integrated window managers
edit:
* under X and highdpi, there is now way to resize applications that use a framework that is not high dpi capable. skype, using Qt 4.8 (IIRC) will have tiny text or icons. (I think you can make it draw text larger, but graphic elements and emoji will be tiny)
I should also say that I really like linux, especially as a work environment. with QtCreator there is a free IDE with auto complete, syntax highlighting, cmake support, cross compilation, etc.
I feel like the *nix/gnu tools are so much more powerful and I would not want to miss them.
batch-converting videos, images, splitting, joining, creating pdfs - all for free without having to install SuperImageConverterPro shareware bundled with bonzi buddy or whatever.
This is almost certainly because Linux doesn't properly manage your CPU states. Same story with linux on my windows laptop. Apparently you can recompile the kernel with some third party modules that let you manage that stuff but after a few hours of trying I couldn't get it to work. Probably because there isn't any documentation beyond a couple stack overflow questions and a blog post written in 2011.
I hate linux too. My biggest gripe is that I use differing amounts of monitors and making the nvidia proprietary drivers function correctly with xmonad and multiple screens is something I've managed to make work maybe twice.
It exists to be used. If it's not usable, then that's a problem.
Meanwhile, I have one OS X machine which is OK for multimedia and internet, but any programming on it sucks (compared to my Linux setup)...
Good luck with your kubuntu installation. I've heard it went downhill the last few years (post-systemd).
Netflix works just fine here with Chrome on Ubuntu.
When an application doesn't work, install, or even exist on Windows or OS X it's the application developer's fault. But on Linux it's Linux's fault.
The driver situation leaves much to be desired, but why does Linux get the blame for NVIDIA or Dell contributing buggy blobs that the community couldn't improve even if it wanted to? (and they do!)
> * I wish there was an easier way to update the kernel with custom options, like automated re-compiling
Just curious, do you even have the ability to recompile the kernel of your preferred OS?
> * cannot tell apt to only update specific packages from some repo - adding the spotify repo could replace god knows what on your system
Not trying to belittle a legitimate problem, but again how would you do this with your preferred package manager on your preferred OS?
I'm pretty sure that can be done with APT pinning. Never underestimate APT's capabilities.
For the typical desktop user, we have to ask what the intent of usage is. Running a business with proprietary software and licensing, typing up documents for personal financial planning, playing games.
Linux has never been consistent with so many flavors of the day out there, but generally it is a heck of a Swiss Army knife when it comes to solving problems for me at least.
Linux sucks implies the is something you don't agree with about Linux which is a kernel.
Complaining about GNOME and CentOS are vastly different. Why not say GNOME sucks or CentOS's distribution sucks?
I kinda get the point but that is a horrible example. Craigslist is probably one of the few things that works (and looks) exactly as it works before. Whether you get laid on it has hardly anything to do with software quality.
If you don't like gnome or kde don't use them -- I abhor both.. I've installed kubuntu, ubuntu, xubuntu, lxde, and other flavors on top of my existing system only to uninstall them all and go with i3 which is much sleeker, more customizable, just works, and doesn't bloat my system.
I spend 90% of my day in console or sublime-text I only keep xfce around for when I want a visual app manager instead of alt+d and a gui settings manager to fix mouse issues or what not. Since switching to i3 my computer never freezes anymore like it used to, and hardly ever touch the mouse unless in browser.
Centos is more for server work not desktop crap anyways, ubuntu is the best for desktop - or possibly Arch, driver support is generally better for ubuntu kernels but Arch has a vibrant community around it, and when I reformat or build a new p.c. I'm probably switching to Arch + i3.
It really makes me wonder what the future will be like. Will we reach a breaking point where someone (or some group) takes on the responsibility of making this stuff work? I can't see people abandoning Linux for Windows, because Windows seems to be decreasing in quality as well. Are we doomed to just have computers that don't work properly?
I also reinstalled Windows 7 in the same laptop later to play SC, it supposed to be working great, but did not. I had to hunt wifi drivers from the laptop maker in a different machine and copy over, then hunt down the video driver because it is stuck in 800x600 otherwise. Same thing basically applies to every hardware you use. It used to be you have to install a driver for the mobo to get usb3 working at high speed.
So I really wonder if Windows should take the credit of "things just work" it's not like they wrote all the drivers.
No.
Or perhaps the answer is better as, lots of people already work very hard to try and make things work, but there's only so much that can be done.
There's no perfect solution because the economics just don't work.
All the major distributions (RH/Suse/Ubuntu) already have full time engineers in the major manufacturers (e.g HP/Dell) and at the major ODM's in places such as Taiwan. There's complex testing the the distributions do to try and make sure that "it just works". But the economics are against them on the client side.
Why does Linux on servers work? Because Linux users represent a major force in the market. HP can't launch a new server that doesn't work with the major Linux distro's so they work with them to make sure that hardware works. If HP's servers don't work with Linux then they'll lose a lot of sales to major players in the finance, oil and gas and military sectors. So, if the network card doesn't work then HP calls up its ODM in Taiwan and gets a driver written or gets one of the distro's paid to write a driver.
Why does Linux on clients not work? Because it's less than 5% of the market. MSI (your laptop brand) doesn't work with any of the distributions. Even if it did, lets say the network card didn't work, would the ODM write a driver? No! It would be economic suicide, and any major brand (HP/Dell) would know this and wouldn't even request it. The margin on client side hardware is wafer thin and the ODM's barely manage. Some of the major brands (HP/Dell/Lenovo) do try and certify their client hardware, particularly workstations. But if something doesn't work it's a tough situation. Generally, what happens is some poor Linux engineer at one of the distro's gets a rubbish half-done driver manual and some hardware - or even worse NO hardware and the distribution has to go out and buy the hardware itself - and then has to try and reverse engineer the solution.
Bottom line, if you want to use Linux as a client it demands that you know more about your hardware and how the OS interacts with it - it's not an easy option, it's an 'alternative' option for those that want to be educated! On the upside that education will come in use at dinner parties and in pub quizzes ;-)
The Linux Kernel and UNIX underpinning are solid as a rock. No issues there, but everything built on top of that (windowing systems, application frameworks, audio stack, etc) is a jumbled mess of incompatible ideas, poor usability, inconsistency, and low performance (in exchange for features nobody is using, like windowing client<->server over a network, replacing core UI components on the fly, etc).
I really like MacOS, Windows 10, and even Chromebook (with all its limitations), but I've never found a Linux desktop solution that feels self-consistent and not frustrating. I'd likely take Chromebook more seriously if it can run the full Android back-catalogue of apps.
Just to be clear I run dozens of Linux servers and devices. This isn't a Linux "hate" thing, this is only a distaste for Linux Desktop, not Linux the OS or Kernel, both of which are fantastic.
but if you don't have a Chromebook, you won't see the same need for GalliumOS. just use Xubuntu (unless you like the branding).
Plus you can use Gnome with tiling window managers, so it's just being used to style windows and apps.
Meanwhile, sane people abandoned rpm-based distributions around 2001, because they know that using Fedora/CentOS/RHEL leads to Having a Bad Time (TM).
There is an unwritten rule in Linux: Distributions jump the shark eventually. At one point, everyone was using Yggdrasil. Then they were using Redhat (or slackware) when Yggdrasil petered-out. Then Mandrake became popular when people got tired of Redhat's old packages. Then Ubuntu appeared when someone made Debian user-friendly. Once Ubuntu started the whole Unity mess (and later, systemd), we got our newer crops of good distributions.
If you don't care about systemd, Manjaro and Antergos are fantstic desktop distributions. If you think systemd is cancerous, Calculate Linux will make you happy in ways you haven't felt since 2006. If you have a fleet of chromebooks, GalliumOS will make your life better.
Just stop using/complaining about CentOS or Ubuntu, people.
Now that CentOS was purchased by Red Hat, should you be desperate for rpm-compatibility (Government contracts, Pointy-Haired Bosses' demands), Scientific Linux is a better option.
Many of my older family members prefer Linux Mint to Windows. Also, most Browsers and Office Software are already cross OS, so they even get the same stuff they know from Windows.
I simply prefer it for development.
Well there you go. That's the author's problem. He's caught up in an all-too-common delusion. Of course software gets worse with time. The only counterexample I have is Apache and some CLI tools. I literally cannot think of any other software that has not declined significantly given enough time and features. Whether the product manager wants to add some stupid little widget users will hate, the designer wants to redesign a perfectly good UI into a monstrosity, or the programmer wants to rewrite perfectly good code into a pile of bugs, it is almost a law of nature that software quality will degrade. You can even trace the causes of the author's gripes to one of the above reasons.
I've often wondered why the 'classics' such as CLI tools seem to be resistant to this. I suspect that over time users just learn to live with the "bugs" and don't expect any further changes: from a time when "being 1.0" meant it was complete!
EDIT: typo
Linux is getting worse in certain respects on the server too, mostly due to the complexity explosion of systemd and its ilk and a complete lack of attempts to actually fix problems rather than piling on work-around after work-around after work-around.
SysV init was a nasty pile of arcane cruft, and to replace it the systemd crew somehow managed to engineer something more obtuse and arcane. That's an accomplishment I suppose. The whole thing feels "enterprise" from start to finish: awful counter-intuitive UX, monolithic, over-engineered, and I bet it completely destroys any hope of creating a Linux system hardened against local privilege escalation attacks.
Docker is brilliant satire in software form. It's fantastic and very useful, but for reasons that all relate to fundamental shortcomings and impedance mismatches in the core OS. Someone literally threw their hands up and said "F it lets just tar up Linux distributions and treat them like giant statically linked binaries!" and someone else said "wait... that's actually not a bad idea!" and here we are. It's a prank taken to production at scale, and the fact that it is so useful is a deep indictment of the whole ecosystem. If your roof leaks a tarp is useful too.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again: it is harder to make something simple than to make something complex. It require more effort, more knowledge, and more intelligence. Arcane or complex designs are a sign of inferior engineering.
Finally, there are far too many distributions. It makes shipping software for Linux a nightmare. The only reason anyone should ever create a distribution is to customize things for a specialized use case (e.g. embedded) or to explore some fundamentally novel approach to solving the problems outlined above (e.g. the Guix package manager, GoboLinux). Creating another distribution that is fundamentally just like all the others with the same essential approach to packaging and management and the like is needless fragmentation that only multiplies the effort required for every developer to target the platform.
On the 'meta' level: I think it's clear at this point that some of the classic assumptions of the FOSS community and especially the Linux wing of that community are wrong. Among these are Eric Raymond's whole thesis in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." The reality seems to be more like "The Cathedral and the Mess."
... and JWZ is still right: https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html
As for distributions, we as seasoned linux users have to take the initiative to adopt and popularize new distributions, the way we adopted Ubuntu en masse in 2006 out of nowhere. GalliumOS for chromebooks, Calculate Linux for laptops/desktops, and Void Linux (or gentoo hardened) for servers. When newbies ask for advice, we are doing them a disservice by suggesting Ubuntu or debian-based derivatives, despite the availability of binaries for everything, for the same reason that people suggesting RPM-based derivatives (Red Hat, CentOS, Fedora) were doing a disservice to newbies.
My 13yo daughter can get through a Calculate Linux, Manjaro, or Antergos install (though she needs help replacing systemd with OpenRC on the last two). Let's start promoting the new good distributions, now that the old ones have jumped the shark.
But you can you get the best system? No, because you land up with multiple incompatible implementations that don't quite fit together. OSX is the most similar option, and it wins because of consistency - consistency is forced on all developers by an overall authority. Keyboard shortcuts are a classic example, OSX has one set, on Linux you get different ones depending on the toolkit used GNOME, KDE, Xwin and a lot of other defunct ones! In the Linux world the desktop environments tried to define their own standards (GNOME and KDE in particular) and it didn't work because users run applications from other tool kits; then they tried through freedesktop.org but it just didn't get/have the buy-in. You've also always had the problem of the major distributions competing (wanting to differentiate) with each other and causing friction. And finally, these days there's just not that much energy in the desktop paradigm on Linux: there are very few "application" focused desktop developers now.
Agreed, that the creation of distributions is also a problem. It seems to be a test that every 'power administrator' does, a bit like every developer creates a text editor/irc client. Somewhere along the line Linux user/developers got the idea that creating their own distribution was cool. Distributions are easy to do at the beginning, and then increasingly hard.
It's a separate issue that you don't get the "best <insert consumer app>" because the people that develop open source don't understand 'consumer apps'.
I need Sketch / Photoshop for my work and a retina display.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+change+kde+wallpaper&l=1
* Edit after down votes: Sarcasm is specially regarded as negative behavior in HN, but negativeness for negativeness, this article shouldn't even be here. It's filled with destructive criticism and unjustified claims. I'd accept the wallpaper argument from any person who hardly sits in front of a computer, not from someone whose primary occupation is to write about technology, not from someone who's been using Linux for 20 years (first thing to do? check man pages, do your research). I understand the down votes, but seriously, this article only makes me angry - maybe that's why John Dvorak is widely regarded as a troll.