# What do you dislike about linux the most?



## kilowatt (Apr 3, 2003)

Ok, lets get one thing out, linux has its problems. Not necessarly the OS its self, but rather the things a regular user has to put up with. You could extend this post to FreeBSD as well, but I think FreeBSD has some of the most common issues allready worked out, so I'm gona skip it for now.

1) Package management, or lack there of. This includes RPM, dpkg, etc.

2) XFree86. Lots of people are a little tired of this system.

3) Desktop mess. KDE, gnome, afterstep, enlightment, window maker.... On one hand, this makes linux kinda cool, but on the other, it can appear very disorganized, and I believe, hinders comercial success.

4) Installing. Personally, I've grown to expect it. And, linux installers have been growing in ease of use lately. But there are still some issues. Lets go ahead and put 'hardware detection' in here too.


So lets hear it! Whats not to like about linux?


----------



## ksv (Apr 3, 2003)

Hardware compatibility. That's all that keeps me from installing linux on any of my old macs. Lack of drivers is of course a result of lack of users, which also means lack of developers... especially on the mac side. Sort of bad circle.

Nah - OS X all the way


----------



## edX (Apr 3, 2003)

lack of gui's for many apps. 

this relates to the whole concept of typing in commands. if this was such an appealing way to run a system, DOS would have ruled the world long ago. it is archaic to put it nicely.

the whole open source thing - theorectically this is its strongest point. but in reality, it seems to add up to unfinished apps and lack of any meaningful support outside of forums and such. without having an 'investment' that will reward the developer, many apps never get the attention that they would if the developer was being compensated for their time. even apps that do get continual development, do so at a snail's pace. very frustrating.


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 3, 2003)

the lack of apps like the main programs of adobe and macromedia. i have used bluefish and gimp etc - but in some cases even a linux user would like to use photoshop and such.

gnome, for the gui. ugly.

i wish installing and disinstalling were like on macs, click and if you dont like just drag to trash. as an alternative for doing all from terminal ... i don't mind it, but most 'normal' users don't to touch the terminal.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Apr 3, 2003)

Not user friendly for the masses.  Great stuff for the tech heads, but for average Joe and Jane Doe, it's simply too complicated.  Great server OS, great for learning computer science, but for the family, I don't think so.

I'd have to agree with the comments about a lack of serious apps.


----------



## xyle_one (Apr 3, 2003)

when they do have a gui for an app, it is written in geek. and little inconsistencies in the desktop environment drive me insane. samba. i want to be able to browse samba shares easily in nautilis. sorta like network neighborhood in windows. id like to see this in osX as well. so instead of command+k, i could just open finder, go under network, and my windows/linux box is there. webmin is cool, but it is written in geek. i kinda like playing in terminal, but come on, i dont want to do it for everything. 
installing apps is easy enough with apt-get+synaptic, but i would love for it to be easy like osX. same with uninstalling apps. it would be nice if adobe, macromeida, autodesk, would write native linux apps of their popular software. then i could be rid of windows at work and home ( i only need autocad & 3d studio max, but they are windows only). someday, i think the distros will get their shit together. mandrake i hear is doing a really good job. i think i will go download it...


----------



## edX (Apr 3, 2003)

yea, well the whole reason that major players won't bother to write apps goes back to the whole open source conundrum - nobody in the linux community believes in paying for anything. so you'd have a market share of approximately 5% of 5% at best. again, what appears to be the best part about it is what keeps it from being a legitimate competitor. 

but i think this all stems from the real linux hardcores not wanting it to be for anybody but them. it's a geek prestige thing. one that makes about as much sense as 'uptime' vanity. os x appears to have done more to bridge the gap between linux and an accesible operating system than anyone could have dreamed possible. in the end it may do more to point out to linux gurus how to play well with others instead of huddling in their pseudo intellectual cliques and pretending they are somehow more advanced than other system users. 

what i guess i'm trying to say is that i have a hard time figuring out if linux's flaws are inherent to the system or to the people who support it?


----------



## Darkshadow (Apr 3, 2003)

Well, sorta both.  The people that support it are the ones who help develop the system 

There are a few commercial products for Linux (ones you have to pay for & not open-sourced).  Just not very many.

I happen to like Linux, but I'm not a fanatic. Heh  I've thought most of this stuff over the past few years that I've been using it.  Though I'd like to say that RPM _is_ a pretty good package manager...


----------



## lurk (Apr 3, 2003)

Just for the record the only linux software I use that is not part of the base install is in the neighborhood of $10k a seat.  I think that there is actually a booming industry for people who use Linux for "Real Work" with expensive vertical applications.  Now I won't argue with you about the stuff one would find at BestBuy but the consumer software industry is really not where the majority of the action really is.

It is a dangerous trap to look at computers from purely a consumer's perspective and then pass judgment on them or the industry.  I would not be surprised if more than 95% of the money made in commercial software was on stuff you never see in shrinkwrap. *

-Eric

Disclaimer: No real statistics were injured during the composition of this post.  All statics used in this message are purely fictitious but are in the right direction for various values of right.


----------



## edX (Apr 3, 2003)

damn, yet another dangerous trap i've fallen in. 

would somebody lend me a hand and pull me up out of here?


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 3, 2003)

can I help you of the trap, ed? 

hey, i know a lot of people who are stuck in using windows as they don't have $ to get a mac ... but they would migrate to Linux on their current wintel stuff, if they could use e.g. Photoshop or Dreamweaver. GIMP on Linux is OK, and it has even some things that I enjoy more on it than on Photoshop - but it still has some really annoying issues (and Bluefish has many of them). If Adobe and Macromedia would do - PAID - programs for at least Redhat / Mandrake and Debian / *BSD, they could discover a lot of potential customers. Of the wintel stuff using geeks I know, most would try. And not *all* Linux users want everything free, they probably would try GIMP and Bluefish, and once that would not satisfy them, want to get a working, paid version of those programs (PSH, DW etc). Linux people do still respect stuff like of those companies, and aren't all warez freaks. Maybe Adobe and Macromedia are just afraid that the versions should be particularly bug free on Linux platform(s)?


----------



## Pengu (Apr 3, 2003)

I can't really say I've used linux a lot, because I've only used it at TAFE, first off because it was part of the course. And, now, at the moment I'm using it again, because someone else and I have to make a PHP/MySQL assessment server, and I had no intention of using Windows for it. I also recently put XDarwin back onto this system, and first tried AfterStep, then KDE. For one thing, Afterstep is just plain weird. Maybe its just me. But. Compared to Gnome, KDE, with the right icon set/theme installed, is almost LICKABLE!. lol. I think that linux will never be "suitable" for the masses of wintel desktop users. Because rather than saying, "How do i write a word processing document" they will say "Where is Microsoft Word?" or "Where is the 'New Word Document' menu from right click?" It seems to me that a lot of Windows users are just that. They're not computer users, they're windows users. They're so accustomed to Windows little features (we call them bugs) etc, that anything else scares them. These are the sorta person who just accepts what microsoft says, and will never look at something different.
On the other hand, recently, some friends have had a chance to use my G4, both here at home, and one weekend when it was at a friend's house cus they wanted to play red alert on a lan. While they all (except 1, who did a Video-Ed. class and knew they were good, but was surprised at only having a 16mb video card) said, haha, get a real computer, blah blah, most of them managed to understand how to use itunes, and how to open music videos from the finder. Of interesting note, mine was the only machine that performed as it should have (even running win98 in VPC) from the get go. anyways. back to the topic at hand. I think linux is a great OS, and is the future of Server OSes. As for desktop use, I would prefer if everyone used something like OSX, which gives you a bit more GUI and a bit less CLI..

thats just my thoughts though..


----------



## Easter (Apr 6, 2003)

UH!, you are talking about Linux ...

OK Linux (all derivatives) has problems ... Solaris (SunOS) too ... and, speak clearly, even Mac OSX have problems (not talking about Windows ... too many times he windows software is written bad, and if a system driver is written bad ...)

Actually Linux is only the kernel written by Linus Torvalds (and others), the applications are GNU (open source, GPL) so to compile, try, test, etc... allt he things isn't easy and someone (RedHat, Mandrake, SUSE, etc ...) sell the user support.

Linux runs mainly on PC (x86) because thm are the most popular machines for the home users. More users means more hardware means more problems, but more users means even more developers so more solutions for the most common hardware/problems.
 Apple has only limited (in numer) hardware confgurations so the problems are at min.
So don't blame that Linux has many problems (an windows too ... Sun is another problem itself...).
The GUI ... X11 ... OK ... X11 is the most common graphical server for the UNIX community ... X11 is not a gui!!!
Window managers are far  less to be complete because the user needs are too many so became common the integrated environment like KDE and Gnome that are more than only WM ... they are more like programming interfaces!
So KDE and Gnome are more integrated but that has to be paid ... (less freedom to configure). (Gnome??? they can take gnome for themself , I don't like that!)

So now we have BSD?!?!?
NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD You know the difference????? (awaiting your response)
Talking of FreeBSD (the Mac OSX Kernel) we can say that WAS an optimized porting of NetBSD on x86 machines!!!!, but they made some porting on other processors like PPC ...
(the most beautiful aspect of BSD is that it has an "emulation" library for Linux, so you can execute Linux software on FreeBSD more faster than Linux native!!!)

The result is that *ALL* kernels are good ... MSDOS kernel is good, Windows Kernel is good, BSD kernel is good, Linux kernel is good, etc... but without software the kernel is of no use and software became a problem source!!

Do you want talk about GUI? OK Windows GUI (Explore) is very beautiful, usable, etc ... but is very fragile: every software of third part is able to "damage" the GUI. 
KDE??? is quite good but difficult to setup (compared to Explorer) and has no user friendly support (i.e. cut&paste is a mess: you can do that at minimun in two different manners).
Gnome is more integrated, more beautiful graphics, more user friendly, more configurable, more ... more but require too much processor power (it's only used as UI!!!).
Aqua ... OK, I'll be gently ... I have to  say that I don't like Aqua.
I'ts beautiful, colored, user friendly etc ... It's the most useful, complete, easy UI but do too many things in software (without using hardware acceleration).
Is my PERSONAL OPINION that a good compromise is KDE ... running KDE on FreeBSD (oooops I should say Mac OSX) is a good alternative.
Apple hardware is supported and tested so the sistem will "almost always" run well (OK I will not install the brand-new-mega- ultra-fast graphics card to play that blazing 3D game because there's no software driver, but who could??)

My answare is that there is nothing that I dislike about linux more than athers OS.

A la prochene foi_


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Easter _
> * ...
> So now we have BSD?!?!?
> NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD You know the difference????? (awaiting your response)
> ...



Well the old way to distinguish them was:

FreeBSD - The preferred x86 BSD.
NetBSD - The BSD for people running almost anything other than x86, great for those with obscure hardware or old *nix machines that couldn't afford the original OS license (e.g. HP and HP/UX)
OpenBSD - For those worried about security.  Also with multiple platform support, but usually not as good as NetBSD in this regard.



> *
> The result is that *ALL* kernels are good ... MSDOS kernel is good, Windows Kernel is good, BSD kernel is good, Linux kernel is good, etc... but without software the kernel is of no use and software became a problem source!!
> *



MSDOS, kernel!  A bit of a stretch of definition


----------



## Easter (Apr 8, 2003)

Hello binaryDigit,



> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *MSDOS, kernel!  A bit of a stretch of definition  *



yes, every OS have a kernel, big or small but if you can type some commands on a shell you have some software layers and one of them is the kernel.
MSDOS kernel is msdos.sys and io.sys

bye_


----------



## hazmat (Apr 8, 2003)

The one big thing I hate about Linux is X.  Besides that I always found Debian to be an absolute pleasure to run.  And I always found Red Hat a complete PITA to run.  RPM.  Blech.  Can you say unresolved dependencies?


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Easter _
> *Hello binaryDigit,
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, well there are many that would say that DOS is not an operating system (despite the name), which is where my statement comes in.  For those OS purists, one must have things like process control (vs simple launching) and memory management at a minimum, which DOS doesn't have.  It does have file services though, and in many ways is more like a higher level BIOS than a true OS.

But anyway, I made my statement in jest and am not looking for any wars on what constitutes and OS and what doesn't


----------



## lurk (Apr 8, 2003)

Dos is just a non-reentrant interupt handler  that is a far cry from any modern notion of an OS.


----------



## Easter (Apr 9, 2003)

Why are you so defensive?
I only add that CBM Commdore 64 have a kernel.
Everything that has an interface more evolute than simple binary or hex digit has a kernel and a shell.
I STOP.



> _Originally posted by lurk _
> *Dos is just a non-reentrant interupt handler  that is a far cry from any modern notion of an OS. *



byez_


----------



## lurk (Apr 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Easter _
> *Why are you so defensive?
> I only add that CBM Commdore 64 have a kernel.
> Everything that has an interface more evolute than simple binary or hex digit has a kernel and a shell.
> I STOP.*



Actually I was trying to be funny with a hint of truth, hence the .  

As to your assertion that things like DOS and the Commodore 64 having kernels is just wrong.  As I believe someone else has pointed out a kernel is traditionally tasked with providing basic OS functionality like process control, memory management, interprocess communication, IO and so forth.  A good idea when trying to figure out what a kernel is it compare it to a microkernel to see what is left out and why.  For instance IO is traditionally moved outside of the kernel in a microkernel. 

As for DOS it does not have a kernel which is not suprising because it does not provide any of the features that a kernel would be needed for.  Everything is loaded into the same address space and there is no concept of independent processes.  The only services provided by DOS are interupt handlers and thereby basic IO.  This really is an architectural issue about how the OS is constructed. 

Keep in mind that not having a kernel is not a bad thing in context.  The 8088 for which DOS was designed (ignoring other architectures) was a very primitive processor by today's standards and you could not efficiently provide the features which would have made a kernel useful.  

Just some examples...

Apple ][ - no kernel
Palm OS 3 - no kernel (I think)
Palm OS 5 - has kernel
Atari - no kernel
My Microwave (6502 based) - no kernel
DEC PDP 11 (running unix) - has kernel 

-Eric


----------



## hazmat (Apr 9, 2003)

So I guess the closest thing to a kernel from how you describe it would be DOS's command.com?


----------



## lurk (Apr 9, 2003)

No command.com is a shell.  Closest thing would be /bin/sh.  I know that it is hard grasp because command.com is the thing people interact with directly.  It makes one think that it is the OS but all it does is basically take the name of a program to execute and then execute it.  

There is *no* kernel in an OS like DOS it does not need one - it does not provide the types of services that would require one.

Philosophically a kernel is about providing a virtual environment for each process and managing these virtual environments.  Now DOS is a * real mode* operating system and does not provide any from of virtualization.  There is only ever one process (no preemptive multi-tasking by definition), one address space (no virtual memory, no address translation), IO is done by direct manipulation (no virtual devices).  Because these sorts of features do not exist in DOS there can not be any part of DOS which is the kernel providing them.

::existential sigh::  

-Eric


----------



## Easter (Apr 11, 2003)

Hello lurk,



> _Originally posted by lurk _
> *There is no kernel in an OS like DOS it does not need one - it does not provide the types of services that would require one.
> 
> Philosophically a kernel is about providing a virtual environment for each process and managing these virtual environments.  Now DOS is a  real mode operating system and does not provide any from of virtualization.  There is only ever one process (no preemptive multi-tasking by definition), one address space (no virtual memory, no address translation), IO is done by direct manipulation (no virtual devices).  Because these sorts of features do not exist in DOS there can not be any part of DOS which is the kernel providing them.
> *



you are right, as you can see http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9_gci212439,00.html

but DOS offer the services: 
a process scheduler: only one process at time (not counting TSR)
memory address space manager: full memory access
disk management: file system primitives (FAT12 FAT16...)
service requests are accomplished by software interrupts

OK, it's not a great kernel but it offers minimal services to run shell (command.com) and to execute programs without access disk directly, check the allocated and free memory, etc... 
DOS kernel is a very simple kernel for a simple OS offering minimal services.

CBM Commodore 64 kernal offers tape and disk "virtualization" services, memory bounds check... very minimal services enough to work with pheriperals (OK, it's more like a BIOS but that is).

This talk is reaching philosophical arguments so I think that it's time for me to stop. You are right, me too from another point of view so there's no reason to continue.

Byez_


----------



## dafuser (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *
> OpenBSD - For those worried about security.  Also with multiple platform support, but usually not as good as NetBSD in this regard.
> *



Why wouldn't everyone want a secure system? 

Don't you think security should be a requirement in all systems?

 If systems came configured for maximum security, we'd all be better off. Users would have to enable the items they needed, instead of systems being configured by default with everything enabled.

I use a router, NAT, and a firewall. I also use WEP and MAC restrictions on my wireless system.

People should demand better security from their systems, no matter what OS they use.


----------



## lurk (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Easter _
> *you are right, as you can see http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9_gci212439,00.html
> *



There needs to be a word for the way that a word looses its relevance as a google keyword when it is overused in other contexts.  I did the same search you did when I posted my replay but I disregarded that definition because it was too fluffly.  It talks around the issue in an effort not to offend beginner ears and in the end says nothing.  Any other potential definitions are lost in a slurry of "kernel traffic" and other similar useless hits.

I am afraid that I will have to direct you to the local library for a good definition.  The book we used when I TA'ed for Operating Systems was the one at http://os-book.com and it covered the topic quite nicely.  This is the classic Dinosaur Book for those of you who have been through a CS program in recent history.


> *
> but DOS offer the services:
> a process scheduler: only one process at time (not counting TSR)
> *


Think about the logic of what you are saying.  No action is performed so what can you say about the mechanism by which it wasn't performed.

It is all or nothing there is no scheduling going on so there can be no part of DOS to attribute the scheduling to.

As to TSR programs they are called "Terminate and Stay Resident" for a reason they are not actively scheduled.  They hide out in memory and wait to be called as an interrupt handler or via something like a jump table.  


> *
> memory address space manager: full memory access
> *


Again total lack of management is not management. 


> *
> disk management: file system primitives (FAT12 FAT16...)
> *


As I mentioned above IO is not one of the things which makes a kernel and there are kernels where IO is specifically moved into user space processes. 

This is not evidence for a kernel.


> *
> service requests are accomplished by software interrupts
> *


Yes that was part of the reason I said that DOS was just an interrupt handler.  (It is important to note that using interrupts to communicate with the kernel in an OS is a common thing since that can allow transfer of control from one trust level or process to another. So handling interrupts in and of itself is not a bad thing.)


> *
> OK, it's not a great kernel but it offers minimal services to run shell (command.com) and to execute programs without access disk directly, check the allocated and free memory, etc...
> DOS kernel is a very simple kernel for a simple OS offering minimal services.
> *


But it is not a kernel this is a simple question of definition.  This is exactly like trying to argue that a fish is really not a fish but a primitive mammal.  I mean it gives birth to live young (eggs are alive are they not) and it has hair (well scales but that is just like hair).  Words have definitions for a reason and trying extend the definition of mammal to include fish you remove the usefulness of the terms themselves.


> *
> CBM Commodore 64 kernal offers tape and disk "virtualization" services, memory bounds check... very minimal services enough to work with pheriperals (OK, it's more like a BIOS but that is).
> *


Again no kernel here.  That is not a bad thing it doesn't mean that some how this is a lesser OS.  Edx, if you are in this thread I wonder if an OS can have "Kernel Envy"?


> *
> This talk is reaching philosophical arguments so I think that it's time for me to stop. You are right, me too from another point of view so there's no reason to continue.
> *


The problem is that this is not a point of view question again it is a simple question of definition.  Accuracy in language is important in very concrete term, the assertion you are making that DOS has a kernel is patently false.  It is the same as my assertion that a tuna is a mammal, if we accept both of those in the interest of validating some relativist perception of truth - discourse is dead.

-Eric


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dafuser _
> *Why wouldn't everyone want a secure system?
> 
> Don't you think security should be a requirement in all systems?
> ...



Well as with anything else, it's a tradeoff.  I use NetBSD often because it supports a lot of the weird hardware I tend to have around.  For my primary machine(s), other things factor in, like availability of software, stability, hardware support, footprint, etc.  OpenBSD places their focus on security, and if it has all the software you need to run, then by all means run it.  Unfortunately it does not rank at the top in all the other requirements, so while it has it's place (I have it on two machines right now), it does not fit every purpose.

But I get what you're saying though and generally agree.  It would be nice if everyone took a serious look at security, but the realities of software development make doing this at the level needed to make really secure systems is beyond the scope of many companies (for both economic and technical reasons).

However one should never be lulled into thinking that they are 100% secure, not matter what your software vendor tells you.  OpenBSD's record is great, but primarily because out of the box, many services are disabled.  If you are running an email server or samba or openssl, then all these packages have had security issues in the last month alone.  So once you try to get some real work done, you start running into all the weak links in the security chain.


----------



## dafuser (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *
> But I get what you're saying though and generally agree.  It would be nice if everyone took a serious look at security, but the realities of software development make doing this at the level needed to make really secure systems is beyond the scope of many companies (for both economic and technical reasons).
> *



I'm not sure companies can't put better security in their software if they really wanted to. I'm sure the primary reason is the "good old bottom line." It would cost more to produce better code. 

The most common security issue with software seems to be buffer overflows. They have been exploited for years. I think the programmers are careless if they don't take the time to prevent buffer overflows in their code.

If software companies would be held responsible for their poor code, and it affected their "bottom line, you better believe they would produce better software.

While any software can have problems, the open source stuff seems to be faster at putting out fixes. 

Slammer and Code Red wouldn't still be around if people would take the responsibility to secure their systems, especially when the vendor has the patches available.

Like you say, no software is perfect, and security is a constantly moving target. What's secure today could well be the next buffer overflow victim tomorrow.


----------



## fryke (Apr 12, 2003)

Erhm, to get back on topic (DOS is dead, btw...):

1.) That its recent development aims at people who don't understand the first thing about computers.

2.) That Red Hat installer now tries (and fails) to recognise my hardware.

3.) That it gets all the public interest. Mac OS X should get that. It's the UNIX for the rest of us (them).



Okay... I'm an elitist asshole, as someone familiar would put it. Linux is a great (and free as in beer and open source) operating systems for creating small-scale (and big-scale) servers and nice (and cheap) X86 workstations. But you'll have to either know something about computers and linux, or you'll have to choose Red Hat and always click on 'secure' when that option is there. And then you'll need to register for their update service, or all your steps at learning linux might be watched by other people. Okay, the last part may sound a bit paranoid. Turns out, it's also true.

I don't believe in linux on the desktop. However, I do believe in linux for appliances. And one appliance could even be a desktop or notebook computer that comes with a preinstalled, secure linux system that offers everything a user might need and is automatically updated via a broadband connection. But that would take away a lot of linux' appeal, as half of the fun of having linux on your desktop/notebook is to customise it down to the bones (I mean the shell prompt. And compiling your own kernel. But it's like with people who roll their own cigarettes. They also have beards and are a bit rough sometimes. Linux people who roll their own kernels often lack a beard, but they're also tough guys who know their boxes and systems.)

Remember what happened to the internet when it became user-friendly? Yep, all the losers came 'online'. If anyone who can spell 'warez' - ;-) - can also get Photoshop for free at more than 100 Kb/s, I understand that AOL is truly the root of all piracy. They should blame themselves for all those copies of songs they didn't want to spread faster than the proverbial 'fame'. Okay, I'm totally off-topic now, so I stop this long post already.


----------

