Biggest Gripes with Linux?


Recommended Posts

James7

I just have to wonder, seriously, about people who talk about Linux as if it's a problem. I have used Ubuntu since 2007. I have had only the odd problem. But I have also had an OS and other software that just works.

Am I some sort of species unique to the world? I read Neowin's forums and see all the "issues" people have with other OSes, and with Linux, too, but these form a minor part there. Am I just so super lucky that I don't have to worry about such things? I don't think so. My computers and those of my family, whom I support as well, have been running Ubuntu for years. I am no genius either. These general complaints about how Linux requires the command line or that it's only for geeks or that it is otherwise impossible just don't work for me. It's not even at the point anymore of looking like genuine problems. It just looks like (sorry) deliberate misinformation.

Yes, Linux is not great with games, because many developers don't develop games for Linux (though some, I gather, are doing so). I have a PS3 for my games. I'd have it if I had a Windows or OSX machine. So what?

My Linux machines simply rock. And it's not rocket science. How long will these misrepresentations persist? Is that the best others have with regard to their attacks on Linux? It is seriously more than getting old... or desperate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
redvamp128

I just have to wonder, seriously, about people who talk about Linux as if it's a problem. I have used Ubuntu since 2007. I have had only the odd problem. But I have also had an OS and other software that just works.

Am I some sort of species unique to the world? I read Neowin's forums and see all the "issues" people have with other OSes, and with Linux, too, but these form a minor part there. Am I just so super lucky that I don't have to worry about such things? I don't think so. My computers and those of my family, whom I support as well, have been running Ubuntu for years. I am no genius either. These general complaints about how Linux requires the command line or that it's only for geeks or that it is otherwise impossible just don't work for me. It's not even at the point anymore of looking like genuine problems. It just looks like (sorry) deliberate misinformation.

Yes, Linux is not great with games, because many developers don't develop games for Linux (though some, I gather, are doing so). I have a PS3 for my games. I'd have it if I had a Windows or OSX machine. So what?

My Linux machines simply rock. And it's not rocket science. How long will these misrepresentations persist? Is that the best others have with regard to their attacks on Linux? It is seriously more than getting old... or desperate.

The thing a lot of people don't realize is that --

Most of the time that other says-- Drop to a terminal and Type or Copy and paste the following command-

Also that most of the time that software is already in the repository-

I still have my 9.04 Ubuntu machine working in the bedroom-

OH almost forgot and have posted other things in this thread -- My Biggest Gripe with Linux....

Is how people complain about how linux just does not work like windows.....

And how people say why do I have to use a command line-

I know one person who bought a second hand Windows computer with XP that she later on found out that it had a Pirate OS---- and did not have the money to buy a key. So I gave her the free option of Ubuntu (dual boot at first-- so that when she got the money to buy a Valid key she could still have it) The machine started out with 8.04 -- Which surprisingly enough this person has now burned 9.04 and installed it over the XP...... And likes Ubuntu better..... and now does not want to switch back.

AND NOW FOR THE BIG SURPRISES.

HAS NOT EVEN ONCE USED THE COMMAND LINE AND HAS WORKING FLASH-FIREFOX-CHROME- ALL BY USING THE SYNAPTIC PACKAGE MANAGER-NOT TO MENTION WORKING NVIDIA DRIVERS BY JUST CLICKING THE USE PROPRIETARY DRIVERS-

This person is in their mid 60's -

Link to post
Share on other sites
]SK[

AND NOW FOR THE BIG SURPRISES.

HAS NOT EVEN ONCE USED THE COMMAND LINE AND HAS WORKING FLASH-FIREFOX-CHROME- ALL BY USING THE SYNAPTIC PACKAGE MANAGER-NOT TO MENTION WORKING NVIDIA DRIVERS BY JUST CLICKING THE USE PROPRIETARY DRIVERS-

WOW SO EXCITING!!!11one

Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman

You guys can keep saying that Linux REQUIRES you to use a terminal, but it won't make it any more true. All you are doing is proving that you haven't tried it and don't know what you're talking about. So seemingly the biggest gripe from this thread is based on misinformation from people who probably haven't even ever used Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
redvamp128
SK[' date=16 October 2010 - 03:01' timestamp='1287212489' post='593271266]

WOW SO EXCITING!!!11one

You must not have seen that the person is in their Mid 60's then

Linux is so easy even an old person can use it..... Not to mention-- even installed the next version by herself.

So now her machine dual boots-- 8.04 and 9.04.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SpeedyTheSnail

No AIM Video Chat. I live 2,600 miles away from my family, and I use AIM and Skype to talk to them at least once every two weeks. Had linux had the application and hardware support (from the COMPANIES that manufacture the hardware, not reverse engineered, though often companies create a linux driver now-a-days).

I like ubuntu's Interface, but as of now, Linux is unsuitable for anything by my file server (which I am still trying to set up with Ubuntu... having problems with old hardware though).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Syanide

I just love how people say Linux is not ready for mainstream. If you take that mainstream is mostly retarded, neither is Windows. Seriously. I know it can be a hassle _if_ you have a problem, but if you get it properly set up from your hardware supplier (or by someone who knows what he's doing) -- which btw is how 90% of computer users get their OS, be it Linux, Windows or Mac -- you won't have much problems.

As I previously said, my gripe is hardware, but even that works 90% of the time. It's just that those 10% can hurt more than having a similar problem on Windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nub

You guys can keep saying that Linux REQUIRES you to use a terminal, but it won't make it any more true. All you are doing is proving that you haven't tried it and don't know what you're talking about. So seemingly the biggest gripe from this thread is based on misinformation from people who probably haven't even ever used Linux.

I have tried linux lots of times. I've had a dual boot setup before and really tired to use linux, but no go. Handicapping myself to avoid using windows? No thanks. I set up a linux virtual machine if I need to do anything in linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DanLeto

I'll use Linux when it's in the mainstream which is likely to be never. I've been 'trying' to use Ubuntu for a few years but it just doesn't feel right.

PS.

It's damn ugly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
redvamp128

PS.

It's damn ugly.

You do know that you can use different window managers to customize it right out of the box....not to mention there are more themes out there as well as change even the Ubuntu Icon _- Unlike windows where you are stuck with the flag or having to hack it.

That is without having to buy 3rd party software- You can make it look how you want it--

KDE- XFCE-GNOME- LXDE Not to mention There are even ones (just can't think of the name where there is no menu or task bars-- everything is accessed through the right click and it downsizes to whatever side of the screen you want it.

So now how can that one be ugly??? when all it shows you is what you decide to have a desktop image...

Though -- I did always think Ubuntu Default colors looked horrible-- but at least you can change it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+jamwheat

I have Kubuntu 10.10 installed on one drive, Win7 on another on the same machine. Both are set to Eastern Time Zone, but after using Linux, my Win7 clock is suddenly 4 or 5 hours ahead. First time I have had that problem with Linux on another drive. <shrug> Maybe I'll figure it out later, of just not worry about it. Still fun to try figuring out how to do things in Linux :)

James

Link to post
Share on other sites
dknm

I just loved using Slackware for home use . But then I needed interoperability and it's just something linux doesn't play nicely .

3D/Video Authoring is inexistent , driver support isn't great and setting up pretty much anything is a laborious task . ( hi tv tuner )

Even simple things such as video calls are limited to skype . Sharing is a pain .

As a server though (mail,ftp,web) it's the best environment .

Right , and in 2 years of not using linux I've forgot most of the command-line queries . OSX's spoiled me.

If your distro needs a face lift , i heartily recommend this guy's work

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo
This person is in their mid 60's -

At least that explains why you had to use such a large font size.

Cheap shot, I know, but couldn't resist.

You do know that you can use different window managers to customize it right out of the box....not to mention there are more themes out there as well as change even the Ubuntu Icon _- Unlike windows where you are stuck with the flag or having to hack it.

To me Mac OS X' Aqua looks better and more refined than anything available on Linux. It's the advantage when you actually have a team of paid professionals designing your operating system's graphical user interface. Linux always had this amateur-ish look to it, and still largely does today. In my opinion at least. Also, I want my operating system to look good out of the box, not spend I don't know much time tweaking every aspect of it. I used to do that when I was younger but moved on since.

I have to say though that Ubuntu pleasantly surprised me when it comes to its interface. It's heaps better than what Linux used to look like only a few years ago. It isn't quite in the same league as Aqua though... But then again, Mac OS X is a paid product.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled

You do know that you can use different window managers to customize it right out of the box....not to mention there are more themes out there as well as change even the Ubuntu Icon _- Unlike windows where you are stuck with the flag or having to hack it.

That is without having to buy 3rd party software- You can make it look how you want it--

That's what many don't get. Linux can look like anything you want it to look like. And all for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nub

You do know that you can use different window managers to customize it right out of the box....not to mention there are more themes out there as well as change even the Ubuntu Icon _- Unlike windows where you are stuck with the flag or having to hack it.

Its a hassle

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

You guys can keep saying that Linux REQUIRES you to use a terminal, but it won't make it any more true. All you are doing is proving that you haven't tried it and don't know what you're talking about. So seemingly the biggest gripe from this thread is based on misinformation from people who probably haven't even ever used Linux.

I think the point that you are missing is that advanced configuration does require a fair bit of terminal usage. Not as much now as before, but it's still a relatively CLI dependant OS compared to Windows and OSX.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8666

I think the point that you are missing is that advanced configuration does require a fair bit of terminal usage. Not as much now as before, but it's still a relatively CLI dependant OS compared to Windows and OSX.

It is quite funny when there are 4 applications for managing keyboard settings (One icon for shortcuts, one for input method..etc), Few more for Compiz.. over cluttered. That's not "giving you a choice" but you need to collect bunch of incompatible tiny tools to configure one aspect of the OS

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo

That's what many don't get. Linux can look like anything you want it to look like. And all for free.

Slapping on a different theme and icon set doesn't change everything you know... Many Linux enthusiasts also don't seem to get that most users want their OS to look good out of the box, instead of having to redesign it themselves. Imagine having to pay for something like that...

Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman

I think the point that you are missing is that advanced configuration does require a fair bit of terminal usage. Not as much now as before, but it's still a relatively CLI dependant OS compared to Windows and OSX.

If you're enough of a power user to be changing anything that advanced, then I think you can handle a little terminal usage. Linux isn't CLI dependent, it IS a command line OS. That is not going to change, EVER. It has no need to change. There's nothing wrong with an OS based on a command line. Even still, the large majority of things you would need or want to change do not require terminal. I can't think of one time that I've HAD to use the terminal for something rather than choosing to do something in a terminal because I wanted to.

The whole argument is poor though. We've gone around in a circle. There is nothing wrong with a terminal, sometimes it's easier to use the terminal than not. The only good argument against it is that those less experienced may not feel comfortable typing commands. Those people aren't the people doing the kind of advanced configuration changes that would require the terminal, so we're back to using the terminal as a tool for advanced users rather than a necessity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution

If you're enough of a power user to be changing anything that advanced, then I think you can handle a little terminal usage. Linux isn't CLI dependent, it IS a command line OS. That is not going to change, EVER. It has no need to change. There's nothing wrong with an OS based on a command line. Even still, the large majority of things you would need or want to change do not require terminal. I can't think of one time that I've HAD to use the terminal for something rather than choosing to do something in a terminal because I wanted to.

The whole argument is poor though. We've gone around in a circle. There is nothing wrong with a terminal, sometimes it's easier to use the terminal than not. The only good argument against it is that those less experienced may not feel comfortable typing commands. Those people aren't the people doing the kind of advanced configuration changes that would require the terminal, so we're back to using the terminal as a tool for advanced users rather than a necessity.

Of course there is something wrong with terminal, some people don't want to use it because it's less intuitive than a point and click environment. Even some advanced users may not want to use it, but will have no choice. To say that all advanced users prefer CLI would be a mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman

Of course there is something wrong with terminal, some people don't want to use it because it's less intuitive than a point and click environment. Even some advanced users may not want to use it, but will have no choice. To say that all advanced users prefer CLI would be a mistake.

This argument will do nothing but hit a brick wall. I agree that not all advanced users would PREFER a CLI, but I don't see what the issue is with one, other than just not wanting to use it for no reason. As I mentioned, some things are easier to do in a terminal. In that case, our advanced user who is more than capable of typing a command, would rather do something a more difficult or time consuming way just because using a terminal would require them to type? It doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm someone who works on computers for a living, and when I come home, I don't want to have to constantly fix my computer to be able to do simple tasks, but even though people would say you have to in Linux, the actual fact is I don't have to. I have more to tinker with if I have the desire, but using most modern Linux distributions, everything I can think of works without having to hack it or use a terminal to get it set up. There are things in Windows or OS X that I'd use a terminal to do. That doesn't mean that they suck and you have to use a CLI, and the same applies to Linux. I would absolutely say that using Ubuntu (as an example since that's the Linux distribution that I prefer, and it's generally considered the most user friendly) takes absolutely no more work to use on a daily basis for general tasks than Windows or OS X, all of which I use. If it did, I wouldn't use it on my "daily driver" computer, or I'd use it in a VM.

I'm also not saying Linux is for everyone. There are plenty of reasons to prefer a different OS over Linux, I just think that many of the arguments against Linux are invalid. And this is coming from someone who has tried Linux a handful of times over the past 10 years or so, and has only started using it more frequently this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
COKid

1. Driver support

2. Terminal

3. Intimidating

Link to post
Share on other sites
redvamp128

Here is the biggest Gripe I have with Linux-- and yes I do use it --

Linux needs a fall back standard--- that works cross distro--

That would make it so much easier should an OEM (Manufacturer) decide to fully support it that it would work in all the distributions.

I have heard the Youtube Videos about linux is bad- videos and they do have full points--

Like the unnecessary need to have competing audio platforms on the same install.

Some subset of having choice makes linux what it is but 10 different ones just to produce sound-- That really makes for the nightmare of pulse kicking in when an application calls upon it but your system is setup to use ALSA....

Though another one is that 1/2 of these people complain about command line -- Yet --

when their windows install is borked--

And you boot the recovery cd--

Fixboot/mbr -

Isn't that command line???

Link to post
Share on other sites
kiwi89
In that case, our advanced user who is more than capable of typing a command, would rather do something a more difficult or time consuming way just because using a terminal would require them to type? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Exactly. For some tasks its just easier to open up a terminal and spend a few seconds typing in a few commands and if something goes wrong there is usually more feedback on what went wrong.

Installing software for example.

If its not in the repository for your OS then add it.

Then, depending on what distro you are using its not usually more then having to type in something like "sudo apt-get install <insert-package-name>".

It really isn't that difficult. Its nice and quick.

Despite how easy it is I can see how people might have issues with it. Its a little daunting at first, but all in all using a cli is so much more powerful then having to use a gui to make something work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.