Biggest Gripes with Linux?

[Flawed]

Truth be told, it's like there is an unwritten rule (or a written GPL requirement) to come up with a stupid name for your open source app. I think most of that comes from the fact that, like Linux itself, most apps were enthusiasts' work, so it's not like much thought was put into process, I doubt GIMP had chasing Photoshop in their mind when they started out. Having said that, I'm still confused with some names, MeeGo being the prime example. At least Moblin easily indicated what it is and what it's for.

There are lots of examples both in FOSS and proprietary software that use such names. As already mentioned, excel, and access are good examples.

[MarkusDarkus]

Photoshop is all it would take me to move to Linux. I love it but always end up going back to Windows due to the lack of Photoshop.

[Flawed]

Photoshop is all it would take me to move to Linux. I love it but always end up going back to Windows due to the lack of Photoshop.

CS5 (12.0) runs well under wine as do some older versions.

[HSoft]

Lack of good programs is definitely a huge issue. Do keep a close look on Wine as it has in the past 3 years hugely moved forward in terms of application compatibility, now being able to run a large amount of even the newest Windows programs flawlessly out of the box. Photoshop CS2 as an example currently runs almost flawlessly apparently, while CS3 not so much at the moment.

.Net support on the other hand is very good under Linux. The Microsoft .net Framework 2.0 at the very least currently runs under Wine, and there is also the Mono project which is an open-source implementation of the .Net Framework, which is developed and paid for by Novell. Mono apparently has much of 4.0 already implemented. Here's a link to its compatibility graph/list with Microsoft's .Net implementation: http://mono-project.com/Compatibility

Mono doesn't cut it. It may be OK with .net 2.0 but that's 6 or so years old now. I actually tried a quick .Net 3.5 program (not even the latest .net 4.0) and it failed with Mono.

The problem I see with Wine (well it's not so much a problem as an observation) is why would you want to go to all the touble of installing and configuring Linux to run Windows programs through an emulator (which is kindof what Wine is). Why not just run windows programs on Windows?

[.Neo]

CS5 (12.0) runs well under wine as do some older versions.

Personally I see little reason in running Linux if I have to run Windows applications in Wine. I want my applications to actually integrate with the OS and be optimized for it. I don't want to run Windows applications on Mac OS X either, especially not those I have to use on a frequent basis. In that case I'd rather stick with an OS that runs the applications I need natively. Can't stand all that cross-platform crap.

[Flawed]

Personally I see little reason in running Linux if I have to run Windows applications in Wine. I want my applications to actually integrate with the OS and be optimized for it. I don't want to run Windows applications on Mac OS X either, especially not those I have to use on a frequent basis. In that case I'd rather stick with an OS that runs the applications I need natively. Can't stand all that cross-platform crap.

I completely agree. However as a migratory tool, wine can indispensable while businesses and individuals adjust to the new software ecosystem. For instance, the person whom I responded to can take the time to familiarise himself with the GIMP and still be productive in the short term with CS5 or an earlier version. I must reinforce the idea however, that in the long term the goal should be to transition to native applications. Those who are unwilling to learn a new system and its software may be better suited to staying with their original OS. Personally I find learning new systems exciting.

[Flawed]

Mono doesn't cut it. It may be OK with .net 2.0 but that's 6 or so years old now. I actually tried a quick .Net 3.5 program (not even the latest .net 4.0) and it failed with Mono.

Not only that, but dotNet's licence is precarious at best. Of course it's written by Microsoft, so that's no surprise. If you want a simple and modern OO language, then it's far better to develop in Python, Vala, or one of the many other languages available. Personally I prefer good old C. Rock solid and deterministic, unlike many others like C++, which have so many quirks, that you actually have to take the time to learn how your compiler works internally.

[.Neo]

I completely agree. However as a migratory tool, wine can indispensable while businesses and individuals adjust to the new software ecosystem. For instance, the person whom I responded to can take the time to familiarise himself with the GIMP and still be productive in the short term with CS5 or an earlier version. I must reinforce the idea however, that in the long term the goal should be to transition to native applications. Those who are unwilling to learn a new system and its software may be better suited to staying with their original OS. Personally I find learning new systems exciting.

I have nothing against learning a new OS, I fully switched to Mac OS X in 2003 from Windows XP (couldn't deal with the aging OS and the tragedy that was Windows Longhorn). However, the only reason I went through with that was because the platform offered me all the applications I required and it still does to this very day. Linux on the other does not offer the applications I need, or anything that comes close to the functionality I require. Solutions like GIMP, OpenOffice etc. simply aren't cutting it and are behind Adobe Creative Suite, Microsoft Office, iWork and iLife when it comes to features and overall quality. I'm willing to bet the same thing applies to many others around here. Unless Linux gains better quality applications and even commercial ones the OS simply isn't an option. At this point Linux (specifically Ubuntu for example) isn't the problem anymore, but application support is: You constantly have to settle with less compared to Mac OS X and Windows or have to make do with workarounds, hacks, virtualization or whatever. Personally I'm not willing to make do just for the sake of running Linux.

[bjoswald]

Yes, but most Linux program names actually do tell you something about what they do.

And when a program name is ambiguous, you can get Ubuntu or other such user-friendly distros that specify things. Example: is GIMP ('GNU Image Manipulation Program') too obscure? Ubuntu has it as 'GIMP Image Editor'. Example: Are you biatched about Inkscape? Ubuntu has it as 'Inkscape Vector Graphics Editor'.

This 'name' issue is a non-issue, probably fabricated for FUD purposes originally in the cellar of some corporate headquarters or other.

Names of programs on any platform are at times a bit 'creative'. So what? Are we as human beings so limited we can't cope with that? Oh dear. ;)

Well, call me "limited", but when I hear Tomboy, the last thing I think about is Post-It Notes.

[ichi]

In that case I'd rather stick with an OS that runs the applications I need natively. Can't stand all that cross-platform crap.

Cross-platform and native aren't mutually exclusive.

Admittedly I'm not that familiar with Windows and OSX look and feel (at least not on their latest releases), but do these cross-platform Qt apps really look that alien?

http://images.clementine-player.org/screenshots/clementine-0.5-4.jpg

http://images.clementine-player.org/screenshots/clementine-0.5-1.png

http://www.virtualbox.org/attachment/wiki/Screenshots/mac_os_x.png

http://www.virtualbox.org/attachment/wiki/Screenshots/win7.png

http://images1.videolan.org/vlc/screenshots/0.9.2/osx-0.9.2-ASS-softsubs.jpg

They are all using native widgets, and I'd bet you can find far far worse among the non cross-platform apps for each platform.

Performance wise, I don't think anyone's having complains about VLC and Virtualbox :unsure:

PS: I agree, though, that if most apps you need are available only for a certain single platform with no ports nor viable alternatives, then you are obviously better off running that platform.

[OuchOfDeath]

Mono doesn't cut it. It may be OK with .net 2.0 but that's 6 or so years old now. I actually tried a quick .Net 3.5 program (not even the latest .net 4.0) and it failed with Mono.

The problem I see with Wine (well it's not so much a problem as an observation) is why would you want to go to all the touble of installing and configuring Linux to run Windows programs through an emulator (which is kindof what Wine is). Why not just run windows programs on Windows?

If you'd take a look at the link I gave you you'd see that Mono has 4.0 compatibility, with some apis missing that are specified. It's a very solid developer framework, and while its compatibility with .net programs is really good, it's specifically tailored at developers and having them move their .net apps to mono with minimal code changes.

The second question is simple. It's to run Linux instead of Windows. That's the entire idea of switching. It's the best OS for development hands down. Windows is a giant mess for developers, while Linux makes it a breeze with package management that lets you pull in dev libraries, compile dependencies, and documentation instantly. That's not to mention that bash is -the- best command line interface there is. Windows' powershell doesn't even come close. There's a lot of things that Linux is better at, and development is amongst the top of that list. Wine is there for those apps that you need that aren't available as Linux natives (such as photoshop).

[Renvy]

At first these things let me use windows over Ubuntu:

lack of wirreless support

lack of support for ipod touch

lack of ms office on it

I could not play cool games on it

interface at first (talking about ubuntu dapper drake) was a bit ugly (this changed when i later installed Ubuntu 8.10 en 9.04)

Since Ubuntu 10.10:

Wirreless was suported from the linux boot-cd

ipod touch (2g) is better supported then with microsoft

with play on linux (a real handy application for games too) I can run Office 2007

games --> play on linux

Some real cool skins ( Docky and Compiz) and Ubuntu 10.10 is awesome for me!

[HSoft]

Not only that, but dotNet's licence is precarious at best. Of course it's written by Microsoft, so that's no surprise. If you want a simple and modern OO language, then it's far better to develop in Python, Vala, or one of the many other languages available. Personally I prefer good old C. Rock solid and deterministic, unlike many others like C++, which have so many quirks, that you actually have to take the time to learn how your compiler works internally.

C\C++ are old languages and not what I would call modern languages like Java or C#.

Don't really want to get into a language war as everybody has their own preferences however after using numerous languages over the years (including C\C++, Java etc. all the way back to COBOL and others) the best language that I've come across so far is C# (Visual Studio is also by far the best IDE i've used).

It's also the language that most companies are now using (although Visual Basic.Net is still very big).

To be honest however I've not tried Vala but it appears such a niche language that I don't think it would be worth my time learning.

[Flawed]

C\C++ are old languages and not what I would call modern languages like Java or C#.

Which is what I said lol. At least Java has excellent cross platform support, unlike C#, vb.net or any other microsoft invention . Athough I wouldn't completely discount C/C++, for they are still the most widely used languages. Yes, in business too. A lot of businesses saw what happened with Active X and IE and don't want a repeat of that kind of proprietary, poorly supported lock-in. Python, Perl, Ruby and others are far superior to dotNet languages in that regard.

the best language that I've come across so far is C# (Visual Studio is also by far the best IDE i've used).

In all honesty, I can't see the big deal about it. There are many languages/development platforms superior to C#. I suppose if you only intend on developing on Windows that's fine, but if want platform independence, then Python, Java et al are much better suited. Even on Windows. I'd rather just compile my POSIX compatible C code with cygwin, than rewrite it in dotNet.

In terms of IDE's, I don't really use one. I mainly just use the terminal with GNU Autotools, GCC, GDB, Screen, Vim, Emacs, and Nano. I'm not reliant on a single tool, so I can swap them any time I feel like it. Using an IDE like Visual Studio would just slow me down. I can do everything just with a keyboard and a terminal. In fact a lot of the time, I don't even load Gnome, I just do everything in a raw terminal, even web browsing (Elinks).

It's also the language that most companies are now using (although Visual Basic.Net is still very big).

What companies? Ones who are completely reliant on microsoft for their software perhaps, but most companies I know of prefer not to be locked into proprietary technologies.

To be honest however I've not tried Vala but it appears such a niche language that I don't think it would be worth my time learning.

If you write Gnome/Gtk applications, then it's perfect. It compiles the code to C as well, so you get all the benefits of a very modern language with the performance of C code. The lambda closure syntax it has is quite beautiful.

[.Neo]

Cross-platform and native aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't care. I have a strong dislike towards both cross-platform applications (Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Photoshop, InDesign to name a few) and running non-native applications in a virtualized environment (Wine, VMware Fusion (I know the two are different) or whatever). I want applications to be optimized and written for the OS I'm using them on.

Admittedly I'm not that familiar with Windows and OSX look and feel (at least not on their latest releases), but do these cross-platform Qt apps really look that alien?

http://images.clementine-player.org/screenshots/clementine-0.5-4.jpg

I stopped after loading the first screen shot. Yes it is, very, very, very, different from a truly native application. Not only does it look like some Aqua abomination it also fails to integrate with every API Mac OS X has to offer: It goes far beyond an application's initial appearance. Most people don't get that with cross-platform applications you also give up on the native spell check Mac OS X offers, Dictionary, Core Animation, smooth scrolling, just to name a few. And that's exactly the problem with Qt applications on Mac OS X, hell it doesn't even utilize a Unified window design...

They are all using native widgets

Using random native widgets isn't enough. It's about how an applications behaves, its performance, the APIs, the overall window design. The above screen shots don't match what a modern Mac OS X application looks and feels like, at all. Simple as that.

Very few Mac users around here would use something like that, unless they have to (money related or otherwise).

[ichi]

I stopped after loading the first screen shot. Yes it is, very, very, very, different from a truly native application. Not only does it look like some Aqua abomination it also fails to integrate with every API Mac OS X has to offer: It goes far beyond an application's initial appearance. Most people don't get that with cross-platform applications you also give up on the native spell check Mac OS X offers, Dictionary, Core Animation, smooth scrolling, just to name a few. And that's exactly the problem with Qt applications on Mac OS X, hell it doesn't even utilize a Unified window design...

Using random native widgets isn't enough. It's about how an applications behaves, its performance, the APIs, the overall window design. The above screen shots don't match what a modern Mac OS X application looks and feels like, at all. Simple as that.

Very few Mac users around here would use something like that, unless they have to (money related or otherwise).

Well, the uglyness of it's design is a design problem. You can make a fugly non cross-platform apps just as easily.

As long as you have native widgets that behave as such, the design is up to the designer, not a technical limitation.

Regarding the native APIs, if you really want to take advantage of certain native API functions you can just implement that functionality bits within #ifdefs for each targeted platform. I don't think users can tell Qt Animation from Core Animation :unsure: but you can use the later with Qt if you really really really want to.

Dunno, native (non cross-platform) development is obviously more likely to produce native look&feel, but it's not a guarantee, nor is cross-platform development a guarantee of the opposite (that would have more to do with lazy development that anything, IMO).

[.Neo]

Well, the uglyness of it's design is a design problem. You can make a fugly non cross-platform apps just as easily.

As long as you have native widgets that behave as such, the design is up to the designer, not a technical limitation.

And yet all cross-platform apps have a tendency the look the way you just showed us. The ones that do look better all have odd quirks, off behavior, lack of OS integration etc. In the end they all act and feel different from truly "native" applications. Firefox is a great example of this. Mozilla probably spent insane amounts time and resources on making Firefox look and feel native on Mac OS X. After all that effort you can still tell the difference. It still integrates poorly with the rest of the OS and has a noticeable lack of native APIs (native spell checking, Dictionary, awkward animations that are simply not as advanced and smooth or complete lack of etc.).

iTunes (an application ported from Mac OS 9) suffers from the exact same problems.

Regarding the native APIs, if you really want to take advantage of certain native API functions you can just implement that functionality bits within #ifdefs for each targeted platform. I don't think users can tell Qt Animation from Core Animation :unsure: but you can use the later with Qt if you really really really want to.

Dunno, native (non cross-platform) development is obviously more likely to produce native look&feel, but it's not a guarantee, nor is cross-platform development a guarantee of the opposite (that would have more to do with lazy development that anything, IMO).

Fact is that no cross-platform application I know of actually makes use of any native APIs and feels like a proper Mac OS X application. So while it might be technically possible, it isn't being done.

[HSoft]

If you'd take a look at the link I gave you you'd see that Mono has 4.0 compatibility, with some apis missing that are specified. It's a very solid developer framework, and while its compatibility with .net programs is really good, it's specifically tailored at developers and having them move their .net apps to mono with minimal code changes.

The second question is simple. It's to run Linux instead of Windows. That's the entire idea of switching. It's the best OS for development hands down. Windows is a giant mess for developers, while Linux makes it a breeze with package management that lets you pull in dev libraries, compile dependencies, and documentation instantly. That's not to mention that bash is -the- best command line interface there is. Windows' powershell doesn't even come close. There's a lot of things that Linux is better at, and development is amongst the top of that list. Wine is there for those apps that you need that aren't available as Linux natives (such as photoshop).

Mono isn't fully .Net compliant as I stated. I tried it with a .Net 3.5 app and it failed, this wasn't all that long ago.

As for being the best developer platform, again I would argue. You're talking about Bash and command line interfaces, that's going back to the dark ages. I used CLIs when I programmed with IBM 3270 terminals 20 years ago. Visual Studio is by far the best programming IDE and has been for a while (I've used a variety over the years including free ones, Java IDE's etc. etc.).

Maybe Linux will catch up with Windows and even surpass it one day but at present it has a long way to go IMO.

[Growled Member]

At first these things let me use windows over Ubuntu:

lack of wirreless support

lack of support for ipod touch

lack of ms office on it

I could not play cool games on it

interface at first (talking about ubuntu dapper drake) was a bit ugly (this changed when i later installed Ubuntu 8.10 en 9.04)

Since Ubuntu 10.10:

Wirreless was suported from the linux boot-cd

ipod touch (2g) is better supported then with microsoft

with play on linux (a real handy application for games too) I can run Office 2007

games --> play on linux

Some real cool skins ( Docky and Compiz) and Ubuntu 10.10 is awesome for me!

I think a lot of times people used Linux 5 years ago and base all their replies on that. Linux today is not what it was way back then. Your post shows that.

[Solid Knight]

I think a lot of times people used Linux 5 years ago and base all their replies on that. Linux today is not what it was way back then. Your post shows that.

First impressions are lasting impressions. Linux made hard pushes five years ago and the poor experiences people had with it will last for a long, long time.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Currently installing Ubuntu 10.10. The thing is taking ages. I started the installation at around 7pm, it is now 11pm, it took about 3 hours to download all the required updates before installation, and now it says it has to install yet another 300MB of updates which should take another couple of hours to install.

I actually wouldn't mind if, like Windows, you could install other software while the OS is downloading updates. But Ubuntu doesn't let you do that. It won't even start downloading the other packages.

Hopefully it'll be usable by tomorrow morning. :pinch:

[iamawesomewicked]

Currently installing Ubuntu 10.10. The thing is taking ages. I started the installation at around 7pm, it is now 11pm, it took about 3 hours to download all the required updates before installation, and now it says it has to install yet another 300MB of updates which should take another couple of hours to install.

I actually wouldn't mind if, like Windows, you could install other software while the OS is downloading updates. But Ubuntu doesn't let you do that. It won't even start downloading the other packages.

Hopefully it'll be usable by tomorrow morning. :pinch:

It shouldn't take 3 hours just to download updates... maybe if your internet is terribly slow?

[Andre S. Veteran]

No it's not. The servers are. And yeah I ran "select best server".

Even if was going as fast as my connection would allow it, it'd still not allow me to install my software until the 300MB was fully downloaded and installed.

[iamawesomewicked]

No it's not. The servers are. And yeah I ran "select best server".

Even if was going as fast as my connection would allow it, it'd still not allow me to install my software until the 300MB was fully downloaded and installed.

Using the default settings for downloading in Ubuntu is a bad idea.. it's best to manually select one and find which one downloads the fastest.

[Andre S. Veteran]

The "select best server" button does that automatically, it runs ping and download tests on each of the servers. There are over 300 of them, there's no way I'm going to try them manually. Neither the default nor the result of "select best server" results in a decent download speed.

And when "Using the default is a bad idea", that's usually a problem in itself.