Biggest Gripes with Linux?


Recommended Posts

TDT

Someone was asking about Office on Linux. It does work, and without any issues (except for Outlook, I think), with Crossover. :) Sorry if this was answered already. Yeah, I know it's a commercial solution, but it really worth the money.

On topic, what I don't like about Linux (but keep in mind that I use Linux in dual-boot with Win 7, and only for learning / testing / etc., not as a regular OS):

- the font rendering. I don't know any technical stuff about this, but Cleartype from Win looks 100000 times better than the font rendering on Linux.

- VMWare sucks on Linux. I tried to install XP on it the other day and it took almost 2 hours to complete, and I couldn't use Linux all this time, because there were 10-15 seconds freezes almost every 5 seconds. And when it finished, it was the same. So I tried VirtualBox, worked like a charm, finished in about 20 minutes. To answer some possible question, I have 2GB of Ram and a C2D processor at 2.8Ghz.

- poor Windows applications alternatives - I have some apps in Win that I really depend on, like Sound Forge, for example, but there are really no alternatives on Linux that can even begin to compare to it. And I don't want to use a virtual machine all the time.

- (in my case) no alternative to Nokia Ovi Suite that can support a N80 or a N95. I did try that gnoky, or whatever its name is, didn't work.

- I don't care about games, because I only play one game regularly, and it works fine on a virtual machine, but I guess it is a "-" for Linux.

- I have to "mount" my Windows drives all the time when Linux boots up. The drives are in my computer, but I have to click on them to be "mounted".

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo

I download an application from a website, in this case Firefox 4 beta 6. I get a tar.bz2 and when unarchiving it I end up with a folder. Now what?

screenshot20101005at235.pngvs 98039188.png

Linux is the only platform I know where installing an application is everything but straightforward when not using the Ubuntu Software Center. On Mac OS X I simply drag the APP file to my Applications folder, on Windows I simply run the installer. What am I supposed to do with that folder in Linux that doesn't seem to contain an installer or APP file I can simply click on?

I managed to figure out both Mac OS and Windows on my own. With Linux I feel like someone who hasn't used a computer ever and I need help from the internet every single step of the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

Someone was asking about Office on Linux. It does work, and without any issues (except for Outlook, I think), with Crossover. :) Sorry if this was answered already. Yeah, I know it's a commercial solution, but it really worth the money.

Indeed, I use it at work (although with plain wine), and it works great.

- VMWare sucks on Linux. I tried to install XP on it the other day and it took almost 2 hours to complete, and I couldn't use Linux all this time, because there were 10-15 seconds freezes almost every 5 seconds. And when it finished, it was the same. So I tried VirtualBox, worked like a charm, finished in about 20 minutes. To answer some possible question, I have 2GB of Ram and a C2D processor at 2.8Ghz.

It works fine here, although I use Virtualbox for new virtual machines.

For old ones created with VMWare which I can't be bothered to convert, I ditched VMWare Server due to it's lack of support for new kernels in it's 1.x branch and the **** poor joke of a console in 2.x. VMWare Player suffices and runs fine.

- I have to "mount" my Windows drives all the time when Linux boots up. The drives are in my computer, but I have to click on them to be "mounted".

It should be automounting if you add it to fstab with the "auto" option. You can use pysdm so you don't have to deal with editing text files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
apollos84

I have no gripes. I have been using Fedora Core for about 5 years now and I love it.

The only thing is I have been out of the "Windows World" for awhile. It goes to XP

and after that it gets blurry for me. Linux takes time to learn. As long as you have the internet,

you can solve a good majority of your Linux problems using Google.

Link to post
Share on other sites
acnpt

The unhealthy smugness of users. :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

I download an application from a website, in this case Firefox 4 beta 6. I get a tar.bz2 and when unarchiving it I end up with a folder. Now what?

Now you open that folder and run the browser, because it's a standalone download and not meant to be installed.

They could certainly have included a binary with a GUI installer, as you get with some games. It wouldn't be hard to do and would look more straight forward for people coming from Windows, but then again that's Mozilla's decision, not really a Linux shortcoming :unsure:

I agree anyway that providing installers is not a common practice in Linux (for non commercial software, that is). Providing a proper package is still a whole lot better, but if you are going to release a tar.gz that extracts to a folder and it's ready to run, you could as well provide a pretty GUI so the user can easily place the software where he wants (which might be /opt, to make it available for all users), and also automatically add launchers in the menu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BumbleBritches57

there app installer sucks

there update mechanism sucks (wayyyyyyyyy to nerdy for the average retarted cunsumer to use)

and the theme sucks

the placement is strange

there are no extensions

and its so different from Windows 7 that its insane to use

the only way ill ever use it is on Mac AKA OS X or to fix something i ****ed up in windows

Link to post
Share on other sites
BumbleBritches57

it dosent dound like your trying to fix things with Linux

it sounds like your trying to convert Windows users into Linux users

i posted problems with it to help it get fixed so that Windows has some competition so it gets better

but your just being a troll

that mentality right there is why Linux sucks and ALWAYS WILL SUCK

because instead of trying to fix things your just ****ing off people and making them more closed to linux

seriosuly linux needs ALOT OF WORK

to even be usuable

from what ive read about any cummunity based open source app

people dont want to fix bugs they just want to add a bunch of niche bull**** to it and make it bigger

seriously

there needs to be like 5 versions of Linux instead of over 300

and there needs to be 1 company behind it kinda like a internet standards style

Link to post
Share on other sites
TemperingPick

it dosent dound like your trying to fix things with Linux

it sounds like your trying to convert Windows users into Linux users

i posted problems with it to help it get fixed so that Windows has some competition so it gets better

but your just being a troll

that mentality right there is why Linux sucks and ALWAYS WILL SUCK

because instead of trying to fix things your just ****ing off people and making them more closed to linux

seriosuly linux needs ALOT OF WORK

to even be usuable

from what ive read about any cummunity based open source app

people dont want to fix bugs they just want to add a bunch of niche bull**** to it and make it bigger

seriously

there needs to be like 5 versions of Linux instead of over 300

and there needs to be 1 company behind it kinda like a internet standards style

I'd comment on this but to be honest I can't understand any of it. Can we use proper grammar and lay off the enter button?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

I download an application from a website, in this case Firefox 4 beta 6. I get a tar.bz2 and when unarchiving it I end up with a folder. Now what?

And why exactly would you want to do that? Firefox comes as standard with Ubuntu. There's no need to download anything. The security updates and bug fixes will come through the package manager.

Linux is the only platform I know where installing an application is everything but straightforward when not using the Ubuntu Software Center

Yes, so why aren't you using the software centre?

screenshot20101005at235.pngvs 98039188.png

. On Mac OS X I simply drag the APP file to my Applications folder, on Windows I simply run the installer. What am I supposed to do with that folder in Linux that doesn't seem to contain an installer or APP file I can simply click on?

That's because using Linux has a fundamental difference in paradigm. You are "thinking in windows", where you have to hunt around for applications. Everything you need is in the software centre. If you want to play around with unstable beta's and experimental software, then you do so at "your own risk". If something breaks and you cry wolf that Linux sucks, then no one will help you.

If you absolutely must use the aforementioned software though, then PPA's are the way to go. They are at least tested for compatibility on Linux, and thus you will have less problems. Not only that, but they are safe because they are vetted and hosted on a community site. Open up a terminal and paste this: sudo add-apt-repository ppa:ubuntu-mozilla-daily/ppa && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install firefox-4.0

Enter password, press enter when it confirms installation, and abracadabra, you now have a newer build of firefox made for ubuntu, though it probably wont have the branding etc.

I managed to figure out both Mac OS and Windows on my own. With Linux I feel like someone who hasn't used a computer ever and I need help from the internet every single step of the way.

That's because you should know what you're doing before installing random PPA software because it can cause system instability. The programs in the Ubuntu software centre are throughly tested before release, and so you'll not have any major problems with them, but PPA releases tend to be bleeding edge, and often buggy, because they are there mainly for testing. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone not experienced in Ubuntu to try that. That includes you, but I gave you the option, if only to show you how easy it actually is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum

1) It's open-source and I'm not sure I'd like to support that. I believe all developers should be able to sell their products, seeing as they've put so much effort into developing them.

2) It doesn't run my favourite software well. Zune is my favourite media player, MS Office is my favourite office suite, IE 9 is my favourite browser etc.

3) I like the idea of as much integration between devices as possible. Microsoft's Windows Live ID ensures linking devices and syncing settings, programs, files calendars, mail etc is a nice integrated experience, between mobile phones, tablet PCs, desktops etc. Android now finally does this pretty well, in regard to Linux-based devices, but I prefer Windows and Windows Live as a whole, in this regard.

4) I've not found a Linux distro which handles open and closed applications as well as the Windows 7 taskbar (Aero Peek, Jump Lists, larger icons, no text labels, notification overlays and thumbnail buttons). I could be wrong and there may be some which provide that functionality, but I've not experienced one which works as nicely as Windows 7 (in my opinion). Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

there app installer sucks

there update mechanism sucks (wayyyyyyyyy to nerdy for the average retarted cunsumer to use)

and the theme sucks

the placement is strange

there are no extensions

and its so different from Windows 7 that its insane to use

the only way ill ever use it is on Mac AKA OS X or to fix something i ****ed up in windows

I think it's best for all involved if you don't use Linux. Perhaps in ten years or so when you are more mature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo

Now you open that folder and run the browser, because it's a standalone download and not meant to be installed.

What file do I click to open the browser?

Link to post
Share on other sites
TemperingPick

1) It's open-source and I'm not sure I'd like to support that. I believe all developers should be able to sell their products, seeing as they've put so much effort into developing them.

2) It doesn't run my favourite software well. Zune is my favourite media player, MS Office is my favourite office suite, IE 9 is my favourite browser etc.

3) I like the idea of as much integration between devices as possible. Microsoft's Windows Live ID ensures linking devices and syncing settings, programs, files calendars, mail etc is a nice integrated experience, between mobile phones, tablet PCs, desktops etc. Android now finally does this pretty well, in regard to Linux-based devices, but I prefer Windows and Windows Live as a whole, in this regard.

4) I've not found a Linux distro which handles open and closed applications as well as the Windows 7 taskbar (Aero Peek, Jump Lists, larger icons, no text labels, notification overlays and thumbnail buttons). I could be wrong and there may be some which provide that functionality, but I've not experienced one which works as nicely as Windows 7 (in my opinion). Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Well for 1 isn't that really up to the developer? It's not like anyone is forcing them to make it open source. You can find Linux software for sale. Ubuntu's Software Center has a whole category for paid apps.

2. That's a matter of preference really.

3. Again, preference

4. Agree. But I don't use Aero Peek, Jump Lists and etc.

What file do I click to open the browser?

firefox

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo

And why exactly would you want to do that? Firefox comes as standard with Ubuntu. There's no need to download anything. The security updates and bug fixes will come through the package manager.

I will decide that for myself thank you very much.

Yes, so why aren't you using the software centre?

I can't find the beta I'm looking for in there.

That's because using Linux has a fundamental difference in paradigm. You are "thinking in windows", where you have to hunt around for applications. Everything you need is in the software centre. If you want to play around with unstable beta's and experimental software, then you do so at "your own risk". If something breaks and you cry wolf that Linux sucks, then no one will help you.

I've never complained about breaking Mac OS X or Windows because of using experimental software and I'm not about to start now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid Knight

That's because using Linux has a fundamental difference in paradigm.

The paradigm of being able to install any application from any source easily or intuitively?

You are "thinking in windows", where you have to hunt around for applications.

Ignoring the OS X reference. You still have to hunt for applications in Linux. The repos do a **** poor job of describing applications and aren't anywhere close to having them all either. Either way, you end up visiting their website and doing the research.

Everything you need is in the software centre.

Not true at all. There's lots of software that's not in the repos or is but outdated.

I really don't see why it is so hard to ask for a method of installing software quickly and easily for software outside of the repos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mouldy Punk

1) It's open-source and I'm not sure I'd like to support that. I believe all developers should be able to sell their products, seeing as they've put so much effort into developing them.

...

Developers can still sell the software if they want. The GPL license lets you do that. Check out Red Hat or SuSE if you want pay for only versions. Most projects have a donate button too if you want to help them out.

Not true at all. There's lots of software that's not in the repos or is but outdated.

I really don't see why it is so hard to ask for a method of installing software quickly and easily for software outside of the repos.

There is in fact a way to do this. Debian based distros (like Ubuntu) can install .deb files in a similar way to how windows handles .exe installer files. Also, it might not be GUI-user friendly, but once you know the basis of using a terminal to run 'make && make install' in your new application's downloaded source folder - it's pretty simple to install even the stuff you mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

Now you open that folder and run the browser, because it's a standalone download and not meant to be installed.

They could certainly have included a binary with a GUI installer, as you get with some games.

It wouldn't be hard to do and would look more straight forward for people coming from Windows, but then again that's Mozilla's decision, not really a Linux shortcoming :unsure:

It's not really designed for Ubuntu. The PPA's are better because they provide debian installers.

I agree anyway that providing installers is not a common practice in Linux (for non commercial software, that is). Providing a proper package is still a whole lot better, but if you are going to release a tar.gz that extracts to a folder and it's ready to run, you could as well provide a pretty GUI so the user can easily place the software where he wants (which might be /opt, to make it available for all users), and also automatically add launchers in the menu.

Mozilla leaves it up to each distro to package them. There is a section in the help and support called - 4.1. Adding a Personal Package Archive (PPA) but I doubt he even looked on the help. Using Linux is different to windows, and many people aren't interested in using anything different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

The paradigm of being able to install any application from any source easily or intuitively?

The software centre is there for a reason. It provides stable and well tested updates. If you use a source other than that, you do so at your own risk. Of course you can install things from others sources easily, but I wouldn't recommend it. I gave him a single line to paste on the CLI that adds the repository, and installs the latest beta. At least this way he will get updates through the normal package manager.

Ignoring the OS X reference. You still have to hunt for applications in Linux.] The repos do a **** poor job of describing applications and aren't anywhere close to having them all either. Either way, you end up visiting their website and doing the research.

The repos are categorised, there are featured/recommended applications, and there's a search function which you can use for the apps name, or general description. I don't know what else you would want. Of course you can look at reviews on the web, or recommended apps, that's fine, but there's really no need to go downloading installers.

Not true at all. There's lots of software that's not in the repos or is but outdated.

Ubuntu works on a six month cycle, so it's never going to have the bleeding edge software. But for the majority of people, it works fine and it's stable, and for most that's more important. And for those who do need the latest and greatest, they have the PPA's.

I really don't see why it is so hard to ask for a method of installing software quickly and easily for software outside of the repos.

It's not hard, but if you're not experienced it could cause problems with your system due to instability etc.

As far as the original post goes. I don't have a gripe. It all works flawless for me on my servers, desktops, and netbook.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

1) It's open-source and I'm not sure I'd like to support that. I believe all developers should be able to sell their products, seeing as they've put so much effort into developing them.

And they do. As mentioned above it's the very developer who decides to release as open source or not.

Regarding Linux, most of it's developers do get paid and their employers get economic benefits out of it, so it's really irrelevant whether it's sold or not. Companies like IBM make loads of money selling iron and services, they have no need nor (barely) profit in selling only their own exclusive OS. It becomes a tool rather than a product, so collaborating with other companies to improve that tool makes commercial sense, cuts costs and keeps programmers on the payroll (and incidentally also makes our lives easier if we decide to switch to another HW provider).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

I can't find the beta I'm looking for in there.

I will decide that for myself thank you very much.

Well, I gave you the one line command to do it. Just type firefox-4.0 on the CLI to launch it. However, You'll probably need to make your own shortcut to it in the menu or on the panel because the default one links to the 3.6 version. but as I said, you do it at your own peril.

I've never complained about breaking Mac OS X or Windows because of using experimental software and I'm not about to start now.

Fair enough. Good luck then xD

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

It's not really designed for Ubuntu. The PPA's are better because they provide debian installers.

Mozilla leaves it up to each distro to package them. There is a section in the help and support called - 4.1. Adding a Personal Package Archive (PPA) but I doubt he even looked on the help. Using Linux is different to windows, and many people aren't interested in using anything different.

I know, but IF someone was to provide a tar.gz, as Mozilla does (even if they also provided packages or PPAs), developing a GUI installer that would work with every future release (being a standalone build, it would just copy all files to one single location) would be a 1hour project, including debugging and testing. Heck, they could even use the loki installers.

Yes, it's not better than a package, but still beats a plain tar.gz.

*Edit: regarding that section in the firefox site about adding PPAs... well, yes, people don't read, that's a fact, but then again when you see a huge "Download" button it doesn't make you think you'll have to wander around that web looking for further/different instructions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ZekeComa

- I have to "mount" my Windows drives all the time when Linux boots up. The drives are in my computer, but I have to click on them to be "mounted".

Well you are doing it wrong because my /etc/fstab file makes all my partitions mount by default

# /etc/fstab: static file system information.
#
# noatime turns off atimes for increased performance (atimes normally aren't
# needed; notail increases performance of ReiserFS (at the expense of storage
# efficiency).  It's safe to drop the noatime options if you want and to
# switch between notail / tail freely.
#
# The root filesystem should have a pass number of either 0 or 1.
# All other filesystems should have a pass number of 0 or greater than 1.
#
# See the manpage fstab(5) for more information.
#

# <fs>          <mountpoint>    <type>      <opts>      <dump/pass>

# NOTE: If your BOOT partition is ReiserFS, add the notail option to opts.
/dev/sda1       /boot       ext3        noauto,noatime  1 2
/dev/sda3       /       ext4        noatime     0 1
/dev/sda2       none        swap        sw      0 0
/dev/sda5       /mnt/backup ntfs-3g     noatime     0 3
/dev/sdb1       /mnt/windows    ntfs-3g     noatime     0 4
/dev/cdrom      /mnt/cdrom  auto        noauto,ro   0 0
#/dev/fd0       /mnt/floppy auto        noauto      0 0

# glibc 2.2 and above expects tmpfs to be mounted at /dev/shm for
# POSIX shared memory (shm_open, shm_unlink).
# (tmpfs is a dynamically expandable/shrinkable ramdisk, and will
#  use almost no memory if not populated with files)
shm         /dev/shm    tmpfs       nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0

Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid Knight

Well you are doing it wrong because my /etc/fstab file makes all my partitions mount by default

How exactly is this "doing it wrong" when you aren't supposed to do anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

I know, but IF someone was to provide a tar.gz, as Mozilla does (even if they also provided packages or PPAs), developing a GUI installer that would work with every future release (being a standalone build, it would just copy all files to one single location) would be a 1hour project, including debugging and testing. Heck, they could even use the loki installers.

Yes, it's not better than a package, but still beats a plain tar.gz.

Except that installing something on one distro is usually completely different on another. Things go in different places, you have dependencies and different versions in repos, and other problems to contend with. That's why Ubuntu has .deb installer files. They are designed to work in Ubuntu. The same applies to gentoo and portage. They have their own installer scripts too. Personally I wouldn't recommend downloading a firefox tar from the web and setting it up that way, mainly because you wont get automatic updates for a start, so you might be left vulnerable to threats, and of course you will have to keep downloading new versions manually, which is a pain.

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.