Biggest Gripes with Linux?


Recommended Posts

.Neo

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.

It's 2010. Why do I still need to fiddle around in Terminal to install something as simple as a browser? No offense but right now Ubuntu sounds about as restrictive as the Apple App Store. If something I want isn't in the Software Center I have to go back 20 years in time and mess around with command line? You gotta be kidding me. I honestly thought we were past that...

What I don't understand either is why installing Firefox 4 beta should be that dangerous, at least you make it sound that way. On Mac OS X it really can't cause any system wide issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

1: Quality of applications varies widely. Some are excellent, and some are horribly amateurish

2: No unification. So many Linux distributions, all having slightly different ways of doing things, which means that unless you stick to just one the learning curve is high

3: You have to go through excessive hoops to perform advanced configuration

4: Font rendering on web pages is often none too impressive

5: Package dependencies can be a real fly in the ointment, especially if an installer is targeting a specific version of a package, and won't allow it to install if there is a later version (Boxee on Ubuntu 10.10 is a good example of that)

6: Lack of targeting by manufacturers of commercial grade software. If the free alternatives aren't good enough you are practically screwed (I appreciate this is not a problem of the Linux platform but still a barrier to adoption)

7: 3D performance seems pretty poor

8: Still no really viable solution for running 3D games, wine and other such similar solutions are simply too hit and miss

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

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

Yep you can do it that way, or simply when you are installing Ubuntu, you select "partition manually", then set the mount points for other OS's/drives to a desired location in /mnt/ or /media/ . And by the way, using the device paths in fstab is a bad idea. They can change. You are better off generating UUID's for the hardware using blkid because they remain constant no matter how the devices are plugged in etc, for instance, if you wanted the unique id for /dev/sda1: sudo blkid /dev/sda1 or if you want the id's of all the devices on the system, then don't provide an argument, so: sudo blkid

Example: UUID=c969fc6e-1d6b-43e0-8330-4ee083fd7bf9 / ext4 noatime,errors=remount-ro 0 1

Link to post
Share on other sites
azure.sapphire

Yep you can do it that way, or simply when you are installing Ubuntu, you select "partition manually", then set the mount points for other OS's/drives to a desired location in /mnt/ or /media/ . And by the way, using the device paths in fstab is a bad idea. They can change. You are better off generating UUID's for the hardware using blkid because they remain constant no matter how the devices are plugged in etc, for instance, if you wanted the unique id for /dev/sda1: sudo blkid /dev/sda1 or if you want the id's of all the devices on the system, then don't provide an argument, so: sudo blkid

Example: UUID=c969fc6e-1d6b-43e0-8330-4ee083fd7bf9 / ext4 noatime,errors=remount-ro 0 1

This is why Linux fails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
backdrifter

I simply don't see any purpose at all for any end-user to use a Linux distro. Nowadays most people just buy mobile PCs or ready-made desktops which already come with either Windows or Mac OS X that is included in the price.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

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.

If you are properly (so to speak) installing an app, yes, but we are talking about a standalone application. It would be installed in a distro independent path such as /opt without messing with the system libraries (like the Loki installer does, it works across distros perfectly fine).

And yes, using the package manager is preferred, but since they are providing a tar.gz they could do it a bit better. Actually they could even improve that further by detecting the distro and suggesting to automatically add the source/PPA/repository/whatever automatically so you get updates. I remember seeing that somewhere... maybe with VMWare? Or was it Virtualbox? :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

1: Quality of applications varies widely. Some are excellent, and some are horribly amateurish

And the same can't be said of windows?

2: No unification. So many Linux distributions, all having slightly different ways of doing things, which means that unless you stick to just one the learning curve is high

Not really, they have more similarities than they have differences. The file systems, tools, directory layout, applications, environments, etc are virtually the same across them all. Once you know one, it's trivial to use another.

3: You have to go through excessive hoops to perform advanced configuration

What do you mean by advanced configuration? GNU/Linux is much more configurable than windows that's for sure, and much easier to get to the guts of the system too.

4: Font rendering on web pages is often none too impressive

It sounds like you are reading from a predefined gripe list. Have you actually used Linux recently? Font rendering in Linux can be beautiful, more so than in windows. I can configure hinting/rendering in X with much greater flexibility than windows.

5: Package dependencies can be a real fly in the ointment, especially if an installer is targeting a specific version of a package and won't allow it to install if there is a later version (Boxee on Ubuntu 10.10 is a good example of that)

Where did you get the installer from? Perhaps you should try MythTV.

6: Lack of targeting by manufacturers of commercial grade software. If the free alternatives aren't good enough you are practically screwed (I appreciate this is not a problem of the Linux platform but still a barrier to adoption)

Let me guess, Adobe flash creator, photoshop, and microsoft office? LOL, I feel deja vous coming on here. It's really shocking how many people use these apps O_o. If you want to use Linux, use its apps, if you want windows, go to windows, it's that simple. 99% of people don't have a problem with the software available for it.

7: 3D performance seems pretty poor

I get better 3D performance than on windows. In fact some windows games run though wine even perform better than on windows rofl. Perhaps you needed to activate the proprietary drivers? They usually aren't activated by default.

8: Still no really viable solution for running 3D games, wine and other such similar solutions are simply too hit and miss

I run Doom 3, Quake 4, Enemy Territory True Combat Elite, Europa Universalis, Hitman, Starcraft, Diablo I/II, WOW, and others without problems. There are also many free open source games, for instance, Alien Arena (based on the quake 3 engine). But, you could always just run a dual boot like many do, load up windows when you want to play games that don't work in wine, then come back to Linux to do all the other stuff xD

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

And the same can't be said of windows?

Not really, they have more similarities than they have differences. The file systems, tools, directory layout, applications, environments, etc are virtually the same across them all. Once you know one, it's trivial to use another.

What do you mean by advanced configuration? GNU/Linux is much more configurable than windows that's for sure, and much easier to get to the guts of the system too.

It sounds like you are reading from a predefined gripe list. Have you actually used Linux recently? Font rendering in Linux can be beautiful, more so than in windows. I can configure hinting/rendering in X with much greater flexibility than windows.

Where did you get the installer from? Perhaps you should try MythTV.

Let me guess, Adobe flash creator, photoshop, and microsoft office? LOL, I feel deja vous coming on here. It's really shocking how many people use these apps O_o. If you want to use Linux, use its apps, if you want windows, go to windows, it's that simple. 99% of people don't have a problem with the software available for it.

I get better 3D performance than on windows. In fact some windows games run though wine even perform better than on windows rofl. Perhaps you needed to activate the proprietary drivers? They usually aren't activated by default.

I run Doom 3, Quake 4, Enemy Territory True Combat Elite, Europa Universalis, Hitman, Starcraft, Diablo I/II, WOW, and others without problems. There are also many free open source games, for instance, Alien Arena (based on the quake 3 engine). But, you could always just run a dual boot like many do, load up windows when you want to play games that don't work in wine, then come back to Linux to do all the other stuff xD

Re do that post without the smug and dismissive attitude and I might consider bothering to reply to it. This kind of crap is why people never go to Linux communities for help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

It's 2010. Why do I still need to fiddle around in Terminal to install something as simple as a browser?

No fiddling, one simple cut a paste from the browser to the terminal. Not so hard is it? It's easier than finding the page in the browser, and downloading, then running installer etc. On top of that, you get automatic updates through the package manager as normal. Something you wont get if you install it manually through that tar file. To answer the first point, you're not downloading from the repositories, you're trying to download beta software, so it's a alternative installation. But if you don't want a single command line to install it well, you are welcome to extract that tar file, then run the firefox script ;)

No offense but right now Ubuntu sounds about as restrictive as the Apple App Store.

Quite the opposite. It works with the repositories for convenience. Most people are happy with that. I gave you the two alternatives, if you don't like them, then I guess you better stick to windows. Probably for the best anyway, because if you get stuck doing something as easier as pasting a single line into the terminal, then you might get into trouble further down the road.

If something I want isn't in the Software Center I have to go back 20 years in time and mess around with command line? You gotta be kidding me. I honestly thought we were past that...

20 years in time? I'm not sure what you mean. The terminal is amazing, I use it everyday, vim, screen, nano. irssi, gdb, gcc etc. Google just released some tools for the CLI on linux using python, so I can interact with all the google web services without even using a browser xD. I can update my entire system with a single line xD sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade. How easy is that to do in windows? Linux is just so efficient.

What I don't understand either is why installing Firefox 4 beta should be that dangerous, at least you make it sound that way. On Mac OS X it really can't cause any system wide issues.

Dangerous for someone who doesn't know what their doing. Would you recommend a newbie in windows edit their registry or hosts file? Well it's the same kind of thing. I'm not saying someone bad will happen, but if you get in trouble, don't expect a lot of help. You're going outside of the normal software channel, and thus, the regular support is not guaranteed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MtnDewCodeRedFreak

I tried Linux and suffice to say, I don't like it. I only use Linux for the replacement of the Cisco login app that my uni forces upon Windows users, because Cisco trusts Linux.

- I launch VirtualBox with Linux and start the browser within. A uni network prompt comes up within the browser asking for the username and password.

- I type it in and waa-la it's done.

Then I minimize the VirtualBox app, leave it there and surf the web on IE 9 Beta (because the IE 9 Beta is what caused the Cisco login app for Windows to fail at authenticating).

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo

No fiddling, one simple cut a paste from the browser to the terminal. Not so hard is it? It's easier than finding the page in the browser, and downloading, then running installer etc. On top of that, you get automatic updates through the package manager as normal. Something you wont get if you install it manually through that tar file. To answer the first point, you're not downloading from the repositories, you're trying to download beta software, so it's a alternative installation. But if you don't want a single command line to install it well, you are welcome to extract that tar file, then run the firefox script ;)

Which means I have to look it up somewhere every time instead of just double clicking (like on other platforms). Face it, it simply isn't as user-friendly as either Mac OS X or Windows.

Quite the opposite. It works with the repositories for convenience. Most people are happy with that. I gave you the two alternatives, if you don't like them, then I guess you better stick to windows. Probably for the best anyway, because if you get stuck doing something as easier as pasting a single line into the terminal, then you might get into trouble further down the road.

I should stick to Windows? No thanks. Mac OS X user right here.

20 years in time? I'm not sure what you mean. The terminal is amazing, I use it everyday, vim, screen, nano. irssi, gdb, gcc etc. Google just released some tools for the CLI on linux using python, so I can interact with all the google web services without even using a browser xD. I can update my entire system with a single line xD sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade. How easy is that to do in windows? Linux is just so efficient.

You're not convincing me you'll beat a simple drag-n-drop from folder A to B to install Firefox using Terminal commands. I figure Terminal can be great for certain stuff, but not this one.

screenvf.png

FYI, Mac OS X has Terminal as well. But I don't need it to install Firefox 4 beta 6.

screenshot20101006at173.png

Dangerous for someone who doesn't know what their doing. Would you recommend a newbie in windows edit their registry or hosts file? Well it's the same kind of thing. I'm not saying someone bad will happen, but if you get in trouble, don't expect a lot of help. You're going outside of the normal software channel, and thus, the regular support is not guaranteed.

Again, Mac OS X nor Windows require you to go outside the regular software channel to get a beta version of a popular browser. Nor will Firefox 4 beta compromise Mac OS X system-wide. It simply can't. Why this is the case on Linux (according to you at least) is completely beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

Which means I have to look it up somewhere every time instead of just double clicking (like on other platforms). Face it, it simply isn't as user-friendly as either Mac OS X or Windows.

Again, blame Mozilla for no "double-clickiness", because there's nothing stopping them from using the same kind of installers they use on Windows.

If Mozilla decided to release Firefox also as a plain zip file for Windows and Mac, would you also be blaming the user friendliness of those operating systems?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Southern Patriot
- 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.

And how exactly is that a Linux problem? It sounds more like a VMWare problem to me, since VirtualBox worked correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bjoswald

There's a few things.

1. Application quality

Programs look like they were designed by some high school kid for homework, and they almost always have some goofy name that doesn't apply to what they are.

2. Fonts

As someone else already said, fonts look terrible. They've come a long way, but they still have a long way to go. On Windows, fonts look good from system to system.

On Linux, they either work or they don't. If they don't, you have to rely on some mish-mash script someone threw together and put on some obscure website. Even then,

it's still a gamble.

3. WINE

This one is really annoying. If you want any decent Windows application, you have to use WINE. It's slow, it's ugly, it's buggy. It's been that way for years. 'nuff said.

4. Hardware compatibility

5. UGLY

Link to post
Share on other sites
hotdog666al

The massive GUIs.

There is no escape from over-sized buttons and wasted space, it seems. I know it's all about usability and stuff, but damnnnn it could be a bit more compact here and there :|

Link to post
Share on other sites
Southern Patriot

1: Quality of applications varies widely. Some are excellent, and some are horribly amateurish

How is that any different than Windows, OS X, iOS, Android, or Windows Phone? I could easily list examples of excellent and horrible applications on pretty much any platform.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Southern Patriot
Then I minimize the VirtualBox app, leave it there and surf the web on IE 9 Beta (because the IE 9 Beta is what caused the Cisco login app for Windows to fail at authenticating).

That sounds like a similar problem I had trying to use IE 9 to access my bank's web site (although the problem has cleared up now, I think they fixed it on the bank's end, since I didn't do anything here). But in this case, what exactly was your gripe with Linux? It sounds like it saved you some time and trouble caused by a Microsoft beta app.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

Again, blame Mozilla for no "double-clickiness", because there's nothing stopping them from using the same kind of installers they use on Windows.

If Mozilla decided to release Firefox also as a plain zip file for Windows and Mac, would you also be blaming the user friendliness of those operating systems?

Firefox is open source. If they can build installers for the main release branch from the source code, they could build installers from the trunk code as well. Even the Chromium builds offered through the release channel in Ubuntu are pretty old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo
If Mozilla decided to release Firefox also as a plain zip file for Windows and Mac, would you also be blaming the user friendliness of those operating systems?

Mozilla already does that on Mac OS X... A DMG file, used by Mozilla (and many others) to distribute Firefox for Mac OS X, is comparable to a compressed ISO file. If Mozilla changed the DMG to a ZIP file it wouldn't make any a difference. Just decompress and drag the application package to Applications, and technically you don't even need to do that. You can run Firefox from any location just by uncompressing it and double clicking the APP file... Hell, you can even run it straight off the DMG if you wanted to. Again, just by double clicking it.

What do I double click on Linux after decompressing the package to launch Firefox? I have no idea.

Trust me, I'm not trying to bash Linux here. I've been interested in the OS for a while now. Not to replace my primary system, Mac OS X, but just out of interest. But overall I still find Linux to be the most non-transparent and hard to learn OS of the big three.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi

Mozilla already does that on Mac OS X... A DMG file, used by Mozilla (and many others) to distribute Firefox for Mac OS X, is comparable to a compressed ISO file. If Mozilla changed the DMG to a ZIP file it wouldn't make any a difference. Just decompress and drag the application package to Applications, and technically you don't even need to do that. You can run Firefox from any location just by uncompressing it and double clicking the APP file... Hell, you can even run it straight off the DMG if you wanted to. Again, just by double clicking it.

What do I double click on Linux after decompressing the package to launch Firefox? I have no idea.

Trust me, I'm not trying to bash Linux here. I've been interested in the OS for a while now. Not to replace my primary system, Mac OS X, but just out of interest. But overall I still find Linux to be the most non-transparent and hard to learn OS of the big three.

You double click the firefox executable.

I haven't downloaded the firefox tar myself you I can't tell for sure how files are organized inside, but what I can tell you is that if the browser doesn't just launch by clicking on the executable that's poor packaging on Mozilla's side.

I have Gridwars on this computer, which was a zip file I just extracted, then clicked on "gridwars" and the game was running. Same with that rpg-ish game from penny-arcade, IIRC (I bought it because of the comics, but didn't actually like it that much :( ). Same with Uplink and I think it was also the same with the Darwinia demo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft_Bob

Which means I have to look it up somewhere every time instead of just double clicking (like on other platforms). Face it, it simply isn't as user-friendly as either Mac OS X or Windows.

You run that one line command once, and you get updates to the latest beta forever. Unless you plan on doing many installations. The software centre is very user friendly, much more so than Mac OS X or Windows. PPA's are third party software channels. If you don't like them, don't use them, it's that simple.

I should stick to Windows? No thanks. Mac OS X user right here.

My apologies, I thought you were using windows. And I agree, Mac OS X is far better than windows.

You're not convincing me you'll beat a simple drag-n-drop from folder A to B to install Firefox using Terminal commands. I figure Terminal can be great for certain stuff, but not this one.

screenvf.png

And do you get updates automatically for it? What happens if the version you're using has a security threat? Unless you plan on downloading it repeatedly, your system might be at risk. I know to me a single line on a terminal is easier than having to download it again every time an update comes through.

FYI, Mac OS X has Terminal as well. But I don't need it to install Firefox 4 beta 6.

screenshot20101006at173.png

You don't need to use the terminal, you can extract that tar file and run firefox from the extraction. Of course it wont install it, but that's what the PPA's are for, a distro-specific installation.

Again, Mac OS X nor Windows require you to go outside the regular software channel to get a beta version of a popular browser. Nor will Firefox 4 beta compromise Mac OS X system-wide. It simply can't. Why this is the case on Linux (according to you at least) is completely beyond me.

There isn't a regular software channel in Mac OS X or Windows. You have to hunt down software on the internet on both. With Ubuntu and other GNU/Linux distros, you merely use the integrated package manager to find, install, and update all the software on your system. I know which is easier to me. Beta software can often be unstable. And so you will rarely find it on Linux package managers, whose aim is to provide stable and reliable FOSS software. The percentage of users wanting to use bleeding edge software, and all the problems associated with it, is a fraction of the total users. But there is a means to do it, and that is the PPA's. That's just the way Ubuntu works, if you don't like, then don't use it, it's as simple as that ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo

You run that one line command once, and you get updates to the latest beta forever. Unless you plan on doing many installations. The software centre is very user friendly, much more so than Mac OS X or Windows. PPA's are third party software channels. If you don't like them, don't use them, it's that simple.

Okay that's a different story. I thought you had to put in that command every single time. Putting it in is no problem, I'm already doing something similar on Mac OS X to access hidden preferences (such as turning off tome unnecessary crap in iTunes :laugh: ).

My apologies, I thought you were using windows. And I agree, Mac OS X is far better than windows.

No problem. I jumped the sinking ship called Windows years ago and never looked back. :p

And do you get updates automatically for it?

Yes. At least I could, I'm a Safari user on Mac OS X so I don't have Firefox installed right now.

You don't need to use the terminal, you can extract that tar file and run firefox from the extraction. Of course it wont install it, but that's what the PPA's are for, a distro-specific installation.

I think I asked about three or four times by now what file to click in that extracted folder. Still no answer. The last part still looks more complex to me than anything found on Mac OS X.

There isn't a regular software channel in Mac OS X or Windows. You have to hunt down software on the internet on both. With Ubuntu and other GNU/Linux distros, you merely use the integrated package manager to find, install, and update all the software on your system. I know which is easier to me. Beta software can often be unstable. And so you will rarely find it on Linux package managers, whose aim is to provide stable and reliable FOSS software. The percentage of users wanting to use bleeding edge software, and all the problems associated with it, is a fraction of the total users. But there is a means to do it, and that is the PPA's. That's just the way Ubuntu works, if you don't like, then don't use it, it's as simple as that ;)

The flip side is installing and managing applications is a lot more transparent and intuitive on Mac OS X. I agree not so much on Windows when it comes to support files, preferences etc. I'm fully aware both systems have its cons and pros.

In its current state Ubuntu will never be a replacement for Mac OS X for me, largely because to me it offers no benefits. Mac OS X and Linux already share a lot of great qualities. However, I still feel Ubuntu just isn't as user-friendly yet nor do the applications are of the same quality as those found on Mac OS X and Windows. For all intents and purposes OpenOffice can't get the job done with the same level of refinement as Keynote for example. I am pleasantly surprised though how Ubuntu's interface looks compared to Linux few years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
x-scratch

my biggest problem is that for some reason i can not resume from suspend i have no power from my usb keyboard & mouse

Link to post
Share on other sites
fix-this!

i love android & webos... "mobile linux" but i cannot stand most linux distro's on the pc. go figure!

Link to post
Share on other sites
MR_Candyman

I think I asked about three or four times by now what file to click in that extracted folder. Still no answer. The last part still looks more complex to me than anything found on Mac OS X.

This has been answered every time you have asked, even by the guy you just quoted to say that!

You extract the .tar.bz2 and then you go into the folder and double click (or single click depending on your preferences) firefox.

Honestly, I can't believe so many people have problems figuring out their way around the UI. My dirty blond girlfriend who is not a geek by any means figured it all out on her own in a week and never needed help.

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.