Biggest Gripes with Linux?


Recommended Posts

.Neo
Again, you're thinking in windows. OpenOffice, or Google Docs perform the same functions as microsoft office,

OpenOffice comes nowhere near iWork or Microsoft Office. For basic functionality yes, but beyond that no. I simply can't replicate the presentations I make with Keynote simply because none of the transitions and effects I use are there. The presentation application of OpenOffice is a joke really compared to Keynote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Silverskull

Neo, I understand your criticism regarding the terminal, but consider this: simply telling people to copy/paste terminal commands is much easier from a support standpoint. Nobody is insisting that average people memorize tons of terminal commands, but giving them a string of text to paste in the terminal that will basically automate exactly what they're trying to achieve is much easier than trying to walk them through graphical interfaces... especially because the interfaces can vary greatly between machines. The terminal, with some exceptions, remains the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled

And this is exactly why Linux will never become mainstream and take much of a chunk out of the Windows market. Can you honestly see people in their 70's and 80's etc. having to memorize arcane command line inputs and arguements etc?

You know, on most Linux forums I go to, no one is concerned about if Linux overtakes Windows or not. They just use Linux because they love it. You only see these comments on these type of forums. I hope Linux never overtakes Windows myself.I wouldn't mind a few more Linus users, at least enough (like OSX) to get third party software's attention.

But Windows isn't going anyway in the short term. Anyone who even dreams of such a thing needs a reality check.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman

And this is exactly why Linux will never become mainstream and take much of a chunk out of the Windows market. Can you honestly see people in their 70's and 80's etc. having to memorize arcane command line inputs and arguements etc?

Apart from that most everything else has already been mentioned. Very poor UI, program capability, etc. etc. Also programming language and environment considerations as well (there is really nothing that comes close to something like Visual Studio on linux).

Linux has it's plus points but it's minus points (currently) far outweigh the pluses. It's a "geeks" platform and until that changes, Linux will stay a 2nd class citizen to even OSX, never mind Windows.

Please try to read everything that's discussed before throwing out blanket statements like this. As mentioned several times, it's not necessary to use a terminal, it's just easier in many cases. Also, I don't know that the UI could really be considered poor. In many ways Gnome, for example, is becoming more advanced than Windows or OS X. I certainly see no issue in the UI, and you can customize it to no end to make it exactly what you want. Hell, it can look like Windows or OS X if you so choose. There are no programming language issues at all. Pretty much every programming language you can use on another OS, you can also use on Linux. And while I'll give you that pretty much no other IDE compares to VS as a whole, there are plenty of other very nice IDEs on Linux, and really all you need is a text editor of any sort anyway.

The real issue why Linux will not become mainstream is, as you've pointed out for us, people have too many incorrect preconceived notions, and rather than trying it, they write it off. Linux certainly still has it's issues, but most people could use it for their general computing and notice no difference at all. I know because as someone who works on computers for a living, I don't like having to work on mine to make it work, so if Linux was a pain in the ass, I wouldn't use it, but I find myself booting it up and not even thinking about anything else until whenever I need to reboot again in a couple of weeks, at which point I'm used to Linux and just go back into it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled

Never mind the elderly, you're not going to persuade the vast majority of computer users of all ages to go back and use command line again.

I rarely use the command line. Linux is fairly easy to use these days. The few times I do need the command line is when troubleshooting something or when I am having trouble installing something. Most average users can't do either of those things on their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman

Wow, I sounded like a dick in my last post. I apologize for that, I didn't mean to make it come off like that!

Yeah, like I was saying in a previous post, if you can use a message board like this, then you can use at least the simple terminal commands. I understand some people wanting to avoid the terminal, but to me it's become more like a power user's shortcut for some things rather than a necessity. You could definitely use Linux for the basics without ever touching the terminal, but if you can learn a few commands in it, it can make Linux even better to use.

Kinda like earlier when I was using Banshee (the music player), and it was crashing, I know in Linux I can launch the app from the terminal, and most Linux apps will log to the terminal if you launch them from it, so I could see why it was crashing and found out it didn't like a file name on one of my songs. The terminal has become more of an enhancement to have rather than a requirement. I just don't want to see anyone write it off as an archaic technology and not see it's usefulness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ncc50446

I simply don't like Ubuntu...lol I installed 10.10 and had driver problems. Installed Mandriva 2010 Spring, and video card worked.

If only I could put my laptop into hibernation mode...

Other than that, and horrible games in the download centre, I hadn't had too much problems with Linux..

Oh, except when installed php, apache and mysql. I installed them all threw the terminal, using a guide, but it never told me how to change ownership of the www folder from root to user. So I had to spend 5 minutes finding a site to tell me.

But wow was LAMP easy to install...lol So many fewer steps in Linux than Windows.

But then again, I don't do a lot on a computer...I don't use Office, I don't use graphic programs, or play a lot of games. Programming, watching videos and surfing the internet...

Link to post
Share on other sites
]SK[

Windows applications prevent me from using Linux. Dual booting isn't the answer as I never actually end up in Linux due to having to keep going back to Windows. My wife only knows Windows too so moans if she can't find Internet Explorer or Word etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman

Ahh, I've just had an example of the terminal being easier to use.

I wanted to uninstall OpenOffice and install LibreOffice instead. I suppose I could have gone into Synaptic and done Mark For Complete Removal on OpenOffice, and it should have removed all of the packages, but rather I just did "sudo apt-get remove openoffice*". That was the first thing.

Secondly, the download for LibreOffice is currently just a folder full of deb files (installer packages). 49 of them to be exact. Why is it like this? Well, it isn't in repo yet because it's brand new, and it's still beta so a pretty package isn't the most important thing at the moment. How do you install it? "sudo dpkg -i *.deb". I actually think this is a case where you'd be screwed if you didn't use the terminal, because I was thinking about this topic and tried selecting all the deb files in Nautilus, and right clicked and chose Open With GDebi Package Installer and what happened?

yxEkN.png

I :heart: terminal!

Link to post
Share on other sites
C_Guy

The UI I find clunky, and generally ugly.. even with other skins.. It makes me feel like it's a cross between Windows 9x, and Windows XP, only with different colours..

Exactly. The OS that tries so hard not to be Windows yet from the versions I've seen, also tries to look just like it. You know what the most sincere form of flattery is, right? Microsoft should be proud. With Windows 7 and OS X in the marketplace there's really nothing Linux can offer that we don't already have. You could argue licensing costs but we know that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership.

If Linux

1. Offered something more than we already have in Windows or OS X, and

3. Didn't try so hard to look like Windows and

3. Was the same or less work to set up and run than a Windows PC or Mac

It would be worthwhile to consider. Until then why settle for less?

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo
You know what the most sincere form of flattery is, right? Microsoft should be proud.

Looking at all the cues Microsoft took from Mac OS X and put them in Windows Vista / 7 Apple should be even prouder then...

Link to post
Share on other sites
AJerman

Exactly. The OS that tries so hard not to be Windows yet from the versions I've seen, also tries to look just like it. You know what the most sincere form of flattery is, right? Microsoft should be proud. With Windows 7 and OS X in the marketplace there's really nothing Linux can offer that we don't already have. You could argue licensing costs but we know that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership.

If Linux

1. Offered something more than we already have in Windows or OS X, and

3. Didn't try so hard to look like Windows and

3. Was the same or less work to set up and run than a Windows PC or Mac

It would be worthwhile to consider. Until then why settle for less?

How does Windows have a lower total cost of ownership? That only applies to server and enterprise situations. It's typically more expensive to hire Linux administrators than Windows administrators. In a home environment... well, I suppose if your computer screws up with Linux you have to find someone who knows Linux to fix it, but I've never had to have someone fix my computer so I'm not familiar with that. If more people used Linux, there would be more Linux IT guys. I don't think TCO is something that's a worthwhile argument against Linux when you're comparing it in a home environment with Windows 7 and OS X. In a corporate environment it's an entirely different discussion.

As for trying to look like Windows, I don't think I quite follow you. How exactly does Linux try to look like Windows? Because it has square application windows and buttons to press? There's not a whole lot different that can be done to a UI. Actually, we need to break it down a little more. Linux doesn't look like anything other than text on a black screen. Linux doesn't have a UI. So now what looks like Windows? Gnome is really more like OS X than Windows, especially since so many people use Docky instead of a bottom panel now. KDE looks like Windows? Eh, to me KDE just looks like **** period, but it has more of a start menu type setup with a bottom bar I suppose. XFCE looks like Windows? No, not really, it has somewhat similar looks to Gnome. Really there's no way you can possibly say that Linux or it's most common GUIs looks like Windows, with the exception of KDE which, like I said, looks like ****.

And finally, regarding the same or less work to set up, I'd have to ask if you've set up and used Linux for a generic desktop recently. If anything the Live CD is a nicer experience than Windows or OS X installers, it certainly isn't hard. You don't have to know disk partitioning or anything like that which was the hardest part for people unfamiliar with Linux. Once it's set up it runs pretty well and is easy to use. I've set my father free on Linux before, and if he can use it, anyone can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo

Personally I think Windows has the worst installer of the three major operating systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

Perhaps it's a microsoft keyboard xD.

Perhaps you should offer some actual advice instead of trolling?

That's not true actually, there are a number of instances when you will need to install drivers manually with windows 7. And you have to remember that 60% of windows users are still using XP, which has no automatic driver download/install support, while Ubuntu/Linux has had this feature since its inception. Where do you think MS got the idea of it. They copy most of their features from Linux or MAC OS.

That's not actually technically true, you can configure XP to connect to Windows Update and search for drivers.

If you update a driver you don't have to reboot, but if you don't you wont be using the new version, the same applies to windows. It doesn't some how magically patch itself into memory. Graphic drivers are loaded by the kernel, and thus, a restart is required if you want to use the new version. And to answer your original point, no Linux does not have to reboot as much as windows. In windows, the simplest change can result in the need to reboot, especially in Vista/XP. An example of this is the windows 7 installer, for look how many times it reboots during install, silly.

Rubbish again, you only have to reboot Windows for things that change system files, or settings.

Sounds like your system isn't capable of running those, or your graphic hardware isn't fully supported. Stick to the medium settings ;)

That isn't really true either, tearing is usually caused by vsync issues, not by lack of rendering power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Duality

Installed Ubuntu 10.10 on my laptop - installed Nvidia proprietary drivers on prompting from the OS, reboot. Result? X is broken. Most likely a driver problem more than just linux, but things breaking to the extent that you can only work in a terminal doesn't make me like linux any more.

Disclaimer: I really like linux :) Drivers and stuff are just one of my pet peeves in linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Neoauld

Installed Ubuntu 10.10 on my laptop - installed Nvidia proprietary drivers on prompting from the OS, reboot. Result? X is broken. Most likely a driver problem more than just linux, but things breaking to the extent that you can only work in a terminal doesn't make me like linux any more.

Disclaimer: I really like linux :) Drivers and stuff are just one of my pet peeves in linux.

i depsite linux for that, they say its so stable n stuff, but its far less resilient imo than windows, at least when it comes to user interfaces n so on which i see glitch alot. When just command lining it...its flawless

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled

Installed Ubuntu 10.10 on my laptop - installed Nvidia proprietary drivers on prompting from the OS, reboot. Result? X is broken. Most likely a driver problem more than just linux, but things breaking to the extent that you can only work in a terminal doesn't make me like linux any more.

Disclaimer: I really like linux :) Drivers and stuff are just one of my pet peeves in linux.

Ubuntu is one of my biggest gripes about Linux. It always breaks things for me. Linux Mint and Peppermint OS does Ubuntu right. I'm not a big fan of Opensuse but it's very stable as well. I was reading that Ubuntu sent out a new kernel 3 days after their latest release, and of course it broke things for some. Unless there is a security problem you don't need a new kernel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
redvamp128

Ubuntu is one of my biggest gripes about Linux. It always breaks things for me. Linux Mint and Peppermint OS does Ubuntu right. I'm not a big fan of Opensuse but it's very stable as well. I was reading that Ubuntu sent out a new kernel 3 days after their latest release, and of course it broke things for some. Unless there is a security problem you don't need a new kernel.

Personally-- I find that for me only the -- _.10 releases break things for me-- so I stick with the _.04 releases-- Still using 9.04 on the bedroom computer -- runs like a champ-

Link to post
Share on other sites
bjoswald

I can't even boot the Ubuntu CD, let alone use it. On my old, PoS machine, it works flawlessly. But anything even remotely modern, forget it. I honestly think Linux was designed for old, ****ty PCs people were planning to throw out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RainJones

Mainstream use/support

Lack of software compatibility

So many different "flavors"

Constant infighting between developers

Link to post
Share on other sites
TEX4S

THE NEED FOR CONSOLE !!!

THE 1 REASON IT WILL NEVER BE MAINSTREAM

Link to post
Share on other sites
RainJones

THE NEED FOR CONSOLE !!!

THE 1 REASON IT WILL NEVER BE MAINSTREAM

Nah I disagree, you don't need to use a terminal in order to use Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nub

3. Linux, Ubuntu specifically as noted from your screenshot: Open a terminal, type "sudo apt-get install firefox", done. (Though you should run a "sudo apt-get update" first)

Typing some obscure command into a terminal is not easy (for normal users)

No, terminal is just the easiest way to do it, power user or not. That's what I meant by taking the time to learn a new system. When I can type "sudo apt-get install firefox"

How do you know what to type for each program you want to install? Just randomly try things tell it works?

or

Google it, search for 10 minutes, find some obscure post on some forums, and then type it in. How is that easier than running a file exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
taintedc0bra

My biggest gripe, is LINUX/BSD is still a primarily CLI based. When it makes a the switch to primarily GUI based, then I'll start using it.... Don't tell me it is GUI based, when more then 75% of the time instructions for certain software refer me to "drop to a terminal window and run the following command..."

I'm not 15 years old anymore, and my life doesn't have the same time to Tailor an Operating system. Drop a tarball or two, compile some, build some security, etc... etc...

Windows/OSX both let me install from scratch without a hitch on either hardware options and full 100% operability to begin installing third party applications of my choice, all in about an hours time (give or take, depending on hardware).

I haven't had the chance to actually pay for support from a distro that actually charges for it. I would guesstimate that is like their way of giving you a version of linux in a closed source manor? (i.e. Red Hat), so I can't actually comment on that, but I'd love to give it a whirl as I've heard that it's completely a different experience (I should check my sources on that :rolleyes: )

Link to post
Share on other sites
nub

Quite simply, linux is a ****ing hassle and its's just not worth it. Nothing in Linux is straight forward. You are forced to use the terminal if you want to do anything outside of "normal" use. Users don't want to memorize a bajillion commands.

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.