Why Linux Sucks

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Okay so there is a lot of Linux fanatics on this site. Here is a video series that covers all the problems with Linux. Even Linux fans in the videos admit there are problems with it, stop living in denial and face the truth that Linux has it's own set of problems and stop lying to people that it's perfect when it's not.









posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
When the response to everything is to open a command shell --

it sucks...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PharohGnosis
 


Of course Linux has it's own set of problems, but Linux is WAY more secure than Windows. For user-ability, I prefer Windows all day, but there are certain applications that Linux is much better at, especially in an enterprise setting. The main thing people hate about Linux is learning a new way of doing things, although some things are about the same as Windows, at least from an operational standpoint. Networking with Linux is the same, because networking protocols are universal regardless of what OS you use. I will say that managing a network via Unix is much more efficient than a Windows system, especially with DNS (forward/Reverse lookup), etc. The cool thing about Linux is that you can run a server with a basic Linux OS like Fedora, whereas with Windows, you need to get a Windows Server OS. And of course, as you already know, the fact that Linux is open source is better than Windows because it is easier to identify issues and resolve them.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
This is from 2009. Many of these things are irrelevant.

Your also wrong on why Linux sucks... as are the people in the video discussing it. The software such as audio-layers (pulse-audio, phonon, etc) are software. They are not made for Linux, they are open source applications that can be run on all windows, BSD, and GNU/Linux. The same goes for other software such as desktop environments.

BIOS > Kernel > Framebuffer > Desktop
Linux is "just" the Kernel...

Sure some software way suck when running on Linux, and sure there may be "un-needed" implementations of things such as audio-layers..... but the truth is, it is open-source.

The power of open-source gives you the freedom to do what you want... even if it means writing yet another implementation of a program. You get the choice to choose what you want to run, whether it be a GNOME desktop, a KDE one, or even a minimal beast of a machine running nothign but Fluxbox and a dock panel.

You cannot modify windows or Mac OSX, or any other propietary implementation of a desktop computer to the same extent as you can with an open source one.

I use GNU/Linux because it literally puts me in control and i know exactly what is going on inside my computer. Call me paranoid, but the thought of using a completely closed-source operating system is beyond me by far. I don't like the idea that certain features are hidden away from the user, as they can VERY easily be intorducd as a security or privacy risk.

Linux may suck... but we all have our preferences. Personally, i want to be in control of my computer. To me, in a rather relevant way, using windows or Mac OSX is like unleashing the sentinels from the matrix movies, when machines get out of control they become a threat.

I honestly do not want my personal computer to become a zombie in part of some criminals botnet army. So i use Linux.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The one thing that holds me back are games, now I know WoW works on linux, but I'm talking most of the games I actually play don't work.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
If you know what the hell you are doing then Linux is just fine. Don't get on Linux and expect to be boss at it instantly.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
if you dont like it, change it. thats the beauty of open source.

most of the linux drawbacks are out of its hands anyway. when your hardware drivers arent compatible, go complain to the company that produced the hardware, not linux.

its kind of like getting mad a a television station because you didnt like the last episode of star trek they aired. the television station does not film the show they just broadcast it....go complain to the production company or director.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PharohGnosis
 


Personally in 16 years I've never had a single problem with windows. The only difference between windows and linux is that linux is idiot proof.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
When the response to everything is to open a command shell --

it sucks...

Alt-Shift-F1...stop yer whining! Do you find "Open a dosbox" easier?
edit on 17/1/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo
edit on 17/1/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: 2nd typo

ETA Disclosure. My PC is something like 10+ years old and the only thing that runs nice is Linux. I don't think my system will be supported on the next new version of Windows either.

"AGP?"
"Hmm...let's not...no one has AGP anymore."
"Okidoki..."
edit on 17/1/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LongbottomLeaf
 


that you know of.

if youve been a windows user for 16 years then there is actually a myriad of various vulnerabilities and bugs that youve been subjected to. whether or not you noticed is a different story, as so much happens behind the scenes of the closed proprietery world that you never get to see or have control over.

even if you did or someday do notice....all you can do is sit around and wait for microsoft or apple to fix it.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LurkerLegacy
 


Sure there are plenty of vulnerabilities but stay off porn sites and your golden. I've never had a pc crash or break or anything with windows. As long as you can read your windows program will be fine. I've never even had a problem with Vista I dont know whats wrong with people. Dell PC + Windows OS never had a problem ever.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I've used both for many years. Linux is very good in the Enterprise environment when it's being used by knowledgeable systems administrators who actually know what they are doing. It doesn't take a ton of memory so it can run on less robust boxes. It's extremely versatile and can be configured in thousands of ways.

But a home or business user who has no time or inclination to learn about computers themselves, i.e.: A person who just wants to use a computer for word processing or whatever, and does NOT want to deal with "distros and drivers," is not going to be happy with Linux unless someone else sets it up perfectly for him. The GUI interfaces for Linux look "kinda like" Windows, and if you don't push them too hard they'll work okay. Open Office works "kinda like" Microsoft Office, but sometimes it just doesn't quite get the file right. It's 98% compatible, but that 2% can be a bear to deal with.

People who push and wax eloquent about Linux are geeks or geek wannabes who have an interest. Normal people do not want to even SEE a $ prompt. They just don't care. They want a box from Dell or Toshiba or HP to plug in and just work instantly, including to whatever printers they have. And they also don't see it as a religion or political statement, which Linux lovers frequently do.

And don;t tell me about how Linux is more "secure" than Windows. We're not running Windows 98 any more. I've been running XP for ten years with zero problems, and 7 is an all around great OS with no security problems at all. Linux is secure because of its obscurity, not because it is somehow more special. Believe me, I have had my Linux servers hacked, spat upon, spit out, and handed back to me on a silver platter more than once, particularly in the early years, and because Linux is often run in a server environment, the destruction implications can be much worse.

Linux was not originally designed for the desktop. It's a Unix variant. Windows was designed for the end user's desktop. The problem comes about when you try to make it into something it isn't. I know there are many open source projects for making that happen, but they have their own set of problems as they fork at unexpected times or run out of steam because it's all a volunteer effort.

When Linux can be purchased with a machine that boots and shoots with no intevention by the user, then it might have a chance on the desktop. Until then, it's a force-fit situation. It doesn't really suck at all. It just gets misused. A motorcycle sucks as a bus, too.
edit on 1/17/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fopicon
If you know what the hell you are doing then Linux is just fine. Don't get on Linux and expect to be boss at it instantly.


That is exactly correct. Linux must be learned, that may be one thing that throws people off, but once learned, one will never go back to Windows! I started, like most everyone, on Ubuntu. then I went on the Linux Hop ride, where you try them all, trying to find the perfect Desktop. I finally settled on Fedora. Fedora is not for the new Linux convert, and it is cutting edge technology. New versions do not always work right. Sometimes there are problems.
But hey, you like what you like. I repair computers for a partial living out of my home. 98% of customers run Windows, so I may sit in front of a Windows PC for hours at a time. It is always a pleasure to fire up my custom machine, and watch as the text rolls by, type in the encryption passphrase, and then the log in info. What comes up is a beautiful, eye candy intensive KDE 4 Desktop, with analog clock, a solar system widgit, a picture frame with a nice photo of me and the wife, and my desktop photo of a custom, lowered '54 Ford Sunliner.
Fedora, running Firefox with 5 taps open, Thunderbird, and Gedit, and Home Folder opened, is only using 20% of each of my dual AMD CPUs, and 1.2 Gb of 3Gb of memory.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by PharohGnosis
 


Linux isn't perfect?



Oh snap.. who knew?




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Yes linux sucks, I had to jump through hoops to make some needed software work, whereas in windows it would work out of the box.

On the other hand the latest (rather anything after XP) does not work on my pc which is in a perfectly good running condition. So the software working on an OS that does not work on my pc is kinda a moot point isn't it?

besides I don't like paying every year for an OS when I can get one for free.

So unless you M$ lovers want to donate for a new pc capable of running windows + the latest windows, I am going to stick with linux.

And oh yeah I can currently run 2 firefox windows with about 10 tabs each, thunderbird (4 email accounts), eclipse PDT, 2 to 5 gedit (notepad ) tabs, fully fledged LAMP, 2 trading terminals (mt4), vlc media player and often one or two other programs, with only 20% cpu usage on a 3Ghz pc with 2GB memory, let me know when windows can do that. Oh yeah compiz + emerald for eye candy without using a graphics card, top that.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Linux is like a life jacket in the rough waters of the Windows ocean. It can save your pc from otherwise irreparable loss and damage within Windows, when you know how to use it (and really, it's easy as pie.) I can't tell you how many Windows machines I've operated on (literally, almost every person I know has at one point or another asked me to fix their machine, like I'm apparently the only one who understands these magic boxes
) but ultimately I end up using a live-boot linux distro to clean up whatever crap caused the problem, or to save important data. Having 2 or 3 discs with different emergency tools on them is invaluable, I recommend everyone to have at least one.

But, I don't use Linux everyday. Windows has everything I need, whereas Linux doesn't even have half the things I need. They are about equal in ease-of-use, Linux has the upper hand in functionality, but software selection clearly goes to Windows. Plus, Windows 7 has hardly any stability problems at all, unlike older versions.

Linux doesn't quite suck, in fact quite the opposite, but Windows (specifically 7) is just a more well-rounded OS than any Linux distro.
edit on 18-1-2012 by nwdogg1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by Fopicon
If you know what the hell you are doing then Linux is just fine. Don't get on Linux and expect to be boss at it instantly.


That is exactly correct. Linux must be learned, that may be one thing that throws people off, but once learned, one will never go back to Windows! I started, like most everyone, on Ubuntu. then I went on the Linux Hop ride, where you try them all, trying to find the perfect Desktop. I finally settled on Fedora. Fedora is not for the new Linux convert, and it is cutting edge technology. New versions do not always work right. Sometimes there are problems.
But hey, you like what you like. I repair computers for a partial living out of my home. 98% of customers run Windows, so I may sit in front of a Windows PC for hours at a time. It is always a pleasure to fire up my custom machine, and watch as the text rolls by, type in the encryption passphrase, and then the log in info. What comes up is a beautiful, eye candy intensive KDE 4 Desktop, with analog clock, a solar system widgit, a picture frame with a nice photo of me and the wife, and my desktop photo of a custom, lowered '54 Ford Sunliner.
Fedora, running Firefox with 5 taps open, Thunderbird, and Gedit, and Home Folder opened, is only using 20% of each of my dual AMD CPUs, and 1.2 Gb of 3Gb of memory.


Windows must also be learned.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day
Give a man a fishing rod, feed him for life.

Don't learn windows in the beggining and you break away from the bad habits and restrictions that "only" windows has. If you teach a kid how to use GNU/Linux, they will also be able to use Solaris, BSD, Mac OSX and any other unix variant without much hassle.

As for the people saying Linux isn't designed for the desktop or isn't good on the desktop.... they are lost. Chances are they have only wever seen a screenshot of TWM with an xterm... LOL.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
As for the people saying Linux isn't designed for the desktop or isn't good on the desktop.... they are lost. Chances are they have only wever seen a screenshot of TWM with an xterm... LOL.


That very sentence makes my point nicely. TWM? xterm? Your average user simply does not talk in code like that. They never read slashdot. They don't know how to "install a printer driver in the usual manner." They don't know what a codec is. They've never written a line of code. They've never used vi to write a script. When I was head of the IT department at my local library the four of us thought it would be great fun to all get baseball caps for "All Staff Day" that said "Got root?" on them like the "Got milk?" ads. Not a single other person on staff, that's 200 people, had any idea what it meant, and we wound up looking like elitists.

People simply expect things to work with no particular effort on their part in the same way they can drive a car perfectly adequately and have only a vague notion of how an internal combustion engine works. In the early days of automobiles you had to be a mechanic to operate one competently. Today you don't even have to know how to change a tire. We now have a generation of people who have literally never used a clutch or rolled a window down manually.

In order to make Linux sing, you have to be a Linux mechanic. I'm not anti-Linux. I hope I've proven that. When I left the library I had a dozen Linux machines doing various tasks, plus Solaris, HP-UX, and even BSD on one. But I do maintain that Linux was never designed nor intended for the desktop and that the attempts to make it equal and appropriate to the desktop are like Cinderella's ugly stepsisters trying to fit their feet into the glass slipper.
edit on 1/18/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
As for the people saying Linux isn't designed for the desktop or isn't good on the desktop.... they are lost. Chances are they have only wever seen a screenshot of TWM with an xterm... LOL.


That very sentence makes my point nicely. TWM? xterm? Your average user simply does not talk in code like that. They never read slashdot. They don't know how to "install a printer driver in the usual manner." They don't know what a codec is. They've never written a line of code. They've never used vi to write a script. When I was head of the IT department at my local library the four of us thought it would be great fun to all get baseball caps for "All Staff Day" that said "Got root?" on them like the "Got milk?" ads. Not a single other person on staff, that's 200 people, had any idea what it meant, and we wound up looking like elitists.

People simply expect things to work with no particular effort on their part in the same way they can drive a car perfectly adequately and have only a vague notion of how an internal combustion engine works. In the early days of automobiles you had to be a mechanic to operate one competently. Today you don't even have to know how to change a tire. We now have a generation of people who have literally never used a clutch or rolled a window down manually.

In order to make Linux sing, you have to be a Linux mechanic. I'm not anti-Linux. I hope I've proven that. When I left the library I had a dozen Linux machines doing various tasks, plus Solaris, HP-UX, and even BSD on one. But I do maintain that Linux was never designed nor intended for the desktop and that the attempts to make it equal and appropriate to the desktop are like Cinderella's ugly stepsisters trying to fit their feet into the glass slipper.
edit on 1/18/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



Ok, this is going to be a long post. Fix this up;

Tiling Window Manager, or Tom's Window Manager
X TERMinal emulator

You say you have experience with Solaris, HP-UX or BSD... yet you reffer to the names of standard modules in the X.Org distribution as "code".... give me a break. So then tell me, what about the windows world... common ones such as NTFS? GDI? PnP? You going to tell me those are not cryptic? Why does it matter.

Just because you don't know what it is, you don't dismiss it as garbage or do you? Your argument is like saying "I can't read french so it sucks" or "I can't be bothered to read an instruction manual or a tutorial so it sucks".


never designed nor intended for the desktop

What are you on about... Linux is a multi-tasking kernel... of coursxe it was designed for desktop use, or at least be able to support some kind of graphical interface (X.Org and a window manager).

The inventor of Linux even uses XFCE (a desktop enviornment) on his computer as a "desktop".



You also say that people expect things to work, and they just want everything to be done automatically. Well here you are wrong. "YOU" want that. You cannot state something which is an opinion of your use about a computer as fact of everyone else.

I do what i want on my computer, and i expect to be able to do what i want without a restriction or stranglehold with draconian DRM systems in place to prevent "copying".

These Linux arguments have not changed one part since ~2005. It's the same old argument all the time about how Linux is not ready for the desktop and how it utterly sucks, things change very fast with open source.

I mean, how is this not a useful desktop for everyday computing; Here i am watching freeview with a dvb-t card, browsing the web, listening to music, and checking a task-manager. Anyone can easily pick up this interface as it really does not differ much from windows, especially in the case of KDE. I may be running a rather-technical distro at the moment (arch linux), but that is besides the point as you can get the exact same look and behaviour on something such as Kubuntu which does in fact have an easier to use installer than that of windows.

How is this much different (appearance) from windows?
img515.imageshack.us...

Really, the argument that Linux is not for the desktop is one of desperation. It is not as if every child is born to know everything about windows before they come out of the womb... i think it's just that because Linux is "different" people become defensive of what they know (windows) and are afraid to bother venturing to the next town.

The most important thing about a desktop computer is the fact that every piece of software should be kept upto date and should be able to be done wth ease. Windows has no form of package manager, or software database to update "everything" that is installed. This becomes a problem for obvious reasons.

Linux might have it's problems, but they are not ones that effect me. Windows is a problem to me.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 



Tiling Window Manager, or Tom's Window Manager
X TERMinal emulator


I never asked you what they meant. I was telling you most people don’t know. That’s the issue.


You say you have experience with Solaris, HP-UX or BSD... yet you reffer to the names of standard modules in the X.Org distribution as "code".... give me a break. So then tell me, what about the windows world... common ones such as NTFS? GDI? PnP? You going to tell me those are not cryptic? Why does it matter.


I never did that. Windows users, by and large, have no idea what NTFS is either. They don’t have to. It’s all provided for them straight out of the box. I said the average user doesn’t write code. Not X.org modules, I meant code as in C++, Java, even xBase for cryin’ out loud! Give ME a break!


Just because you don't know what it is, you don't dismiss it as garbage or do you? Your argument is like saying "I can't read french so it sucks" or "I can't be bothered to read an instruction manual or a tutorial so it sucks".


I never said it sucks. You’re reacting to what you think I said, emotionally, instead of what I actually said. The average user is NOT going to read the manual. The average user is NOT going to want to “learn French” to be able to do mundane computing tasks. They want to hit the “on” button, click on their app, and go. That’s it.


What are you on about... Linux is a multi-tasking kernel... of coursxe it was designed for desktop use, or at least be able to support some kind of graphical interface (X.Org and a window manager).


Sure, a character-based desktop. The GUIs, such as they are, are an afterthought.


You also say that people expect things to work, and they just want everything to be done automatically. Well here you are wrong. "YOU" want that. You cannot state something which is an opinion of your use about a computer as fact of everyone else.


Sure I can, based on decades of experience helping users in all kinds of environments, people with no computer training at all who need to learn the enterprise software running on the system, not the system itself. And I state, categorically and for the record, that your average user has no desire whatsoever to learn the OS. I’ve been helping and teaching people how to use computers since before you were born, since the days of punched cards, since before the Apple ][ was new and innovative through the entire CP/M and the MS-DOS lifecycle, and on into every version of Windows that ever was. And I’ve used Linux, too. I am not some sysadmin who dwells in the computer room and never sticks head out except to sneer at his constituency. I’ll put my record up against anybody’s.


I do what i want on my computer, and i expect to be able to do what i want without a restriction or stranglehold with draconian DRM systems in place to prevent "copying".


Good for you. “Draconian DRM” That’s your issue? I gotta tell you that is not a problem for most people. Now you’re stating what YOU want, which is really irrelevant to the discussion.


These Linux arguments have not changed one part since ~2005. It's the same old argument all the time about how Linux is not ready for the desktop and how it utterly sucks, things change very fast with open source.


That’s because nothing has really changed. Linux is not on the desktop. Nobody buys it for the desktop. Nobody expects to go to Dell and get a Linux-based PC. There’s no consumer market for it.

You say it’s all desperation, but it is you who are desperate. The fact is, despite all your efforts, despite all your proselytizing about the so-called superiority of Linux, the market share of Linux is zilch. Nada. Near zero. After all these years you’ve accomplished nothing substantial. The software situation with Linux is chaotic. The driver situation is in a tatters. The “distros” are laughable. “Hey, Mom! What flavor of distro do you want for your next Linux build?” Un-freaking-believable.


I mean, how is this not a useful desktop for everyday computing;


Sure it is, but your Mom isn’t using it, is she? She doesn’t know what a dvb-t card is, or KDE, or arch, or Kubuntu. She doesn’t need an “installer” because she will never ever use an installer. Windows comes installed, and it does its own updates.


Linux might have it's problems, but they are not ones that effect me. Windows is a problem to me.


You are unable to take yourself out of the equation, plus you’re religious about it. To you it's political. It’s not all about you. The fact is that Linux is not on the desktop. Yours, of course, but nobody else. And until the Linux community, which is an oxymoron, can find a way to distribute and SUPPORT Linux it’s not going to be on the desktop in any substantial numbers.
edit on 1/18/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join