7 ms·

"...obsolete, partially unsafe, usually extremely cumbersome IT, leading to lots of wasted time and productivity". That is an excellent short description of Li

by ackfoo 9y ago

"...obsolete, partially unsafe, usually extremely cumbersome IT, leading to lots of wasted time and productivity". That is an excellent short description of Linux. The kernel is fine, but the distros and application software are mostly garbage. Linux needs an absolute asshole to take charge of everything other than the kernel. His/her favourite word must be "no", as in, "No you shrinking violet, your code is crap and it needs to be totally rewritten. Get outta my distro." A Steve Jobs of Linux to tell people to make it "just work" and point out the parts that are pure garbage (over 90% at this point.) It is not clear whether a benevolent dictator can exist in an open-source world. But someone needs to try.

jenscow 9y ago
Hah, you're joking, right? One of the main (non-technical) reasons I've switched to Linux is to not be dictated to by a single entity, who has their own ideas (and motivations) on how I should by using my own computer.
- wst_ 9y ago
  There's always someone who dictates how you're gonna use your own computer. Be there MS or RedHat or whomever maintains the distro you're using.
hd4 9y ago
That's just bullshit. The design committee of the major DEs/distros are already that benevolent dictator. What have you tried that you found it was mostly garbage? I used Unity just fine for about 5 years until the recent switch to GNOME and then I went to Fedora KDE, and was surprised at how solid it is. Maybe its just you/your hardware?
- tgragnato 9y ago
  KDE and GNOME are over-engineered, there's too much complexity in the wrong places and this leads to confusion. More specifically, KDE has too many configuration options, while GNOME is dictating how one has to do things. As an example: > "Documents is a document manager application designed to work with GNOME 3. It's included in the default set of core applications since GNOME 3.2." The file system has been used for decades as a document manager, why is this in the set of CORE applications ?
  - CuriouslyC 9y ago
    The complexity you denigrate in KDE is the result of its massive configurability. The average joe might find it offputting, but I like being able to completely control my environment. I suppose that mirrors Linux in general. If Linux had to be dumbed-down to make it a generally acceptable desktop environment, something else would invariably arise in its niche. I think things are just fine as is with MacOS as Unix for the masses, and Linux as unix for hackers.
    - tgragnato 9y ago
      Do not misunderstand me, I do not want to denigrate anything, as I appreciate the potential of configurability, but this is not the average case of a public employee.
cjsuk 9y ago
Indeed. Assholes we need. But we got the freedesktop/gnome and poettering assholes instead of the right assholes.
jotm 9y ago
It seems to me that there's no money in that. And the GPL license means that anyone can just fork your stuff whenever they decide they don't like your monetization strategy. Maybe building a distro based on FreeBSD would work as you describe? I haven't looked into Linux/Unix for a long time, right now I want to switch from Windows 7 to some Linux distro but I'm having trouble deciding, and I remember what a pain in the ass it was to keep a workstation Linux problem-free.
- drdaeman 9y ago
  > It seems to me that there's no money in that. It had sort of worked with Android, so there should be some. > Maybe building a distro based on FreeBSD would work as you describe? Is there anything wrong with macOS? ;) (I know, I know, it's not exactly BSD)
  - jotm 9y ago
    It's very picky when it comes to hardware :D Android... I dunno, the way Google makes money is mainly from apps on the Play Store? Is it even possible to replicate that on a desktop?
    - drdaeman 9y ago
      Hm. I guess you're right. Android was a bad example. Unless something new happens to desktops that would require a new OS (or significant changes to the existing OSes), Android's success cannot be repeated.
      - jotm 9y ago
        I wonder if people would be enticed by a Linux OS that runs Android apps seamlessly (and with complete functionality)... There's a lot of good apps for mobile that are better than desktop alternatives, though I wonder how it would work legally with Google's Play Store...
  - hungerstrike 9y ago
jaimex2 9y ago
Isn't what he just described Redhat... as in RedHat Enterprise Linux?
- jotm 9y ago
  Oh yeah...
Chyzwar 9y ago
Problem is large organizations IT departments. Instead of using tested and quality components they only consider two options: Roll own thing (LiMux) use crappy vendor (MS). It would be massively cheaper to sponsor 5 people to work on Libre Office, and 5 people to support the distribution of choice (Ubuntu, SUSE). The remaining effort should be put into aggressive upgrade policy. They would now be running on Ubuntu 16.04 and LibreOffice and OwnCloud installation that would cost them peanuts. Instead, they are running on LiMux where the last release took place in 2011. Half of the documents are still probably in MS format and nothing work on modern hardware. What they will do now is to embrace Windows10. But in few years MS will push everything to the cloud and they will be left hanging with expensive licenses per user. Because of privacy and data cannot move to the US and they will be forced to use legacy Office versions. Additionally, because Windows is expensive to support they will get squeezed by Indian outsourcing centers.
JepZ 9y ago
Actually, thats not how open source works. But you have at least two true points between the lines: 1. Linux is not easy to install: Most of the problems during installation are still driver issues. The issues are mainly not existing drivers or proprietary binary drivers. Wherever open source drivers exist with the support of the hardware manufacturer they work just great (stable and out of the box). 2. We have lots of distributions but to my knowledge none is just awesome to use: I used Ubuntu for a few years on different machines but major updates were often problematic, and every 2 years or so you had to reinstall (sucks). On my desktop computer I used Gentoo for a while but source based distributions have special problems (dependency resolution is sometimes harder and you have all the trouble if some ABI breaks). In the last 2 years I switched most of my computers to Arch which has the advantage of having rolling releases, so no major updates and no reinstall requirements (yeah). But while source based distributions make it easy to integrate 3rd party repositories to your system, Arch has the so called AUR (Arch User Repositories) which is even more complicated to use than Gentoo or Exherbo, as the provided tools are just not as good. But without the AUR there are many packages missing in Arch. So for the moment I will stick with Arch, but I really hope there will be something equally long living, up-to-date, stable and even more complete and extendable. (Btw. before Ubuntu I tried Fedora, Debian and SuSE, which all had their own problems)

by ackfoo 9y ago

jenscow 9y ago

Hah, you're joking, right? One of the main (non-technical) reasons I've switched to Linux is to not be dictated to by a single entity, who has their own ideas (and motivations) on how I should by using my own computer.

wst_ 9y ago
There's always someone who dictates how you're gonna use your own computer. Be there MS or RedHat or whomever maintains the distro you're using.

hd4 9y ago

That's just bullshit. The design committee of the major DEs/distros are already that benevolent dictator. What have you tried that you found it was mostly garbage? I used Unity just fine for about 5 years until the recent switch to GNOME and then I went to Fedora KDE, and was surprised at how solid it is. Maybe its just you/your hardware?

tgragnato 9y ago
KDE and GNOME are over-engineered, there's too much complexity in the wrong places and this leads to confusion. More specifically, KDE has too many configuration options, while GNOME is dictating how one has to do things. As an example: > "Documents is a document manager application designed to work with GNOME 3. It's included in the default set of core applications since GNOME 3.2." The file system has been used for decades as a document manager, why is this in the set of CORE applications ?
- CuriouslyC 9y ago
  The complexity you denigrate in KDE is the result of its massive configurability. The average joe might find it offputting, but I like being able to completely control my environment. I suppose that mirrors Linux in general. If Linux had to be dumbed-down to make it a generally acceptable desktop environment, something else would invariably arise in its niche. I think things are just fine as is with MacOS as Unix for the masses, and Linux as unix for hackers.
  - tgragnato 9y ago
    Do not misunderstand me, I do not want to denigrate anything, as I appreciate the potential of configurability, but this is not the average case of a public employee.

cjsuk 9y ago

Indeed. Assholes we need. But we got the freedesktop/gnome and poettering assholes instead of the right assholes.

jotm 9y ago

It seems to me that there's no money in that. And the GPL license means that anyone can just fork your stuff whenever they decide they don't like your monetization strategy. Maybe building a distro based on FreeBSD would work as you describe? I haven't looked into Linux/Unix for a long time, right now I want to switch from Windows 7 to some Linux distro but I'm having trouble deciding, and I remember what a pain in the ass it was to keep a workstation Linux problem-free.

drdaeman 9y ago
> It seems to me that there's no money in that. It had sort of worked with Android, so there should be some. > Maybe building a distro based on FreeBSD would work as you describe? Is there anything wrong with macOS? ;) (I know, I know, it's not exactly BSD)
- jotm 9y ago
  It's very picky when it comes to hardware :D Android... I dunno, the way Google makes money is mainly from apps on the Play Store? Is it even possible to replicate that on a desktop?
  - drdaeman 9y ago
    Hm. I guess you're right. Android was a bad example. Unless something new happens to desktops that would require a new OS (or significant changes to the existing OSes), Android's success cannot be repeated.
    - jotm 9y ago
      I wonder if people would be enticed by a Linux OS that runs Android apps seamlessly (and with complete functionality)... There's a lot of good apps for mobile that are better than desktop alternatives, though I wonder how it would work legally with Google's Play Store...
- hungerstrike 9y ago

jaimex2 9y ago

Isn't what he just described Redhat... as in RedHat Enterprise Linux?

jotm 9y ago
Oh yeah...

Chyzwar 9y ago

Problem is large organizations IT departments. Instead of using tested and quality components they only consider two options: Roll own thing (LiMux) use crappy vendor (MS). It would be massively cheaper to sponsor 5 people to work on Libre Office, and 5 people to support the distribution of choice (Ubuntu, SUSE). The remaining effort should be put into aggressive upgrade policy. They would now be running on Ubuntu 16.04 and LibreOffice and OwnCloud installation that would cost them peanuts. Instead, they are running on LiMux where the last release took place in 2011. Half of the documents are still probably in MS format and nothing work on modern hardware. What they will do now is to embrace Windows10. But in few years MS will push everything to the cloud and they will be left hanging with expensive licenses per user. Because of privacy and data cannot move to the US and they will be forced to use legacy Office versions. Additionally, because Windows is expensive to support they will get squeezed by Indian outsourcing centers.

JepZ 9y ago

Actually, thats not how open source works. But you have at least two true points between the lines: 1. Linux is not easy to install: Most of the problems during installation are still driver issues. The issues are mainly not existing drivers or proprietary binary drivers. Wherever open source drivers exist with the support of the hardware manufacturer they work just great (stable and out of the box). 2. We have lots of distributions but to my knowledge none is just awesome to use: I used Ubuntu for a few years on different machines but major updates were often problematic, and every 2 years or so you had to reinstall (sucks). On my desktop computer I used Gentoo for a while but source based distributions have special problems (dependency resolution is sometimes harder and you have all the trouble if some ABI breaks). In the last 2 years I switched most of my computers to Arch which has the advantage of having rolling releases, so no major updates and no reinstall requirements (yeah). But while source based distributions make it easy to integrate 3rd party repositories to your system, Arch has the so called AUR (Arch User Repositories) which is even more complicated to use than Gentoo or Exherbo, as the provided tools are just not as good. But without the AUR there are many packages missing in Arch. So for the moment I will stick with Arch, but I really hope there will be something equally long living, up-to-date, stable and even more complete and extendable. (Btw. before Ubuntu I tried Fedora, Debian and SuSE, which all had their own problems)