Some time ago we published a news about Linux Sucks! (translated as "Linux sucks"), a talk by Bryan Lunduke that he makes every year to deeply criticize free software and the Linux environment, but at the same time highlights how interesting this software is and the genius behind it despite all the existing problems. He also makes a reflection on the difficulty of suar and configure a GNU / Linux system and how this difficulty has been corrected over the years.
Well, a few days ago I came across an article from the FSF listing the most interesting projects that were needed immediately to continue completing the GNU project and that there were not yet or were in little mature stages. This list was intended for developers to get down to business. Joining this idea with that of Linux Sucks, I would like to give my personal opinion (you will have other very different ones for sure) of what are the weak points compared to other OS and how Linux could improve.
The simple praise of Linux as the best of the best is destructive for the project. Linux or GNU kernel developers do not need clappers to cheat on them and tell them how well they do everything, but critics to point them in the right direction. Starting with linuxeros, and from this blog, we should be more critical, since as Kepler said: "I like the sharp criticism of an intelligent man more than the thoughtless approval of the masses."
My review is this, add yours in comments:
- Few software and hardware companies involved: yes, there are more and more corporations that are interested in Linux, creating compatible video games, software and hardware for this platform. But it is still very far from the current situation that Microsoft has with Windows. If they exist multitude of alternatives for programs from other platforms, but it is not about having alternatives, it is about being able to have the same possibilities as on other platforms. For companies to start looking at Linux it is necessary to conquer a greater market share as it has Windows or Mac OS X, but this is quite difficult today. Therefore, the only solution I see is to accelerate the development of projects like Wine or Darling.
- Fragmentation: This is something that has been talked about at length and Linus Torvalds seems to agree with it for being "nurturing", but perhaps seeking a more universal development and not dispersing efforts so widely would solve many problems and improve others. That is to say, it is good to have several distros to choose from or different desktop environments to use the one that we like the most or that suits our needs, but from there to there are hundreds and hundreds of distributions or dozens of graphical environments ... On the other hand , this fragmentation also makes the previous point difficult (for example, by the number of packages RPM, DEB, ... and existing distros), a non-standardization makes many back down. In short, this translates into many developers interested in the GNU / Linux world but all dispersing their forces rather than joining them. Perhaps a development model more like that of other projects like FreeBSD is acceptable.
- Design and functionality: Windows and Mac OS X are masters at this, it is true that they seem systems designed for idiots, but if you want to expand the reach of Linux and bring it to the masses, you have to create more attractive and intuitive environments. Some programs lack GUI or are not very functional, you have to change this. Canonical has managed to capture this idea for Ubuntu and is doing an extraordinary job, that is why it is one of the most used distros (without detracting from other equally remarkable projects in this regard). We all want a system as beautiful as Mac OS X and as functional, without falling into Apple's mistake of neglecting its terminal.
- Network stack: Last year, Facebook tried to improve the Linux network stack by hiring experts to help develop the kernel in this regard. The Linux network stack isn't horrible, but it can be improved. FreeBSD is an example to follow, since it has an enviable network stack, and it is what Facebook was after, to match or improve it.
- Safety: that with GNU / Linux you can be more secure (some distributions more than others) than with other systems is real, but we cannot relax and say that Linux is the safest in the world, since it is not true. And in this case I go back to BSD to give an example of security with the OpenBSD project. For the Linux Foundation and the FSF to allocate resources to audit the security of their projects or dedicate a team of experts to polish the security of the system would not hurt.
- Pressure group: there is an anti-Linux "lobby" that comes from some companies like Microsoft, despite the passivity that Satya Nadella has highlighted in the era, and Apple. But in one way or another, the pressure they can exert due to their monopolistic situation means that drivers, software and technologies do not reach Linux sooner. Perhaps the FSF or the Linux Foundation could do something in this regard by pressing in some way so that, for example, things like UEFI Secure Boot do not happen, or ensure free standards as AMD does. Also, not only that, you could also do pro-Linux campaigns. Have you seen any commercials for Linux on TV or some other off-line media? And if I repeat that same question, changing "Linux" to "Microsoft Windows" or "Apple"? So the answer varies dramatically.
Perhaps Instead of criticizing the "enemies" of Linux, one should learn from its advantages to improve. Taking ideas from OS X, Solaris, FreeBSD, Windows, etc., does not have to go against the spirit of the penguin as long as it is intended to make Tux the best. Turn enemies into learning opportunities and disadvantages into advantages.
Do you see more things to solve? Do not hesitate to criticize comments...