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...
What is network stack? Greetings.
The worst or perhaps the most critical point will always be the problem of fragmentation.
In addition, there are points of the "fan boys", citing for example, that a newbie is always given a "destructive criticism" to give him a distribution and that he can enter the world of GNU / linux. Wouldn't it be better to give him a explanation of what you will find? Let's say how to install a program with Synaptic.
And there can be many criticisms, but let's see, the fundamental part is how can we forget to be a separate army to be part of the same rebellion?
It is that the ego of the Linux gurus is proportional to their brilliance, the more intelligent the more egomaniacal, and the more classist because they come to believe that Linux is only for those who 'know'. The rest of us mortals use Winbugs and OSX.
Excellent the final question !!!
Design and functionality?
The only distro I know that are really excellent designers are those from deepin.
They design their applications, their desktop environment, it is a beauty.
I do not share anything about the design, the first one is subjective, for example I hate the OSX and Windows interface, nor do I tell you since when I was a user of this system: V, but then I install XFCE in an Arch with all his conkys and plank and I lose my mind shouting to all God how beautiful my desk is, but not everyone will like it for that reason it cannot be considered a critical point since it obeys the perspective of each individual.
I agree with almost everything that is said in the article, the message is that the main culprits that Linux is as it is, are within the Linux world, and the main problem is the neglect of the user experience. An example is LibreOffice, an outdated office automation that hurts the retina, that uses the Office 97 interface, with poor integration with Microsoft Office, and the culprits ??? 'It is Microsoft because its proprietary formats do not give the exact specifications, because it does not create a version for Linux, etc, etc, blah, blah, because they hate the Ribbon interface' And blaming the rest Linux immobilizes, since for them the one that has to change is Microsoft and not improve Linux to conquer desktops.
I have even read comments where they are proud that Linux has that 2% of the market, according to them it is the true objective of free software, not to be profitable, not to be attractive because it is free. Nooo, free software must aim to reach the masses, make it profitable so that there are applications. The fundamentalists want to convince us that Linux does not need proprietary applications, and that free software should be free, neither one nor the other. Linux should not be the heritage of programmers who pride themselves on mastering the most complicated distro, Linux should be simple, with an excellent user experience, and aimed at the common public.
And despite the fact that we all agree on the fragmentation and the waste of blurred efforts, new distros will continue to appear, and we will continue to have an absence of applications.
I do not believe at all that the LibreOffice interface is outdated, on the contrary, it is a mature and practical functional design ... although it does not do the ball to the strange and dark ribbons, which only like those who have implanted it in their minds the concept masking it as «modern» ... pure story!
All is true. I have always thought that advertising is what it would take. As an idea, to promote linux, go to a public place and start playing with steam ... both pc or steam console ... But I would do more something that does not motivate, if not that they completely change the idea that "nobody uses linux", some find it hard to understand that everything that is done on their mobiles is running through a network in which linux is present ... although the current generation are too many left with technology issues that if they spend too much money on a mobile, only to end up using whatsapp or facebook, who do not have the slightest interest in knowing how the system works, whatever your mobile phone has installed, without taking into account that everything you do on your mobile, that information is passing through a network of servers from which it is 100% safe they use linux. Apart from promoting not only with posters or the way to use it, there would be a lack of extensive talks on specific terms, I guess that would make them curious to know how things work.
What is the point of the article? There are already thousands like this, right? So there is more fragmentation of information: p
Fragmentation is a genetic characteristic of GNU / Linux, where the open source community is not democratic, it is anarchist: Stallman did something to get out of the herd, Torvald did something to get out of the herd, and so every hacker ...
And when sheep-raised wolves discover their potential and follow their own nature, they can hardly be regrouped behind a common idea, for they will always smell like "undercover shepherd."
In democracy the masses elect a leadership that steers the ship towards a project beneficial to the majority; in anarchy each one does for himself and for himself (although later generously shares his enlightenment with the rest), and that is the cause of fragmentation.
It would be wonderful to focus GNU / Linux lovers on a common task, organizing hundreds of thousands of intelligences in specific projects; But for that, the understanding must be reached that the term 'community' does not mean herd or the elimination of individuality.
And the great obstacle to this is the hacker's own anarchist mentality, paranoid by nature.
I am a relatively new user, the transition cost me a lot of work but I am still here in GNU / linux learning day by day, the most difficult part of my change to free software was the difficulty of installing drivers, software, the terminal, new concepts, commands etc, which you do not see in winbugs, all this added to the "ease" with which winbugs does everything, ends up scaring away most of the users who seek simplicity in their lives, I continue and will continue here, learning by providing and recommending GNU / Linux. But they should make things easier for the new ones since this lack of compatibility with office, adobe, etc. creates confusion and scares the new ones.
Let's think a bit. In if linux to create desktops it is enormous not to name all the programs and others. But the main problem with linux and free software are the developers themselves. For example debian people who recently criticized Ubuntu for starting to package .deb programs. The other thing is the lack of communication that there is, for example, almost a year ago I asked the people of inkscape why you could not create pages or sheets like Corel does, little else they kicked me out. But we must tell the truth in itself few places and few free software are those that listen to the users, example blender that in itself, I love the program very much. I also think that free software has a lot to contribute to companies. Maybe if you create more basic software, for example, a libreoffice for home use with a better interface can also lower piracy, for example. Either k3b improved or brazier has more recording functions or video converters, or some program similar to convertx would not be necessary to help piracy.
I read the post and the comments and there are several points where I find mixed reasons.
First of all, I suppose we are talking about Linux on the desktop, because success on servers and in the mobile world is more than known, because in case someone does not know, Android has a Linux kernel, now based on this I can say that ( I will go through the points of the post).
1.You probably won't see software greats like Adobe (which I suppose is the point) or Microsoft Office (which will most likely arrive sooner rather than later), and some more professional-type editor (for the creative world ), now this is true and it can throw back more than one, but the issue is that at the present time there is still a paradigm shift as far as OS is concerned, with windows 10 MS understood that the model to follow it is software as a service (good or bad will depend on each user with knowledge of it). In that sense, it is a matter of seeing Android, the most popular Linux in the world; Its model is software as a service because the company behind it is services (google), and if you see you have the software greats developing for them, Google's problem is that it preferred to bet on desktop over chrome os (which is linux equally) but its concept is radically opposite to what we understand by OS, perhaps if Google made a nod to traditional desktop systems, it would change the matter a bit. In relation to hardware, companies are offering computers with linux systems, there are emerging companies offering linux (system76 for example), what happens is that in some countries the monopolization of windows is enormous, added to the lack of user knowledge about their rights and issues of computer science, makes it practically become a de facto standard. Now the hardware support sadly does depend on the user quota, that is why it is difficult to see better performance or total performance with video cards for example. So to a certain extent (unless google did something, xiaomi took something out, or some government did something) you are right, with the exception of wine and darling, because that directly undermines native development in my opinion.
2. Here I can not find the reason for the following. First, because the number of packages in Linux does not exceed 5 if I am not mistaken, so you cannot include the script files, or the compressed ones, so in that sense it is quite standardized, Windows and OS X also have more than a form of parcel. The big problem is not understanding the essence of the system, and that is the concept of Modularity, Linux is similar to Legos, if you ask someone to build a house with Legos, nobody does it the same. Modularity is the great wealth of Linux, which has made it adapt to various devices. The problem is that perhaps we do not explain or understand this concept. Now about the number of distros, because I think that if it is necessary for a normal user to categorize the distros, because it is clear that the user is overwhelmed with the existing number of distros, but if we categorized and even reached the distros « Mothers' is less chaotic, the rest are 'user-made' or 'community-made' things that need to be explained (teaching about Linux and its related concepts is important).
3. Completely disagree, in design and functionality in 2015 linux is on par with OS X and Windows, both Gnome and KDE and Unity are mature enough and well worked to stand up to the user, it is more the Gnome philosophy , has greatly simplified the use of a computer interface, Unity alike. Another thing is that the developers do not handle the guidelines, but that is not the fault of the desktop environment. The environments have a high appeal, besides that you consider OS X more beautiful is too subjective, for example I find KDE more functional than the OS X interface, but it depends on each user and the WORKFLOW. We compare ourselves with windows and OSX and we want to adapt the same workflow, which is a mistake. Or did Apple modify its interface to fit the windows interface? being that it is not a majority system either. Environments must refine their philosophy but not seek it from other systems. Now you fall back into the error of projecting your way of using the system in a generality, just reflect on the use that most give it and you will see that current environments offer the same, in a simple way, it is a matter of seeing gnome music, totem or Nautilus.
4. Network stack, no objection, I find you right in that.
5. Well, I don't know to what extent but I understand that the programs are constantly reviewed for their security. Again, the Linux development model does allow you to find vulnerabilities and fix them quickly. In the case of Android, it is Google's responsibility, and I find the vulnerabilities of android strange, but that obeys its own pace and way of development.
6. Lack of advertising about Linux, yes. The problem is that the software organizations that promote the use of Linux and computer freedoms like the FSF, move with very few resources, if we get conspiranoid, in this world governed by the economy those who have a voice are those who move money For a reason, Obama meets with Silicon Valley companies, but only the most profitable. Now it is also important to do counter-information and above all, to do educational work, if we do not get educational institutions to promote the use of free software or Open Source, we are wrong, because we will replicate the use of tools that in the end will become standards of facto (hello Office formats) and when they grow up and are adults, they can't get out of there. I say this as a teacher that I am, and I have seen situations where colleagues fill their mouths with respecting the laws and are the first to use Windows and Pirate software.
Now in relation to the comments:
1. Yes, there are people who are arrogant and attack for free, but you find them in Winows and OS X forums alike, it is just knowing how to filter and see who to turn to.
2. This goes for megajavisan: free software can be profitable, in fact Stallman offers a monetization model under free software; so you are making a mistake. Free software implies concepts related to morality when using a system or software (related to the 4 freedoms), that is why you find people who are against the proprietary model. Another thing, according to Stallman is the OpenSource, which implies according to only technical aspects. As he once said Free software is NOT the same as free (that's why he uses the word Free and not Free). What happens is that the LInux = free idea was distorted, because the systems are freely distributed.
3. The issue of formats has been discussed many times, it is a problem of the company in question (MS) because for example we go the other way, in my personal case open formats work quite well between tools, but here it happens something different, the implementation that MS does is not up-to-date, that's why an ODF may not look good, instead MS delivers the implementation of the formats badly for compatibility, even between its tools (try to create a docx in office 2013 and please try older versions).
4. For new users: better to learn to enhance the benefits of linux than to attack the flaws of windows, stop saying "Winbugs", one can shine with its own light, you do not need to turn off the others
I really liked this article. I love linux I have installed Ubuntu, Kubuntu used computers with debian and canaima. Used puppi to do file system fixes and patches and fix linux version startup. I have tried live versions of fedora, suse, mint, etc, in fact I am married to Lubuntu 16.04 on my laptops, it presents some details but nothing important.
I do not know why so much hatred of some with canonical but I appreciate its existence. About the above I only say something: the problems that I have presented have mostly been with the dependencies and on the interface of some programs such as libreoffice, which is simply horrible. It is not that they make a clone of ms office but those icons !!!!!!! please are just awful.
Regarding the dispersion of resources, well what can be said I think that Debian does a good job but they should emphasize being more friendly in the installations and another roll is to build my network of PC with Windows (by obligation) and those with Linux. Of course, I love Lubuntu, I am not looking for a spectacular desktop, although I consider that after customizing it a bit it looks very good, it consumes few resources and does everything I need.