My opinions, based on using Mandrake on the desktop:

1. Sound: too many conflicting servers and the like. Half of my applications need to be run via some sort of soundwrapper, it seems. That needs to go.

2. Fonts: fonts are ugly on Linux, generally. They're either unantialiased and ugly, or antialiased and too thick or too thin in places. My distro came with maybe 50 or more fonts, many of which were unusable because they were too pixellated and didn't respond to the anti-aliasing switch. Gnome seems to be better than KDE in this regard, but it's still not perfect.

3. Applications: half of the cool stuff I need just isn't there in a workable form yet. Audio software is lacking - perhaps because of the patchy sound systems. And most important of all, there just aren't the games out there. Wine doesn't work for most games and WineX is not standard with most (any?) systems, as far as I know.

4. Graphical consistency: too many widget sets. The Gnome apps look different to the KDE apps, and there's at least 1 other 'look and feel' that I don't remember the name of. To a new user, this is confusing. For example, personally I hate the thin, emaciated scrollbars from GTK, but the rest of the stuff looks great with the appropriate theme installed (and looks like a 1992 X session without one).

5. Cut and paste: related to the above point. Half of the time you can't easily cut something from a KDE app and paste it in a Gnome app or vice versa. And sometimes you need to press Ctrl-C, and other times merely selecting something will copy it to the clipboard. Another personal gripe: this latter idea fails miserably when you try to paste something in a browser's address bar and the browser's default action upon you clicking on the address bar is to select the existing URL, thus filling the clipboard with the that existing URL, so that pasting effectively does nothing.

6. Dependency hell: if you don't have URPMI set up correctly with a broadband connection to download all the updates, you can pretty much give up on using new software. Everything I download requires a new version of some other library, requiring yet another download (which I am not prompted or warned about). Is this really any better than so-called 'DLL Hell'? I needed 140MB of kernel source installed just so I could compile a 2kb driver file. I need 210MB of dependencies installed just so I can use the 8MB Kdevelop package. Upgrading Python demands that I update Tkinter (an optional GUI module for Python) because there was an arbitrary dependency added in when there was a recent security update. I needed to install 1.5GB of software just to get a working OS in the first place, due to all the dependencies.

7. Other silly things: like being expected to know the command lines for everything when you ask for help Or having Konquerer do odd things (such as when I asked it to copy a TGZ file from one place to another - since it treats archives as directories, it effectively unzipped the entire archive, copied it file by file, and rezipped it at the destination.) These can be easily fixed with a little effort, but just add to the overall 'Linux is too awkward' effect.

Really I wish I was able to do something about these problems rather than just complaining, but I'm not really in a position to do so. I just hope that there are enough developers out there who believe, as I do, that things need to work more smoothly.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

[edited by - Kylotan on June 18, 2003 7:24:52 AM]

it all comes down to how willing you are to try something new and different, and as to whether you want greater control over your system.

quote: Original post by Kylotan
5. Cut and paste:...........

That is in my opinion one of the greatest annoyances of the linux desktop.

quote: Original post by Kylotan
6. Dependency hell: ......

In the windoze world don''t all dependencies come with the software so a similar or the same library gets installed multiple times with new apps?


Personally the thing I enjoy the most in linux is speed and efficiency. I can have tens of windows open organized on different desktops, log in as another user and start another desktop and even play ut2003 with virtually no slowdown (512MB ram) and most important of all, no crashes taking down the entire system. Swapping seems to be much more efficient compared to windoze. No unnecessary torturing of the harddisk. And no waiting after logging in. Some simple window managers start in a matter of milliseconds.

Ok, I see a lot of people posting bad things about Linux. I agree with A LOT of them. Some are imho wrong, but I won''t argue too much about them. A few things I read which I don''t agree with:

There''s no API like DirectX for linux
There is: SDL. In combination with OpenGL I think it''s even better than DirectX. OpenGL is already used more than DirectX as far as I know in games (but only the graphics part. OpenGL has no features for input, sound, etc.) and you have SDL to do all the other parts of DirectX which OpenGL doesn''t include (sound, input, etc. as mentioned above) Well opinions differ if DirectX is better than OpenGL and SDL or vice versa, but objectively I think you can say the two are almost the same/as good.

Fonts are ugly
Well, true. Most fonts are, although you have a few standard linux fonts which are REALLY nice. But hey, if you want Windows fonts, PUT THEM IN LINUX. There are thousands of manuals on how to do this. Ok, it takes some work, but you can have both the font sets. Windows only has it''s own. So Linux prevails (after some work)

The same thing with most of the other cons that are stated: Linux is bad at this, linux is bad at that, etc. But you people forget to mention you can ''tweak'' linux all the way, and this makes it possible to solve almost all those problems you have. Ok, it''s harder than using Windows, it takes time and work and knowledge, but in the end you can end up with an OS just the way you like it, which is probably not like Windows.

This leads to my conclusion that Linux is still not something for casual people who want to use MSN and play games. Linux is for people who like doing stuff with computers, fiddling around, solving things, programming, etc. It gives them the opportunity to start out with a decent operating system, and turn it into their own Elysium

One other thing I didn''t hear you people about is the good thing about Linux that most software (including the OS itself) is open-source. Also, there are lots of versions of different programs, so if you don''t like one, you can switch to the other. I think Windows has less software available, although overal quality is often higher there.

| Panorama 3D Engine | Contact me |
| MSDN | Google | SourceForge |

I generally disagree with the "greater control over your system" argument. OS''s cannot provide anything to your system that was not already there. If there is something you would like to see, but does not currently exist: Code it or download it (if you want it, chances are somebody else did too). Very simple.

A common misconception is that Window''s systems are "locked in". The number of people I''ve heard mentioning the layout and design of XP as a reason to use Linux is absurd. This generally comes from a lack of knowledge. The layout and all subsystems of Windows are 100% configurable.

Of course the natural retort is that "If I don''t like something about Linux, I can just recode the OS". That is true, but also highly irrelevant. How many posts have you seen of people bragging about their first kernel recompile? The large majority of users are hardly abile to recompile their kernel, much less add or configure any meaningful features to it.

In all practicality exactly what level of "greater control" over your system does Linux give you? I will never associate myself with the "open source community" again. There were two major things that drove me away from Linux.

1. Production difficulties. As mentioned the lack of any all encompassing API''s such as DirectX made me feel like I was back to coding mode 13 DOS. Different system setups and a lack of standardization among various hardware drivers also made customer support hell at best.

2. A general community full of arrogance and rebellion. People seem to take pride in flaming people for asking completely reasonable questions that would not be obvious if you had not spent days memorizing every single command line program and parameter. I also quickly tired of people moronically flaming Microsoft with lines such as: "M$, Windoze, etc" for no reason other than to act like a rebel. Also amusing was that every single user seemed to picture everybody besides themselves as "script kiddies".

quote: Original post by haro
I generally disagree with the "greater control over your system" argument. OS''s cannot provide anything to your system that was not already there. If there is something you would like to see, but does not currently exist: Code it or download it (if you want it, chances are somebody else did too). Very simple.

Sometimes an OS won''t use the hardware to its fullest. For example, NT4 ran on Alpha CPU, but in 32 bit mode, which is sad on a 64 bit machine. I don''t think you could have coded or downloaded anything to make it a 64 bit system. The example is a little extreme, but the point is that because an OS runs on a system doesn''t mean it takes full advantage of it. This is true of any OS.

Also, if you have to code it, then it somewhat defeats the point. As you will say later, how many people can recompile a Linux kernel? Well, how many users do you think are programmers?

quote:
A common misconception is that Window''s systems are "locked in". The number of people I''ve heard mentioning the layout and design of XP as a reason to use Linux is absurd. This generally comes from a lack of knowledge. The layout and all subsystems of Windows are 100% configurable.

I''ll take DRM (Digital Right Management) as an example. Longhorn should ship with DRM, but you will be able to deactivate it. The next version of Windows, however, should ship with it enabled and non-removable. With Linux, I''ll always be able to unload the kernel module or, if it is compiled in, to rebuild a kernel without DRM at all. The (dis)advantage of Linux is that you get to choose for yourself, whereas Windows might enforce what the Microsoft people think is good for you. Whether this is a good thing or not is another topic.

Now if you are talking about how configurable the UI is, sorry: I misunderstood.

quote:
Of course the natural retort is that "If I don''t like something about Linux, I can just recode the OS". That is true, but also highly irrelevant. How many posts have you seen of people bragging about their first kernel recompile? The large majority of users are hardly abile to recompile their kernel, much less add or configure any meaningful features to it.

Why would it be irrelevant? Granted, most users don''t care about it, and thus won''t recompile the kernel. Those who can will, if need be.

Most people wouldn''t know how to stop the net messenger service under NT, and it is enabled by default. What do you think they do when they see 50 dialog boxes full of SPAM on their desktop? They call a friend. The same goes for compiling a Linux kernel. And I''m not implying that Windows is a SPAM-friendly system, only taking an example.

quote:
In all practicality exactly what level of "greater control" over your system does Linux give you?

If we are talking solely about desktop computers, then not much. There is only so much you will do with a desktop machine (ie you don''t care about real time responses, clustering, routing, et al).

quote:
I will never associate myself with the "open source community" again. There were two major things that drove me away from Linux.

1. Production difficulties. As mentioned the lack of any all encompassing API''s such as DirectX made me feel like I was back to coding mode 13 DOS. Different system setups and a lack of standardization among various hardware drivers also made customer support hell at best.

There is no unified API because *NIX systems can be (and are) customized to fit a task: some people don''t care for X Window, some don''t care for sound, and some don''t care for the keyboard . SDL is basically a wrapper around many libraries and API (X11, framebuffer, svgalib, etc). In that sense, SDL is probably the most sensible choice when coding multimedia applications for *NIX (or non-*NIX systems for that matter). As for the lack of driver standarization, are you refering to OpenGL extensions? If so, Linux is not at fault here.

quote:
2. A general community full of arrogance and rebellion. People seem to take pride in flaming people for asking completely reasonable questions that would not be obvious if you had not spent days memorizing every single command line program and parameter. I also quickly tired of people moronically flaming Microsoft with lines such as: "M$, Windoze, etc" for no reason other than to act like a rebel. Also amusing was that every single user seemed to picture everybody besides themselves as "script kiddies".

This is probably off-topic and totally irrelevant to the (lack of) merits of Linux on the desktop, but I will argue anyway.

Please, take a look at most of the forums on GDNet, and see how many "which is better, OGL or D3D?" and "C vs C++" topics there are. Do you think that the (mostly Windows-centric) game dev. community does better? Sometimes it''s annoying to always answer the same questions, especially when the FAQ/manual is flashing in red on top of the download link and referenced in the README. Look at the many "setting up SDL in MSVC" topics here, on the SDL mailing list, etc. The answer is referenced in the Win32 FAQ (pointing to the VisualC.html file shipped with the dev. and source archives), but nobody bothers to read it. Yes, some people are just rude, but that''s hardly specific to the Linux users.

I agree that I would never consider the Open-source community as a plus for Linux. Unless you get lucky, opensource projects that are downloaded rarely work without digging through their project.

I have to commend the people here for not making this into a flamewar. I hate arguing with people about what software''s better. I go by the philosophy that I will use whatever is easiest and my "best" option at the time. If that means using Microsoft Word instead of OpenOffice, or Visual C++ instead of g++, so be it. Linux users often like to argue that it''s an all or nothing deal, everything Linux is better than everything Windows. I don''t agree with that, some tasks are better suited for Windows, and some are better suited for Linux, IMO.

quote: Original post by Russell
Why isn''t Linux a realistic option for most people?

1. People want something that works out of the box, with no knowledge required.
2. People are want something that''s easy to use and dummied down.
3. People are lazy.

And this is why people use Windows. Got more reasons for why Linux isn''t as popular as it could be?

I don''t think it''s so much that (most) people are lazy, I think it''s more that they just don''t thave th time for it. If you need to do a lot of work on a computer, but you can''t spend time getting the computer up and running the way you like it, then why bother with linux? It''s the time factor, more than anything. Remember, as the age-old maxim goes, "time is money."

The only way linux will become used by the masses is if the masses start having it setup for their use at their offices by the office IT guy, in which case, they will want a similar system at home. I know this firsthand, because back in the day, my dad used Macs at work, and so our first computer at home was a Mac (if nothing else so that he could easily transfer files without having to convert formats or anything like that). Later, when he was at a different job, they used Windows, and when we finally upgraded computers, we got a PC that time.

The moral of the story: Once a good distro is out that ANYONE can setup (*cough*Mandrake, RedHat, or SuSE*cough*), and corporations start using linux to cut costs, then Linux can start taking over in the home sector. Until then, it''ll be used mostly by people who have the time to mess around with it because they want to.

I think Linux as an OS is coming into its own. While I cant compaire it to XP, at this point I''d say that Linux is much nicer than my old Win98. I''m running Mandrake and with all the config tools they give you most things can be every bit as painless as windows. Some things are even easier. I know that may make me seam less of a true Linux user but I realy dont care. There is a limmit to how hard things should be. There do tend to be afew show stoppers. The rampant failed Dependency issue so well described above. Which is more of a problem with there creators than their nature. RPMs are generaly very easy to install if everything you need is provided correctly. I think the attitude of many of the hard core users just plain sucks. Using linux out of biased rage is a horrible reason. If Linux is to be anything beyond just a toy for the techo freaks there is going to need to be an atitude change. A change that alows the people that do not know everything about computers to be accepted. This change also needs to be reflected in the structure of Linux itself. So much was created for it just for the tech friendly. Some of it structured in a way to prevent the ignorat from using it. The unfortunate reality for these people is that linux must continue to change into something abit more like windows that they ever wanted it to be. I as a person like to suport alternatives. It keeps compitition alive. Linux is the only alternative to Windows. If anything will ever be a solid alternative it will have to be Linux. If it dies there will likely never be another option to windows. I dislike a world without options.

"Linux will never be a better Windows than Windows." That statement encompasses 90% or more of the arguments explaining why Linux is unpopular.

"Linux isn''t Windows." That covers the approx 10% of arguments in favor of Linux. For some that is a good thing, for others it''s bad.

Do you realize that this thread is like rambling, broad based discussion? The "Linux community" is a myth, a fictional homogeneous whole with a single opinion and point of view. Sorry, the people who use Linux use it for different reasons, ranging from ideological to purely functional, and they possess different skill levels and tolerances for other opinions. This thread illustrates that. Therefore, broad statements about how the "Linux community" is or isn''t a benefit to the "Linux movement" are almost inherently false.

Linux will not make significant inroads on the desktop/home user market until it adopts a fundamentally different approach to solving the problems of desktop computing - both those that are already identified and possibly solve (find a better solution) and those that haven''t been fully quantified. However, since "Linux" as an OS isn''t a single product but a collection of disparate projects bundled together by disparate groups of individuals with disparate objectives, well...

Don''t hold your breath.