Why Linux Sucks & Why Linux Does Not Suck (Lunduke)

[oomingmak]

Everything he said makes perfect sense, but you will have about 1000 people claiming blasphemy.

That is so true.

Some people would rather attack those who point out Linux's shortcomings than actually accept the criticism and see it as an opportunity to improve matters.

[t0p]

Of course Linux apps need income to develop. I've sent money to a couple of devs. Not much, but I haven't got much. But I try...

Thing is, standardization/centralization/lets-make-Linux-the-same-as-the-rest-ization is not what it's all about. Linux isn't a single OS created by a single corporation. It's a whole bunch of OSes, interrelated and partially interchangeable but nevertheless a heterogeneous group of apps and utilities. That's what makes it so great to me.

Look at Windows - there are a bunch of different devs making different apps etc, but they all have to bow to the dictates of Microsoft and their products are exactly that... products. Windows is for sale, even if many apps are free-of-charge. Maybe that's what some of you want for Linux, but I certainly don't share that vision.

Maybe I'm a selfish geek who would prefer Linux to remain "my" little "secret". Well, I'm not... but I certainly don't want Linux to destroy itself by trying to become Windows.

[JoshuaRL]

i feel each distro could still maintain their own packages, debian/ubuntu keeps their debs for e.g but at the same time there is a standard packaging procedure which all packages most adhere to..

Well, I know that you mention it later, but that's what source code is about. If an application is important and tested/trusted enough, then it gets packaged my maintainers. That way you get the pluses of repos and proper package management. Otherwise, you kinda take your own system into your hands. For a developer, release in source code and include all the bits you need for most distros. Leave an open line of communication and users will inform you of what is needed/broken. This works pretty well.

why not just have a standard package format which does this. this doesnt mean that we still wont have debs for the same program just makes it easier to make binaries for 3rd party applications so that people can just install them no matter the distro. the source codes will still be there for people you want to compile their software. which as u know there is a standard to compiling which works across all distros so why not just have same for installing binaries ..

Because .debs and .rpms will always be second best. Your applications aren't updated unless you do so manually. If there's no version in the repos, and you don't feel like packaging and submitting your favorite application to Ubuntu (or whatever distro), then you do what's second best. Or third best, whatever. Having a .deb will never equate getting the same application from the repos. That's why GDebi warns about doing that exact thing.

If you're suggesting a separate repo and packaging system for ALL Linux distros, that's not very likely, nor very worthwhile IMHO. It's like this: Debian-based distros are designed from the ground up for dpkg and APT. The security model is based on it; all of the updaters and other applications are based around it too. Same goes for Red Hat-based distros. I've tried running YUM on an Ubuntu system. It didn't work well at all. If you include a new system, there's nothing to say a pre-compiled and packaged application will work correctly on all systems. But that's the beauty of source code. It will. There's a set way of doing it for all distributions, and if it's needed it works great.

[whoop]

I agree with allot of his arguments. I do however NOT agree with most of his solutions. I don't even really agree with his main goal.

I don't feel for this whole linux desktop must succeed or the year of the linux desktop stuff. It's doing just fine as it is for me.

I for one am not looking forward to commercial linux, or even mainstream commercial software for linux.

If we all made this happen what stopping "them" (conspiracy theory's here ) from adding DRM, registration codes, phone home functions, closed source bugs, online stores, spyware, malware aaaarrgghh.

I know you can say you have a choice, but for once I like it that I don't (for the moment).

[Bölvaður]

I disagree with some things like having 1 package management system.
It wouldn't be possible even, as most distros would just ignore the standard. So in the end we'd end up with exactly what we already have except we have 1 package system that dominates (.deb is that today as for the popularity of those distros) and the rest uses what ever they want.
The non standardized distros will probably adopt the best package manager more often than not, so a package manager like pacman would rule. So basically we'd have a standard (stable) and "bleeding edge"(unstable).

That would mean like he says in the video, we'd need to stick with the standardized filesystem hierarchy we got already but need to define it better. I have sometimes scratched my head when Im trying to find some things on different distros. For a standardized package protocol it is vital.

Also I dislike my config files being stored directly under ~/ but me being annoyed and asking the config files to file up and jump into ~/.config/ is a matter for another tread.


And sound is a problem. Pulse is gaining momentum to become a standard already so this may not be a big issue if things continue as they are going at the moment.

There already are standard each distro must comply to. Adding a standard package management system for few distros isn't going to kill off linux. There will be the same diversity and will stop developers saying that they dont know which distro to design for... give them less excuses not to port their software to linux.


The big issue is DEVELOPERS NEED FOOD. And that when it comes to certain type of software it needs a core team working on it constantly. That's why we should donate every year or every other year like $20 to our top 3 beloved projects.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I really don't think we need to standardize packaging formats so much as packaging tools. We need something like cmake for packaging and deploying Linux applicaitons. Give it files, versions, a changelog and dependencies; it sorts out how to build a package for X distro, popping up a nice interface when it needs to and remembering settings for the next time.

Then the user can use the package manager which has been deemed appropriate for his distro.

Sure, standardizing the format itself would be nice, but that's a pipe dream so far whereas making the tools easy could happen immediately.

[geoken]

How does standardizing a package manager/format restrict freedom?

For example, if an app developer now only has to spend time making one package how has your freedom been impacted? Worst case scenario you extract the package manually and install from source.

At it's core, a package is just a compressed archive of source files with some type of manifest that includes instructions which can be used by the package manager. So even if your OS didn't want to support that package format you can still use the files.

[SunnyRabbiera]

How does standardizing a package manager/format restrict freedom?

Well lets give an example of why not having a one size fits all approach is a good thing:
Say all the package managers were merged into one, called the Linux install manager and it uses .lim packages to work.
In order to limit choice and maintain a standard there might be a need of a non GPL licence, after all its GPL that allows there to be multiple linux distros.
You are not allowed to change what kind of packages you get and dont get, you are not allowed to maintain the OS at your own pace, instead you are forced to upgrade packages, no choice in whsat is upgraded and when.
Then this .lim system needs 10 different dependencies for not just a few apps but all of them, there is no control over how many packages are needed and downloading such dependencies can take hours.
Nowadays both .deb and .rpm have both got very good with dependencies, dependency hell is a lot less common then it used to be as the two package managers have been allowed to progress.
I think in the near future both would only need 2 or 3 dependencies to function as right now dependencies have come down from up to 12 down to maybe 5, with the major DE's and open office excluded as they require more packages but even in those cases its gotten a lot lower.
But with this new package manager4 you cant change or modify the installer, no choice, no freedom and no luck when there is a major issue.
At least when something is wrong with apt it can be fixed, same as other package managers.
But what if this new one cant be fixed, it would make linux clunky and just too much like MS:
restrictive

[Screwdriver0815]

I only partly agree with the guy in the video because:

1. drivers and stuff
of course its a mess with the audio and this has to be sorted out but speaking so generally as he does ("always when there is a Kernelupdate the video driver is broken") is wrong because it is not generally and necessarily so. When you install the drivers from the repo and NOT from the Manufacturers homepage its fine. This guy has more knowledge about Linux than me so for me this is really like "I search for something where Linux sucks because I did not find enough"

2. funding of projects:
he is always talking about applications like photoshop and that nearly everybody needs it but as you can not get it in Linux nobody wants to switch over from windows. To be honest, I can not hear this anymore.
What I have learned about open source is: when you write a program, you can either give it away without charging money, or you can sell it (take money for it). The only thing you have to do generally is to provide the source code to make it free. So when there is a market for (for example) photoshop, then Adobe could sell it. No matter if it is open source or not. But there is no market. Because all these people who "need photoshop" actually do not need it.
He says developers need food. Thats right and I totally agree with that. And this is also a thing which I do not understand: when you want to write a program because you need it, in the open source world you are free to put it into the internet. You also can charge for it. So when your application is a real killer, lots of people would buy it.
Why does nobody charge for the programs? As far as I understood open source, charging is legal!
Personally I would pay for all programs I use, because they are great and I think I am not the only one on this planet.

Red Hat and Novell charge for their Enterprise versions. Thats right and they earn money with it which also right.

So the big question for me is: why do developers give away their stuff without charging money and then complain about that they can not afford their food?

Of course, when you make the source code available like it is the rule of the GPL, people could compile it on their own, but personally I would not because its way too much effort for me. So I'd rather pay for it. Also in this case I think I am not the only on this planet who would do it like this.

And regarding the repo's and click n run stores:
its easy like nothing to do such things. Canonical has it already for PowerDVD and other apps. just go shopping and when you pay, you get a repo-link which you put into your system and you get the software and the updates. Whats wrong with that? This can be done with all apps, no matter if they are closed source or open source.

3. standardisation:
there must have been a reason for .deb and .rpm. Why did they do it like this in the past? Of course it would be better to have one standard but now its too late for it because there are such a lot of different programs in .deb and .rpm that this would be a huge effort to put all of them into one single fileformat.

[SunnyRabbiera]

there must have been a reason for .deb and .rpm. Why did they do it like this in the past? Of course it would be better to have one standard but now its too late for it because there are such a lot of different programs in .deb and .rpm that this would be a huge effort to put all of them into one single fileformat.

Well I do know that the first format installer for linux was .tar.gz, it was definitely on slackware for a while.
The split most likely happened when debian first came out, when .deb was still fresh as well as apt, the reasoning for .deb was probably because so much was available in .tar.gz from software installers, to source code, to themes and everything in between, heck its still like that.
But at some point came redhat who saw the early issues of .deb and developed .rpm.
The two took very separate roads from there on in, but these days the two are similar enough to develop separately but they have come a long way since the days of dependency hell.