Too much OS bling, not enough software substance.

[ynneb]

I have been trialing / using many distributions of Linux for about 5 years. I have really enjoyed the experiences, but find that I need to keep returning to Windows XP.
I really want to be a full time linux user but find it lacks in too many areas. Yes I'm aware I can have dual boot options but while in XP I find I then have no reason to boot back into Linux.
So why am I still interested in Linux ? I like the idea of Linux. It's "power to the people", and its free.

Linux is great for the basics

If you need a computer for internet, emailing and office type work, then Linux is fantastic at reliably meeting those needs.
Not only this, it give new life to older computers and is a breeze to install, unlike Windows and it's driver requirements.
The combination of Firefox, Thunderbird, and Open office / Libre Office, work extremely well in most Linux distros.
When fixing computers for old people, I always set them up with the fore mentioned combination, for a virus free, spyware free, reliable computer experience.

Too much attention on the Linux OS while the software packages suffer.

I'd be first to admit, that when a new distro is released, I like to install it to have a look at what has been changed or added.
After a while I always come to the same conclusion, it may look great, but all it does is launch the same old tired software packages.
Lets face it, an OS is just for handling files, software, and HIDs. By itself, without any software, it quickly becomes a boring tool.
Sort of like owning a power drill, without any drill bits. It can have a myriad of features, but essentially does little, without other software.
I'd prefer to see less OS feature changes, and more software package updates. After all, the software is what it's really about.
The current trend, is to have a Mercedes body with a 1970s VW engine underneath. OK maybe that's a slight overstatement.
On top of this there are quite a few outstanding software packages available, however there are MANY dodgy packages out there too.

Lots of bling, too much operational neglect

Some of the things that drive me back to windows are...

• Bad screen recorder programs, not as good as Cam-studio.
• Updating of packages in the software manager is ALWAYS out of date.
• Often clumsy terminal installation procedures for software, that the ordinary user doesn't know how to do.
  Unlike the windows EXE installation arrangement.Example Gimp has just relesed its new UI and yet its not even available through the software manager.
• Long time between software updates. Often times nothing new, just long overdue fixes.
• Lots of software has bad GUIs not thought out well.
• Linux gaming is a joke. Sorry, Frozen Bubble, Tux cart, Hmm. are the equivalent of a DOS standard game. So outdated. Why are newer OS's like Android able to do gaming better?????
• Network issues that once worked are now broken and unfixed for many distros later. No one seems to notice the SAME old questions asked about the SAME old bugs.
• The loss of old features due to a "better" desktop environment. Example, the loss of the ability to right click and adjust the panel settings. I would expect more features not fewer.
  

The irony

Once upon a time if you wanted to use open office, the gimp, and a few other main softwares, you had to use Linux.
These days, these great software packages are now available for windows users, destroying further incentive to boot across into Linux.
The irony that it's FAR easier to install the latest version of GIMP 2.8 into windows or under wine than in to Linux is quite amazing.
Once a Linux flagship software. Now there are too many hurdles for the average user to jump through just to instal the latest version.
Doesn't anyone think this is quite bizarre? Why is there so much attention devoted to the Linux OS appearance and so little attention towards the software?

I want Linux to be the best

I have noticed that some people take criticism personally and become upset when Linux flaws are pointed out. As stated in the opening of this post, I use Linux quite a bit and introduce it to many people.
My motivation is to see it shine and be everything it could be. I don't criticize it to tear it down. I want to see some of it's ongoing blemishes addressed.

[MG&TL]

Some of the things that drive me back to windows are...

• Bad screen recorder programs, not as good as Cam-studio.
• Updating of packages in the software manager is ALWAYS out of date.
• Often clumsy terminal installation procedures for software, that the ordinary user doesn't know how to do.
  Unlike the windows EXE installation arrangement.Example Gimp has just relesed its new UI and yet its not even available through the software manager.
• Long time between software updates. Often times nothing new, just long overdue fixes.
• Lots of software has bad GUIs not thought out well.
• Linux gaming is a joke. Sorry, Frozen Bubble, Tux cart, Hmm. are the equivalent of a DOS standard game. So outdated. Why are newer OS's like Android able to do gaming better?????
• Network issues that once worked are now broken and unfixed for many distros later. No one seems to notice the SAME old questions asked about the SAME old bugs.
  

I agree with you that Linux has many and manifest flaws. However, you do seem to have some misconceptions, which I hope I can explain:

1. Slow updates/out of date software. The idea of using a package manager is that all software is secure, and coming from the same place. It also means that programs can use each other's libraries and not use huge amounts of disk space like programs aimed at other operating systems do.

Stable software is released with the distribution. If you want to stay with the times, upgrade when your distribution upgrades. If you really need a particular piece of software, such as Gimp 2.8, then 'the Windows EXE' arrangement applys to linux as well: find an installer or tarball, then install. It's just sometimes a bit harder, as not as many people use Linux.

2. Clumsy terminal installation procedure. Some of us prefer a command-line, it's quicker and easier if you know how. That aside, it's also commonly the only way for a package to be standard across all platforms, and not crash or not compile on some.

3. Bad GUIs. Complain constructively to the developers, or learn to code/design and go fix. Simple as that.

4. Linux gaming. Games are HARD to write and design (trust me, I've tried a few). As Android is a commercial platform, people can afford to spend money developing them, and will reasonably expect it back. A single part-time hacker trying to put food on the table, giving a game half an hour per evening is not going to produce good results.

However, you may have heard that Steam is coming to Linux, so you may have some more luck there.

Android isn't a "newer" OS-it uses (almost-Google have patched a few bits) the same kernel as linux does. Where it differs is the interface and the amount of marketing it receives.

5. Networking is boring, unglamourous, and difficult to write code for. Also, the "same bugs" isn't really indicative unless you have a stacktrace, as often they will exhibit the same problem for a multitude of devices (network devices are many and varied, and they can't cover them all).


Hope that explains a couple of the problems the Linux society has.

[Polydorus]

Often clumsy terminal installation procedures for software, that the ordinary user doesn't know how to do.

As a long time XP user and a new to Ubuntu I certainly can agree with this.

[exploder]

Quite a bit of good software is becomming available for purchase in the software center. As Ubuntu or distributions in general improve more software developers are willing to port their software to Linux. I agree that there is more specialized software available for Windows but I can see things beginning to improve for Linux users. There will always be some people that need to run Windows because of specific software needs, that's just how things are at this particular point in time. Decent games that people want are finally making their way to Linux and hopefully more sought after software will become available in the future. It all takes time but things are heading in the right direction.

[gladgrind]

Linux does everything I want - web server, surveillance cameras, email, newsgroups, python scripts, etc. - mostly basic stuff, but all that I can use.

Best of all, it is free. I recently bought a new pc and told the tech at the store that I did not need Windows 8 and would put on my own OS. Voila, the price decreased by some huge amount - $150 or $200 - something like that.

I suppose Microsoft has penalties they can apply to stores that won't play ball with them; otherwise it would seem like a moneymaker to tell people they could save $150 on their purchase if they let the store install ubuntu linux instead of windows.

A thing I recall about the bad old windows days was that I was usually in a sweat of anxiety when I made a change, because I was afraid I would screw something up and kill the OS.

I did not know how to make an image copy (not even sure now if there is a practical to do it) and did not want to lose the installation I had.

With linux, I run clonezilla every week or so and have an image copy I can load in case I screw up the linux OS.

Heck, clonezilla and the free cost encourage trying different distros, though by now I have pretty much settled on ubuntu or mint, depending on which one freezes my pc least often (the winner so far is ubuntu). The other distros I have tried may not freeze my pc but they aren't as comfortable to use as ubuntu.

And the freezing is trivial compared to the horrors of windows.

[exploder]

I think that the original post was mainly about the availability of software. There was mention of network issues but mainly the post was focused on software and not bashing any operating system. There are some valid points and concerns voiced and the post was written in a respectful manor.

[lancest]

A commercial operating system vs free software

Different animals

I'll take Linux any day for it's strong points.

Freedom, performance, rapid development and security.

The OS itself is more important than specialist software for the cloud generation.

[Tamlynmac]

MG&TL
However, you do seem to have some misconceptions, which I hope I can explain:

I agree with much of what you wrote, but take exception to a few points.

Such as:
1.

If you really need a particular piece of software, such as Gimp 2.8, then 'the Windows EXE' arrangement applys to linux as well: find an installer or tarball, then install. It's just sometimes a bit harder, as not as many people use Linux.

Which is perhaps one of the reasons not as many people use Linux. IMHO it really needs to be simplified.

2.

Some of us prefer a command-line, it's quicker and easier if you know how.

The last 4 words are exactly what some users struggle with and could be interpreted as an elitist statement.

3.

Bad GUIs. Complain constructively to the developers, or learn to code/design and go fix. Simple as that.

I doubt it's quite that simple. For example, asking a new user to learn code and fix GUIs isn't realistic. But, I do agree that constructive criticism to the devs might pay off.

4.

As Android is a commercial platform, people can afford to spend money developing them, and will reasonably expect it back.

That belief, suggests that Ubuntu/Linux will never be ready for prime time. Unless all apps are commercial and is flawed by the (IMHO) most visible of apps - Firefox. Free and yet is used by many across multiple platforms. The reality is it's flexible, easy to install and has a user friendly interface with plenty of extensions, themes, and is easily configurable.

A number of your points appear to be excuses, rather than points of contention. We (Linux users) are self-programed to respond in a defensive posture. The never ending comparisons between Windows and Linux now seems to focus on GUIs, games and high end apps. It used to be multimedia, games & high end apps and often appeared that every user was either a professional video editor or gamer. Now it's so-called substance, yet most users (I know - young & older) do simple repetitive tasks with their PC's (internet, email, pics, gaming, music, movies, etc.). I know very few users who rely on high end apps for daily usage, outside of work. As for memory/speed hogging glitz & glitter, I have often wonder how that relates to "substance".

In the end, these types of threads will continue to question the viability of Linux. Especially, if we continue to react defensively. Linux might be better served by simple statements such as, "sorry it doesn't work for you and good luck". This act alone denies the use of a platform for argument and imparts an attitude of "use what works for you". Instead of feeling the need to defend, one could just point out the obvious - no OS meets the needs and expectations of "every" user. Take note of the OP's final statement in the original post. I believe their assumption is we will respond and defend. What happens if we don't?

I'm always amazed when one compliments Linux here (T&E) based on free, then complains about the quality. It seems every time this occurs, it's followed by an anti-Linux rant. Imagine that.

Just my $0.02 and I won't comment again in this thread. As this isn't the place for debate.

[ynneb]

Thanks for everyone's responses.
There have been some good points made.
To sum up this thread in one sentence.
I feel that Linux needs to focus more on it's software packages than continually tweaking the appearances of it's already good operating systems.
EDIT: Not all complaints about Linux are to tear it down. Is there a way to express frustrations as well a point out some problems without offending someone?
I am HIGHLY motivated in barracking and cheering on for Linux to thrive and excel. In doing so, I don't think it is harmful to point out some of the issues that may be holding it back, from an every day standard users point of view.

[tehcavil]

After a while I always come to the same conclusion, it may look great, but all it does is launch the same old tired software packages.
Lets face it, an OS is just for handling files, software, and HIDs. By itself, without any software, it quickly becomes a boring tool.
Sort of like owning a power drill, without any drill bits. It can have a myriad of features, but essentially does little, without other software.
I'd prefer to see less OS feature changes, and more software package updates. After all, the software is what it's really about.
The current trend, is to have a Mercedes body with a 1970s VW engine underneath. OK maybe that's a slight overstatement.
On top of this there are quite a few outstanding software packages available, however there are MANY dodgy packages out there too.

First off, i'd like to point out that Ubuntu =/= "linux". Just because Ubuntu is a very popular distribution does not mean that it is ALL of "linux". Complaining about Canonical not updating the repos doesn't mean that "linux" doesn't have a lot of great, modern software for it. "linux" of course, being ing quotations because what you meant to say was GNU/Linux.

Lots of bling, too much operational neglect

Some of the things that drive me back to windows are...

• Bad screen recorder programs, not as good as Cam-studio.
• Updating of packages in the software manager is ALWAYS out of date.
• Often clumsy terminal installation procedures for software, that the ordinary user doesn't know how to do.
  Unlike the windows EXE installation arrangement.Example Gimp has just relesed its new UI and yet its not even available through the software manager.
• Long time between software updates. Often times nothing new, just long overdue fixes.
• Lots of software has bad GUIs not thought out well.
• Linux gaming is a joke. Sorry, Frozen Bubble, Tux cart, Hmm. are the equivalent of a DOS standard game. So outdated. Why are newer OS's like Android able to do gaming better?????
• Network issues that once worked are now broken and unfixed for many distros later. No one seems to notice the SAME old questions asked about the SAME old bugs.
• The loss of old features due to a "better" desktop environment. Example, the loss of the ability to right click and adjust the panel settings. I would expect more features not fewer.

1) screen recorder programs are decent on linux. Recordmydesktop, for example, is a desktop recording application I've heard good things about.

2) I agree many of the packages in the software manager are out of date and should be updated. However, there's nothing stopping you from downloading the latest versions of those programs for their own websites, or their source code and compiling it yourself.

3) It's frustrating how people always hate on the terminal, calling it "clunky, outdated" etc. This feature which they are pretending is obsolete is not obsolete, it is a DESIGN DECISION to have a terminal, and a good one too, there aren't enough GUI tools to do everything you can do in a terminal, nor would I desire to make them as they would just take up more room and be much less efficient, typing those commands rather than clicking them is much faster and efficient. Just because something is the windows way, does not mean it is the best way or the only way.

4) While canonical is responsible for outdated packages in the repos, they really can't be held responsible for the amount or quality of software or video games made for their OS. That is the choice of the video game and software developers who ELECT not to support gnu/linux. As far as bad programs go, there will always be mediocre programs out there. There are many, many, many proprietary programs for windows that are complete crap, but people usually don't attribute that to microsoft itself.

5) Desktop environment... Really? this is beyond beating a dead horse, if you don't like unity that's your right, It's fairly easy to change the DE, don't like it don't use it plain and simple.

The irony that it's FAR easier to install the latest version of GIMP 2.8 into windows or under wine than in to Linux is quite amazing.
Once a Linux flagship software. Now there are too many hurdles for the average user to jump through just to instal the latest version.

It's only easier because you're used to the windows way. if you used gnu/linux growing up, You would have said the opposite about windows.

My motivation is to see it shine and be everything it could be. I don't criticize it to tear it down. I want to see some of it's ongoing blemishes addressed.

And here's what YOU have to understand. Many of those so-called "flaws" are not flaws, but perfectly legitimate design decisions. So many times, people don't realize they are using the phrase "user-friendly" to mean "more like windows". But gnu/linux is NOT WINDOWS, and windows shouldn't be held up as some kind of ideal to emulate.