Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 14:08:55 05/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
Vincent your post is excellent.
I have been able to find in your message most of the points that annoyed me the
most when I tested Linux.
The most important points that are really a shame are:
* Lack of standard automount in the kernel. I guess there are compatibility
reasons for not implementing automount for CDs and floppies in the kernel,
because there are no hardware reasons. Standard PCs have the necessary media
insertion/ejection sensors.
* case sensitivity in retrieving files names. What a bullshit! What purpose does
it serve? Can't find any. How many problems does it generate? Many. But here
again I do not see how this problem can be solved, as it is burnt deep into the
system. Storing file names exactly as they were typed is OK, not retrieving a
file because of case sensitivity is a major mistake.
And all the points below are valid.
After trying it for some time I must admit that Linux deserves the 1% of users
it has. It is trying hard to get absolutely unusable by most people, and
succeeds quite well in this area.
I regret it and hope that this trend will not continue, and that some people
will open eyes will give Linux a real chance.
Christophe
On May 21, 2002 at 12:07:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On May 20, 2002 at 15:41:08, Guido Schimmels wrote:
>
>>On May 19, 2002 at 11:49:18, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>BTW I'm trying Linux too, but I can't get used to it. I thought it was small and
>>>elegant, but actually it is as bloated as Windows and quite slower.
>>
>>Try WindowMaker or XFCE (which I prefer) as a desktop environment.
>>You can boot in both of them with <30MB total memory usage, which
>>isn't too much nowadays.
>>Then try ROX-Filer as a file-manager and prefer gtk/gnome based apps.
>>Problem is, I admit, there is no real alternative to Star Office/OpenOffice
>>and Mozilla/Netscape/Galeon, which means you still won't get very far with
>>64MB, if you want to do professional text-processing and painless web-browsing.
>>
>>>And too hard to use. The guys who write programs for Linux only have the
>>>experienced users in mind. Fatal mistake.
>>
>>Maybe that's still true for too many open source projects, but
>>in general this is no longer true. Example:
>>GNOME 2 will add lots of support for disabled people.
>>
>>>Shit. I really hoped to get rid of Windows, but Linux is still not ready.
>>
>>Ok, Linux is not perfect in respect to ease of use, like MacOS(X), but not
>>much behind Windows I find. And some things are now even easier in Linux
>>than Windows.
>>
>>Real issues are:
>>1. The latest or exotic hardware will often not work with Linux - and that won't
>>change until Linux is mainstream.
>>2. Lack of apps in some fields
>>3. Proprietary data-formats, like btw. Acrobat Reader 5 for Linux and Solaris
>>has just been announced, one year after the Windows and Mac ports. Again, won't
>>change until Linux is mainstream.
>>
>>> Christophe
>>
>>I'd like to ask, what exactly you found so hard or didn't get working in Linux ?
>
>Ok a lot of things are still solved in a big nerd way in linux.
>
>Let's give some examples.
>
>
>I'm using linux since its first version, nowadays i boot it nearly
>every day. Recently i installed redhat 7.2. Compared to the early 90s
>it's working very well. I used to use linux in the early 90s only
>in textmode. Never got X to work in these days.
>
>Problems a normal user will have with linux:
> - soundcard doesn't install by default, not all
> soundcards are default in kernel. I happen to have a soundcard
> which by accident gets supported now, because it is an expensive
> soundcard. But most $10 to $20 soundcards do not get supported that
> easily. Then if it works the next problem is: HOW do you run your
> MP3s which are on the NTFS partition?
> - NTFS partitions do not get recognized. Someone who installs linux
> in 2002 is very likely to have more than 1 OS under linux. Default
> kernel of redhat doesn't have NTFS. Most kernels do not have NTFS
> support by default, which is pretty idiotic as it is the default
> partitioning format from win2000/XP and a very GOOD file system format
> which both Linux and windows should be able to use. Note that linux
> is doing a read only on NTFS if you compile it in the kernel.
> Compiling the kernel??????? Do you really think a normal user can
> compile a kernel? Though i happily compile kernels. Normal users can
> not. So default kernel MUST have all compatibility inside
> - getting files from and to a floppy drive.
> In windows you click on 'my computer' then on the floppy drive. In
> linux it is NOT so easy to transfer files from and to floppy
> - getting files from a CDrom. Default the cd drives aren't automounted.
> Note it is good the cddrives are installed. I remember a time that
> you had to compile in ISO9660 or whatever the protocol from normal
> cdroms.
> - network (interface) cards do not work. Especially the cheapest
> NICs do not work by default. In fact RH7.2 isn't recognizing my
> NIC. It's a cheap $12 card, which is produced in such quantities
> (zillions) that it is pathetic that it works in all OSes by default,
> except linux. Of course i know how to recompile the kernel and i know
> how to figure out which network card it is. I already did this before,
> but the average user?????????????????? How the HELL do they find out
> which network card they have? Answer: never.
> - Scanner. Could *anyone* tell me how to get to work my HP scanner under
> linux? I do not know it at all. I would appreciate if someone knew.
> So after nearly 10 years of experience with linux, i still don't know
> how to get a scanner to work!
> - capitals versus lower case. This is IMHO the biggest mistake in the
> unix world, which Bill didn't make. Linux sees a difference between
> Linux and linux. It is called linux, not Linux. Because linux sees
> a difference between lower case and capitals. So please spell it as
> linux. Not as Linux...
> - knowing 1000s of commands. I know several thousands of commands under
> linux, but i'm not a holy man. In fact i'm a poor idiot when we talk
> about linux, because i keep forgetting even how to compile the kernel,
> as i don't do it daily. Is it make xconfig; make dep; make modules;
> make; make install, or did i forget something or is the order not
> correct?
> - i regurarly rename files to other files and the 'mv' command AFAIK
> only can move 1 file at a time only. It's sick. Even DOS is better here!
> 'rename a?.* b?.*' works great there. Try this within 1 command
> in linux!
> - default prompt at all distributions sucks. To get technical:
> I want
> PS1="\$PWD/> "
> - yesterday when installing a program i got 4 errors which prevented it
> from getting installed: "missing blabla.so.4"
> Even as a freaking nerd i don't know how to find out which RPM is
> having this file. Yes, with some help i managed to list all files
> in my RPMs at the RH7.2 cdroms, but it simply wasn't there. So i
> need a file which is
> in some for me unknown RPM, but god knows how to find it. This program
> needs it though!
> - Now i talk about Redhat of course, but compared to redhat other
> distributions with exception perhaps of Debian (Suse doesn't count
> as you can't download that for free, i need to BUY it in a shop
> in order to get a legal working copy), they suck ass anyway, but
> there are major problems with the size it needs.
> When i install win2000 i wonder why it is so big, but Redhat7.2
> default install even needs more from my harddisk and it even complains
> my swap size isn't big enough.
>
> If you have 512MB ram, already the swapsize gets a seperated partition
> which directly is thrown away and eats up 1 Gigabyte. Then another 2
> gigabyte for install of redhat. That's 3 gigabyte together!
>
> That's pretty much for a free system from which i at most use a few
> command line commands.
>
> Of course i install X-windows too. Only idiots
> nowadays do not install it. That's like getting back to DOS!
> - easy installing applications. In windows you click on the application
> in your email box and DANG it installs, or 'install from location'
> when downloading it from homepage. DANG installed the program.
>
> Not in linux... ...difficult command line commands you need in order
> to install a program.
>
> If i get a new program on a cdrom all i want to do is put in the cdrom
> then it must autostart something which asks to install itself!
>
> Other ideas about how software must install itself for the average
> user is complete nonsense. The average user is still getting overestimated
> by current distribution makers, and we have to say it, they already
> DID a great job. Compared to the mess of installing packages and stuff
> yourself by difficult command line, what they did so far is arleady a
> good job, but it simply is in no way good enough yet for the average
> user...
>
>What the average linux-nerd is forgetting is that basically normal users
>buy software. If those can't work with the software, then forget commercial
>linux plans.
>
>Just a few points where average users will fall over... ...if the above
>points aren't adressed (and another few) then not a single normal sane
>user should get a try at linux.
>
>>Guido
>>e-mail: guido.schimmels@freenet.de
This page took 0.04 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.