Why Linux Sucks

Even though I do not use GNU/Linux [1] daily, I am not new when it comes to GNU/Linux. I have used GNU/Linux, out of necessity, for well over a decade. Over the years, I have successfully set up, configured, and secured many of the servers that a GNU/Linux environment can provide: apache, php, ftp, DNS/BIND, sendmail (!), ipop, imap, ssh, etc. I know my way around the CLI fairly well. I can use vi in a pinch. I've compiled from source countless pieces of software. I have compiled and installed more kernels than I care to remember.

But, that isn't to say that I enjoyed any of it. Outside of spending mega bucks, I simply had no other alternative.

However, I will not criticize GNU/Linux's functionality as a server because, regardless of how much a PITA configurations can be, this IS something that GNU/Linux does extremely well. It is for this very reason that I never became intimate with GNU/Linux as an "everyday user". There was no need for it. Once these services are running, they run solid. I would only need to go back to my GNU/Linux computers every now and then to apply security updates. In the mean time, the exact methods and processes used to configure would be forgotten and need to be refreshed the next time it was necessary.

GNU/Linux as a desktop OS is another story. Roughly once a year, I will check out how GNU/Linux has progressed on the desktop. To be fair, I will say that HUGE progress has been made, especially with the KDE project. It is also very easy to concede that Microsoft has, ahem, "adopted", quit a few of the newer features found in the modern X desktops.

GNU/Linux did successfully autodetect my video card, soundcard, network card, and even wireless adapter. I was quite surprised, even though it did take a little hand tweaking (/etc/X11/xorg.conf) in order to get the correct screen resolution (1680x945, LCD) in X. This is a huge milestone from the days when you battled to get anything beyond 640x480-8bit in X, even with the correct drivers installed.

We have Firefox, Thunderbird, and OpenOffice these days, which account for about 80 percent of what most people use their desktop for. These are all solid, professionally developed, programs. We can even play MP3's right from a fresh install, without having to hunt down the codecs.

However, much of everything else remains with that "90 percent complete" feeling. Many shortcuts GNDN. Many configuration routines simply do not work correctly. There is still that schizophrenic, anarchic, sense to the GNU/Linux desktop. (A blessing and a curse.) Software installation and customization still requires quite a bit of learning curve for newcomers. Many applications still crash outright. True, this is a consequence of a FOSS environment, but these are where definite improvements need to be made. Instead of constantly partially developing new things, how about completing what already exists to 100%? There are too many temporary stop-gaps in GNU/Linux and, as everyone knows, nothing is more permanent than a temporary stop-gap.

The worse drawback to the GNU/Linux project continues to be a portion of the community. We all know exactly the type that I'm referring to. The zealots who approach GNU/Linux as if it were a religion. They range from newcomers that have used GNU/Linux for five minutes total and claim that all software installs/configs are just a one-click .rpm, .deb, etc process to old timers that have been around since the beginning. The newcomers that have used GNU/Linux for five minutes total are the more humorous because they attempt to preach from the pulpit, while they have never done any serious configuration of a GNU/Linux system. All they do is install the latest Ubuntu every few months. They don't even put their /home hierarchy on a separate partition/drive, they simply just start all over again every few months. That is all they know how to do. They certainly have never, properly, configured sendmail. What the older ones repeatedly fail to understand is that GNU/Linux is not going to be a viable OS alternative to the mainstream until these real issues are resolved. I believe many of them do not want these issues resolved. They wouldn't feel as if their religion was advanced enough if there weren't things made out to be more complicated than need be. Nor do these people want their religion to be questioned. Look at how many legit technical questions on GNU/Linux forums (especially on Usenet) turn into nothing valuable except long-winded drivel full of opinions and religious rhetoric. The average mainstream user is not interested in reading man pages and howto's on a Friday night. They have wives and girlfriends (or husbands and boyfriends) that aren't going to put up with that.

This post presented to you from Slackware 64.

Even though I do want to see GNU/Linux mature, I always encourage interested newcomers to first get their feet wet with a traditional distribution such as Slackware. You might be asking why in the heck would I make such recommendations when I want to see GNU/Linux become less complex for the mainstream. My reasoning is simple. I believe that distributions such as Ubuntu have actually made things worse for the mainstream due to their exorbitant claims of user-friendliness. Yes, they succeed with objectives on some levels, however at the same time they really hard lock the environment down making customization difficult. Distributions like Ubuntu are still GNU/Linux and all the issues written on these forums will eventually make their way through Ubuntu as well. It was this very reason that Ubuntu has attracted swarms of newcomers, only to drive them away later, leaving a bad taste of GNU/Linux in their mouth. Most of these folks that turned away will have no interest in giving any flavor of GNU/Linux a second chance.

Regardless of what flavor you decide upon, there is still going to be basic knowledge necessary to run GNU/Linux. This is where Slackware comes in. Slack is a thin distribution that can installed in as little of 10GB of HDD space. Get an O'Reilly book to go with it. Perhaps even locate an older Slackware Unleased book as well. Learn the basics, starting with the UNIX and GNU philosophies. Start in the console, facing the same question that every single newcomer has faced: "Now what?". Learn the CLI. Learn the directory hierarchy. Learn how to use pipes and redirectors, which are a staple of the UNIX/UN*X philosophy. Learn how to copy, move, manipulate, link, chown, chgrp, etc, files. Learn how to build applications from tarball sources. Learn how to configure your system by editing config files. Become familiar with vi, which I guarantee will pay off in any repair situation. You can use a simpler text editor (nano, pico, etc) for your routine text editing; you do not need to learn EMACS. Learn how services work and how they are configured. As a newcomer, don't be afraid of breaking the system, that is part of the learning experience and the worse case scenario is only having to reinstall the OS. Once you have these basics down, you will be much more likely to stay with whatever distribution you later choose. (Possibly, you will want to remain with Slackware.) Believe it or not, but unfortunately this remains the easiest way to learn GNU/Linux if you do want to be serious about using it long term. Despite claims by these "user-friendly" GNU/Linux distributions (Ubuntu), this remains the hard truth. I would love to see it possible to do everything from within X by point and clicking, but this simply is not possible yet. This should be GNU/Linux's end goal. Until then, the path of least resistance to learn GNU/Linux remains being to crawl, walk, run.

Even though, as I said, GNU/Linux provides an exceptional server environment, if you have not already climbed the learning curve and are looking to use an UN*X-like server environment, you might as well just forgo GNU/Linux and dive straight into FreeBSD. As a desktop, FreeBSD is even more archaic than GNU/Linux, however as a server FreeBSD outperforms GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux and FreeBSD share many of the same philosophies, however FreeBSD is much more organized, controlled, and academic compared to GNU/Linux.

-Kernel Sanders

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]. If you aren't familiar with why I am referring to "Linux" as "GNU/Linux", read:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

I went to a seminar that Richard Stallman held at the University that I was attending in the late 90's.
Richard Stallman was adamant about "GNU/Linux" being the correct term and I believe we owe that to him.
.