Why Linux Sucks

II preface this by simply stating that if I truly didn't care about Linux, I wouldn't bother spending my time typeing this. Secondly, I may not have contributed a kernel patch, but this is my contribution back to the community that gave me something for free.

f Linux can do these five things, then I think it has a change of taking some more share of the market. It will not beat windows, simply because most windows users wont appreciate what Linux can do for them. No point in Ferrari making station wagons for families, is there? Because there are more families who just want to move shopping than sports car enthusiasts, it would be silly for Ferarri to base their success on selling more cars than Toyota. If they do, then it would mean that the Ferrari is no longer a Ferrari but a poor quality clone of something else.

Likewise, if Linux ever takes over Windows, it will only be by becoming an imitation of Windows, thereby removing the 'alternative' aspect to the desktop alternative.

1: Software installation.
Imagine if I could compile code into a binary, put that binary on a website, and anyone with a machine with the physical horsepower to run the code can do so. I wrote DOS programs in Assembly and C on a 386 then a Pentium, and I was able to copy the .EXE and run it on my old XT system. Likewise, I can download the latest version of the 7zip GUI version for windows, and run it on ANY windows machine, including Win98B. With Linux, even though your PC has the capability of running the program, you can't because you dont have the right libraries, or the latest OS version. OR you have the wrong distro, which doesn't have the necessary libraries in the reposity etc.

If people could create ONE final product, and it runs on all Linux system, including ones a few years old, and the method of installation is the same (so they cal all install it), then it becomes far easier for software developers to write apps for Linux, and ALL Linux users can enjoy those apps instead of grapple with the system.

2: User Friendliness.

The secret to user friendliness isn't flashy design, but simply being logical, consistent and having a UI which behaves as the user would expect it to behaive, and provides all the information necessary in a manner the user can understand and manipulate. I've written DOS software which is still used by factory workers today and never had any complaints about it being difficult to use. Because it was written precisely with a clueless user in mind, I had to drop all prior assumptions.

GNOME seems to take the 'make the UI spartan and remove features and information' approach, as if extra information somehow confuses people. It doesn't, lack of consistency confuses people. A more complex, feature rich GUI will win out in user friendliness over a simplistic, scant UI if its more consistent, more logical, and presents information in a meaningful way which the user will understand, or can surmise the basic gist.

Windows wins because of consistency. The changed the start menu once or twice, but you can change it back to exactly the way it was in Windows 95. And changing the start menu was just a marketing gimmick I think. I've worked as an IT Co-admin for a company, working closely with all users and the thing that causes the MOST problems for users, is when something unexpected happens or something changes. Yes, some users struggle to learn, but generally, computer illeterate people can cope quite well with even complex interfaces, as long as it operates consistently and predictably.

Linux doesn't have to emulate windows, but it does need consistency within the destop environments and windowing systems. Rigid, disciplined consistency, ie leave out redesigns, only enhance and add.

3: The hackish aspect to get things working needs to go.
I'm not saying the CLI must go, or the capability to edit text files must go. Just that Linux must be developed with this one question in mind.

"To get this software/hardware/driver to work. Will the user suddenly need to learn something unrelated to the direct operation of the software/hardware/driver aside from the standard isntallation procedure?"

If the answer is 'yes', then there is something that needs attention. Examples of this include having to learn to edit a 'makefile' to get a graphing program to work (editing makefiles has nothing to do with the function of the program, so the user shouldn't have to learn it). Because the user wants to generate graphs, they should only need to learn how the software works and just how to get it on the computer. This is because they CHOSE to use this program. Of course, if the program itself is hard to use, this isn't the fault of Linux.

Editing config files and recompiling the kernel to get a driver to work. The kernel code and unrelated config files have nothing to do with the drivers or the hardware.

To use an analogy, if you have built a car, where the driver all of a sudden needs to learn about auto-electrics to tune the radio from AM to FM, then you've failed somewhere. Linux advocates call this 'learning about your computer', but they forget that people should learn what they WANT to learn and what they directly NEED to learn.

To install a program or hardware, I should only have to know the procedure for putting the software on, or for installing the driver and connecting the hardware. This isn't remaining ignorant, its giving the user FREEDOM. If the user WANTS to learn how to compile software, or patch the kernel, then by all means they should be able to. If they WANT to learn the intricacies of the guts of some apps, then they should be able to. But it should be a choice, not something they are forced into because the app is incomplete and the developers deem that they should expend the time and effort. Again, this requires consistency.

4: Choice ain't always a good thing.
PEople have a choice, Windows, Macs, Linux. "Freedom of choice" has become a meaningless mantra. Sometimes having something that works and I can use,is more important than my ability to 'choose'. Besides, there is no true freedom of choice, unless you actively research all the distros and their versions and try them out. Sorry, but I disagree that having 500 versions of Linux is a good thing. 5 maybe, one desktop, one server, one 'desktop lite', one bootable live version, etc, would satiate people but 97% of computer users don't care nor should they. I reckon 90% of people who want to try Linux, again, dont' really care about distros, they just want to use Linux and use one that works.

Imagine walking up to a vending machine and there were 40 versions of coke, each with a different name, and when you asked which one you should get, you get 50 different responses as to which is the best.

At the very least, it should be done so it doesnt MATTER which one you choose. That is, if I run Debian, or Xandros or RedHat or Slackware or VectorLinux or Xubuntu, I can install that version of aMSN I downloaded off the net and put on a CD and it will install and run, putting a menu entry.
Again, it shouldn't matter which desktop environment I choose to run, or which windows manager, I can just install that program and it will install and run, putting a menu entry. So the question really becomes "How can we do it so Fluxbox, KDE, GNOME, FVWM, XFce, IceWM, etc can all source the same menus so someone writing a program for Linux only has to create one menu entry and any Linux user will be able to use it".

5: Ditch the Freedom/Open Source rhetoric as being the prime reason to adopt Linux.

Software freedom is good, but it's not a panacea. I can program in C/C++ but most of the time, I don't care to rewrite OS's or rewrite parts of software I think should work differently. I don't particularly believe that I should cripple my computer and not run games and lots of apps I need and hardware for abstract ideals. I run my computer first and foremost to get stuff done, which is what an OS is supposed to facilitate by enabling people to run and distribute software.

Most people don't really look through thousands of lines of Firefox source code to see if there are backdoors, or privacy issues.
Most people don't really rewrite their OS of they dont like this or that feature. Most people don't care that they dont have Windows source code, because even if they DID have it, personally fixing Windows to their liking is too much effort to be worth it. Its CHEAPER just to buy a MAC. Likewise, its CHEAPER, if your running a 100% open source system that doesn't filfill your needs to outsource the code writing to create an OS more to your requirement, than do it yourself. Well, thats what in essence your are doing, if you buy a copy of Windows to install over Linux, isn't it? You're just paying someone who's done the work for you rather than spending your days recoding an OS and DE, which costs much more.

Don't get me wrong, there are some valid points to be made against some business practices in the software world. I do believe that hardware vendors SHOULD release specs, and that each customer is entitled to have the knowledge to use their product as they see fit. I don't dispute that, and nor do I dispute it as being a reason that Linux's hardware support is behind windows.

But I really dont think that the majority of people who enthusiastically enjoy computers, would really, really make a significant change to their OS of choice, for the rather impractical promise of being able to do this and that with the source code.

I say this as someone who isn't a 'point and click' computer user, but someone who has been using computers since 1989, who has built PC's, programmed for various platforms in various languages including assembler and has maintained and done all that tricky stuff under Linux. I guess I'm one of those who wants to use my PC as I see fit, free from the dictates of a company, free to use the CLI if I want to and to have complete control over how I use my computer and to be able to tinker, to have the inner workings transparent.

Thats why I went to Linux. That and the fact I thought it was technically superior to Windows. At the time (mid 2000), it was in terms of stability and raw power.

But sadly, I realised that there are many things which are holding this potentially great OS from those who really want to use it. I have friends who WANTED to get away from Microsoft, and still want to, but Linux just doesn't cut it. They're not 'retards' or 'idiots' as many Linux geeks would call them, they are just struggling with things they shouldn't have to struggle with. Things the Linux community rarely acknowledges because its too busy contratulating itself.

And I realised on thing. Everytime someone I knew went to try Linux, I knew, I just knew that I would have to be there to break through the stonewalls. I knew that if someone was going to install it on a spare partition and want to access their FAT32 or NTFS partitions, that unless I made myself available to do all the 'clickly clicky' stuff editing /etc/fstab, setting permissions, etc they would be turned off and go back to Windows.

I've even read comments from Linux users who set up their mums system, that they set it up so they can SSH in and do installs, updates, maintenance etc. That is, I know, and i think many other Linux users know, though don't admit it, we have to be there to make Linux look like it runs smooth and try to explain away all the obstacles. Obstacles that people who are quite adept with windows, would stump them. Quite simply, I think Linux's usability comes from having an army of 'geeks' constantly babysit and smooth over the problems. Either by repackaging software and maintaining a repository, or by doing the admin stuff themselves for a friend or relative, and leaving that person stuck within the confines of "Only install from the repository" and "dont do this, or that, you don't need to. Dont but this hardware, or that hardware". If you can't give the CD to someone, and leave them be and be confident, then thats not freedom.

It shouldn't have to be like that, and it DOESN'T have to be like. But I don't see it heading in the right direction yet.