Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: These Are The Biggest Problems With Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    638

    Default

    seems Gentoo Linux solves many of these problems

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    459

    Default

    The GREATEST PROBLEM for Linux is closed specs on hardware, and patents.
    Last edited by e8hffff; 06-17-2012 at 06:44 AM.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    seems Gentoo Linux solves many of these problems
    And Ubuntu. There's Gentoo that's nice, fast and hard to use by newbies and there's Ubuntu that's bloated (compared to Linux, because it's much less bloated than winblows or os x) and easy to use by newbies. There's no way to have all in one and that's why this article and quoted comments are just bunch of crap. The only way to have better articles is to turn ad block on, so we'll limit beer consumption which is the cause of stupidity.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    seems Gentoo Linux solves many of these problems
    And it makes others much worse.

    "- Lack of commercialization and standardization"

    Yes, it's hard to find two gentoo installs the same unless you are in a university lab or something like that.

    "- Configuration can be an awful pain. (P; a long, detailed post.) "

    Not neccesarily and better than gentoo, and quite a bit worse in you insist on complex networking or a custom kernel.

    Don't get me wrong, Gentoo is my favorite distro, but for most people it creates more problems than it solves.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorBlux View Post
    And it makes others much worse.

    "- Lack of commercialization and standardization"
    so good it does, I dont want more shity companies who release their propriatary shit to release stuff in linux. Really fuck it, I dont want the newest games in linux if I have to install a steam application for that. The only possitiv point could be that in some day I could use a special computer for gaming and for nothing else and that on this pc then runs a linux instead of a gaming-windows.

    So now I at least feal Oh I am on a crap system I do nothing but gaming here, if you have then linux there where your games are you could mistakenly give in your passwords and stuff but you installed a trojan like steam and co.

    So get the fuck out. For opensource developments its just not important you as user just make a generous Makefile or something setup.py distutils in python... maybe upload that to something like pypi, and some very interested people can easily install it that way and test it, but if its good, some people will make packages for your distribution if the distribution is one of the 10 most important ones...

    So I like it like it is, and its better than its under windows, because updating and stuff sucks and is not automatic at all (except some mostly commercial software that programmed their own apt, wheels reprogramming always sucks).

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Dumbest article ever made by a hypocrite. Even sites that are known to be anti Linux aren't so stupid. If you want to be a little better hypocrite then you should post article why other sucks or why Linux rocks. Otherwise you're simply bunch of a hypo without deserve to any respect.

    Btw. Monolithic kernels are actually the most advanced, used in the most environments, the fastest etc. Only idiot who has no clue would say monolithic kernels sucks. Linux/Unix have monolithic, but modular kernels and Windows and OS X as well (but they advertise them as so called 'hybrid' kernels which is just dumb PR). Oh and only idiot quotes other idiots posts on the main site.
    Yep.

    Maybe things that are explained should make the list.

    I mean bloat? seriously? What are you talking about?
    Read the whole thing but nowhere the people who say bloat is bad give a concrete example about why it hurts Linux.
    Sure some things don't have that much memory but that does not form a problem for Linux.
    At least not as much as the disadvantage of avoiding bloat at all cost.
    There are distributions that try to get really small. Why do we have to do this with any desktop system?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    * Many driver issues - Relatively speaking, yes, but people should be thankful that linux has as much driver support as it has already
    * Too many regressions - In what? Most regressions are in unstable software that you aren't recommended to use yet and they often get fixed
    * Too much bloat - Get even the most bloated software available to linux and it's still less bloated than the Windows default. The kernel could be divided a bit to help clean it up but even then, it isn't that huge.
    * Poor marketing - True, but it shouldn't be marketed yet anyway; linux isn't ready for the average desktop user
    * Lack of standardization - Absolutely agree, linux's lack of commercialization is due to the lack of uniformity
    * Unstable APIs - Again, you take that risk if you decide to use unstable releases. Personally most of the API problems weren't bad enough to bother me
    * Lack of proper documentation - Strongly agree. There is plenty of documentation out there but most of it is distro specific. I've found the Debian, Arch, Ubuntu, and Gentoo wikis have been the most helpful to me no matter what distro I use.
    * DE Problems - This is why I like DEs like LXDE. LXDE is barebone enough that you can pretty much add anything you need to make it just how you like, and it ends up being more lightweight in the end. But I would have to agree, most DEs are kinda like American political parties - they change themselves just because they don't want to be anywhere similar to their competitors.
    * Monolithic kernels suck - As much as I'd prefer a microkernel, linux has always been monolithic and you're a lot more likely to get failures in a microkernel than monolithic.
    * Configuration can be a pain - Yup, but that's the sacrifice you make when deciding to use a system that should last you forever.
    * Range of issues - Well that is just plain ignorance and wishful thinking. You can't just hope to not get an error, even in Windows. I find linux's errors to be the most helpful of any OS.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Dumbest article ever made by a hypocrite. Even sites that are known to be anti Linux aren't so stupid. If you want to be a little better hypocrite then you should post article why other sucks or why Linux rocks. Otherwise you're simply bunch of a hypo without deserve to any respect.

    Btw. Monolithic kernels are actually the most advanced, used in the most environments, the fastest etc. Only idiot who has no clue would say monolithic kernels sucks. Linux/Unix have monolithic, but modular kernels and Windows and OS X as well (but they advertise them as so called 'hybrid' kernels which is just dumb PR). Oh and only idiot quotes other idiots posts on the main site.
    Chances are you're phone uses a micro-kernel not a monolithic kernel.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Btw. Monolithic kernels are actually the most advanced, used in the most environments, the fastest etc. Only idiot who has no clue would say monolithic kernels sucks.
    It actually depends on implementation.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    * Many driver issues - Relatively speaking, yes, but people should be thankful that linux has as much driver support as it has already
    When my web-cam, USB-wifi, or printer doesn't work on some version of Windows, it's a problem with the web-cam, the USB-wifi or the printer;
    When my web-cam, USB-wifi, or printer doesn't work on some version of Linux, it's a problem with Linux. -- Can you say "double standard"?

    * Poor marketing - True, but it shouldn't be marketed yet anyway; linux isn't ready for the average desktop user
    I've been using Linux for a dozen years -- and I'm just a used-books dealer. My friends all have problems with Windows (less since Vista/7, but still more than I have with Linux). Windows isn't ready for the average desktop user. -- Can you say "double standard"?

    * Lack of standardization - Absolutely agree, linux's lack of commercialization is due to the lack of uniformity
    Firefox, Opera and Chrome can cope, HP and Brother printers/multifunction can cope, various games can cope. Wall Street stock markets and traders can cope. Even Hollywood can cope. Heck, even Broadcom could cope, once they realised they were losing sales by pretending Linux was too hard. I suggest the problem is less some supposed "lack of standardization" and more a combination of inertia and accumulated bad, OS-dependent code. -- "Works with Windows (version X, but not version Y)" isn't "standardization either.

    * Unstable APIs - Again, you take that risk if you decide to use unstable releases. Personally most of the API problems weren't bad enough to bother me
    I keep hearing this, but as far as I can tell, when all is said and done, complaints about unstable APIs are just a roundabout way of saying that OEMs aren't used to it / that that's not how Microsoft does it.

    Most complaints about Linux boil down to "it's a Windows world -- give up and just use Windows".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •