People who love Linux are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
That is all.
Franklin Veaux's Journal
Working toward the heat death of the Universe, one joule at a time!
People who love Linux are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
That is all.
LOL…um no we are suffering from the WinDozzzzeee Syndrome. Tired of swatting bugs and undocumented features. 😉
heretic! there are no bugs, only bonus, undocumented features.
Surely you’re not suggesting that the Linux kernel and popular software don’t have baffling bugs and downright braindead configuration interfaces. I’ve wrestled with more than my fair share.
Personally I like Linux because when something breaks, or when documentation is too light to be useful, I can always dig into the source code and find and fix the problem myself.
Not suggesting that at all – but comparing Linux to Vista is like comparing the bugs in Central Park to the bugs in the bayou. 😉
Indeed. For fun, type “get rid of fucking Aero” in Vista’s help function. 🙂 You could probably pay me enough to use Vista, but I guarantee you couldn’t afford it…
But for sheer, rage-inducing, drive-you-up-the wall buggery, you haven’t lived ’til you’ve tried to install gcc on the brain-dead implementation of Xandros that ships on the Asus Eee laptop.
“When something breaks, or when documentation is too light to be useful, I can always dig into the source code and find and fix the problem myself.” That’s precisely part of Linux’s problem, in my book. As long as people think this is reasonable, it’ll never be more than a distant also-ran wannabe on the desktop.
Right. Lemme know when you find an entire OS that honestly works so well that nobody — not even codegeeks like me — ever finds some cranny of software weirdness that irks them that they want to tweak but isn’t properly documented or is just plain broken.
I’m not saying that the ability to dig into source is ideal. It usually sucks. I’d much rather find the answer in the manpage, or better yet have it do the right thing in the first place. But when it doesn’t — and every operating system fails that at some point — it’s really damned handy to have the source to fall back on. Better than pulling out a disassembler, at least.
The problem is that the overwhelming majority of computer users can’t do anything with source code; having source code available is only helpful to developers, not to users. And it’s really no surprise that Linux is popular only with developers, not with users.)
A mainstream desktop operating system must assume that the users are not developers. If the same effort that’s put into making Linux convenient for developers were put into making the GUI robust enough for users, then maybe the long-awaited Year of Linux on the Desktop would finally dawn. But until then… Jesus God, who believes that editing a program’s configuration by dropping into a terminal, firing up vi, and editing a file somewhere in /etc is a Good Thing?
“Having source code available is only helpful to developers, not to users.”
Whereas not having it available — the option most other well-known OSes offer — is helpful to nobody.
FWIW, IBM (my employer) has put a good bit of work into making Linux desktops more user-friendly. I haven’t looked too closely at the implementation, so I can’t speak to how successful we’ve been, but I know we’ve at least been working on it.
I suspect we’re trying to limit our own dependence on MS and move even our administrators off Windows, but that’s just my own speculation.
LOL…um no we are suffering from the WinDozzzzeee Syndrome. Tired of swatting bugs and undocumented features. 😉
heretic! there are no bugs, only bonus, undocumented features.
And those of us who simply recognize the value of professional-quality software development and network service administration on a nonexistent budget?
Seriously, I wouldn’t mind switching to, e.g., Mac OSX. Considering, though, that I spend 90+% of my computer time at the command line writing low-level network software… Well, let’s just say I’m not convinced that Apple’s beautiful graphical widgets add that much to a screen full of terminal windows. Certainly not enough to justify the pricetag.
On the free side of things, I’ve been meaning to play with bsd, hurd, and plan 9. Haven’t gotten to them yet….
And those of us who simply recognize the value of professional-quality software development and network service administration on a nonexistent budget?
Seriously, I wouldn’t mind switching to, e.g., Mac OSX. Considering, though, that I spend 90+% of my computer time at the command line writing low-level network software… Well, let’s just say I’m not convinced that Apple’s beautiful graphical widgets add that much to a screen full of terminal windows. Certainly not enough to justify the pricetag.
On the free side of things, I’ve been meaning to play with bsd, hurd, and plan 9. Haven’t gotten to them yet….
Surely you’re not suggesting that the Linux kernel and popular software don’t have baffling bugs and downright braindead configuration interfaces. I’ve wrestled with more than my fair share.
Personally I like Linux because when something breaks, or when documentation is too light to be useful, I can always dig into the source code and find and fix the problem myself.
Not suggesting that at all – but comparing Linux to Vista is like comparing the bugs in Central Park to the bugs in the bayou. 😉
Eh… just too lazy to learn a different set of quirks.
Eh… just too lazy to learn a different set of quirks.
Server -> Linux
Client -> OS X
Garbage -> Windows
That is all.
If they were suffering from stockholm syndrome they’d be raving about Windows for that is who’s been holding people hostage 🙂
I agree.
Linux still mostly kinda sucks on the desktop, by default (Ubuntu’s desktop is a bit less sucky, but still sucky). But it is great for servers and “getting things done”. Most of the linux machines I admin don’t even have X installed on them.
Server -> Linux
Client -> OS X
Garbage -> Windows
That is all.
If they were suffering from stockholm syndrome they’d be raving about Windows for that is who’s been holding people hostage 🙂
Loving an OS? Must be a serious case of shell-shock.
All OS’es suck, of course. There’s even data to back up the claim.
Loving an OS? Must be a serious case of shell-shock.
All OS’es suck, of course. There’s even data to back up the claim.
“When something breaks, or when documentation is too light to be useful, I can always dig into the source code and find and fix the problem myself.” That’s precisely part of Linux’s problem, in my book. As long as people think this is reasonable, it’ll never be more than a distant also-ran wannabe on the desktop.
Indeed. For fun, type “get rid of fucking Aero” in Vista’s help function. 🙂 You could probably pay me enough to use Vista, but I guarantee you couldn’t afford it…
But for sheer, rage-inducing, drive-you-up-the wall buggery, you haven’t lived ’til you’ve tried to install gcc on the brain-dead implementation of Xandros that ships on the Asus Eee laptop.
I agree.
Linux still mostly kinda sucks on the desktop, by default (Ubuntu’s desktop is a bit less sucky, but still sucky). But it is great for servers and “getting things done”. Most of the linux machines I admin don’t even have X installed on them.
While I don’t love Linux, how painful it is seems to depend in very large part on the distribution you use. In my experience, the least painful distributions are:
(1) Ubuntu 6 or higher
(2) Fedora 7 or higher
(3) … something based on Ubuntu or Fedora.
Anyone who insists on running Linux on the desktop should choose Ubuntu unless they have a compelling reason not to (they’re at work and the office is using Fedora), or unless they’re really doing it as a hobby. I know you said that your system came with Xandros pre-installed, but any Linux distribution that doesn’t either come with GCC or make it dirt-simple to install it is sending you a message, and the message is I SUCK I SUCK FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET ME OFF YOUR SYSTEM NOW.
Personally, were I setting up a Unix server, I’d use FreeBSD if at all possible. It’s arguably hairier to configure than the best-developed Linux distributions, but I’m just more comfortable with its default environment.
While I don’t love Linux, how painful it is seems to depend in very large part on the distribution you use. In my experience, the least painful distributions are:
(1) Ubuntu 6 or higher
(2) Fedora 7 or higher
(3) … something based on Ubuntu or Fedora.
Anyone who insists on running Linux on the desktop should choose Ubuntu unless they have a compelling reason not to (they’re at work and the office is using Fedora), or unless they’re really doing it as a hobby. I know you said that your system came with Xandros pre-installed, but any Linux distribution that doesn’t either come with GCC or make it dirt-simple to install it is sending you a message, and the message is I SUCK I SUCK FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET ME OFF YOUR SYSTEM NOW.
Personally, were I setting up a Unix server, I’d use FreeBSD if at all possible. It’s arguably hairier to configure than the best-developed Linux distributions, but I’m just more comfortable with its default environment.
I tried Linux a few times over the years, but threw it away in disgust every time. Even as a developer, I need my primary OS to encourage productivity. Ubuntu is the first Linux distro that makes it possible (with Linux). Ubuntu is the first example of a distro built on the principal of code written for users instead of other developers. And I don’t care what ANYONE says, but until you can do EVERYTHING except development without touching the command line, Linux is not “ready for the desktop”, and it is NOT the “Year of the Linux Desktop”. Ubuntu is a great distro with incredible potential, and I enjoy using it, and prefer it over Windows, and I’ve even suggested it to some non-techy people, but it still has a long way to go.
So basically, I agree, but I also disagree.
I tried Linux a few times over the years, but threw it away in disgust every time. Even as a developer, I need my primary OS to encourage productivity. Ubuntu is the first Linux distro that makes it possible (with Linux). Ubuntu is the first example of a distro built on the principal of code written for users instead of other developers. And I don’t care what ANYONE says, but until you can do EVERYTHING except development without touching the command line, Linux is not “ready for the desktop”, and it is NOT the “Year of the Linux Desktop”. Ubuntu is a great distro with incredible potential, and I enjoy using it, and prefer it over Windows, and I’ve even suggested it to some non-techy people, but it still has a long way to go.
So basically, I agree, but I also disagree.
Right. Lemme know when you find an entire OS that honestly works so well that nobody — not even codegeeks like me — ever finds some cranny of software weirdness that irks them that they want to tweak but isn’t properly documented or is just plain broken.
I’m not saying that the ability to dig into source is ideal. It usually sucks. I’d much rather find the answer in the manpage, or better yet have it do the right thing in the first place. But when it doesn’t — and every operating system fails that at some point — it’s really damned handy to have the source to fall back on. Better than pulling out a disassembler, at least.
Very literate troll!
Very literate troll!
Damn it Franklin, I’m at work! I’ve gotten enough ostracizing from my coworkers for hysterical laughter already – I don’t need more
– ZM
Damn it Franklin, I’m at work! I’ve gotten enough ostracizing from my coworkers for hysterical laughter already – I don’t need more
– ZM
The problem is that the overwhelming majority of computer users can’t do anything with source code; having source code available is only helpful to developers, not to users. And it’s really no surprise that Linux is popular only with developers, not with users.)
A mainstream desktop operating system must assume that the users are not developers. If the same effort that’s put into making Linux convenient for developers were put into making the GUI robust enough for users, then maybe the long-awaited Year of Linux on the Desktop would finally dawn. But until then… Jesus God, who believes that editing a program’s configuration by dropping into a terminal, firing up vi, and editing a file somewhere in /etc is a Good Thing?
“Having source code available is only helpful to developers, not to users.”
Whereas not having it available — the option most other well-known OSes offer — is helpful to nobody.
FWIW, IBM (my employer) has put a good bit of work into making Linux desktops more user-friendly. I haven’t looked too closely at the implementation, so I can’t speak to how successful we’ve been, but I know we’ve at least been working on it.
I suspect we’re trying to limit our own dependence on MS and move even our administrators off Windows, but that’s just my own speculation.