Print Story "or as required by your distribution"
By Idempotent (Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 01:04:30 AM EST) (all tags)
On reasons to hate Linux, from a *BSD perspective.

  1. All Linux instructions give one way of doing things for their author's box. This is invariably different on all sixteen billion distributions, so they then say you may need to use your distribution's method. WTF? You're basically saying there's no way of actually giving instructions which will work for "Linux".
  2. OK, so you have more (shoddy) drivers than *BSD. However, you keep on changing the kernel interface to these drivers, so the chances of getting a driver to work in the latest version (or indeed any version) of the kernel is fairly minimal. Basically, you have to get the exact version of the kernel for the drivers you want to use. WTF? Can't you just design a decent interface and stick to it?
  3. There's so much of it. Why do I need "gnome-filesystem" to get a basic minimal no graphical interface installation? Why when I do a ps listing on my minimal box, does it scroll off the top of the screen?
I shall add to this list as I have further frustrations. I haven't even got the basic box talking to all the devices in it yet.

Yeah, go on, defend Linux. I dare you. But until you can write documentation which always is correct and stuff doesn't randomly break, then Linux Is Not Ready For People Who Like Quality And Try To Avoid Wasting Their Time.

< "Breakfast With the 'Morning Show' Team" | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
"or as required by your distribution" | 51 comments (51 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
All Linux distributions suck. by komet (4.00 / 4) #1 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 01:26:48 AM EST
Which is why I made my own, which is of course entirely undocumented, impossible to install on machines that aren't in my network, and incompatible with everything else.

What was the question again?

<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.

That's just a trivial corollary by gpig (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 01:39:59 AM EST
The theorem states that 'All operating systems suck'.
(,   ,') -- eep
[ Parent ]
ghetto "5" {nt} by clover kicker (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 02:51:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Correct. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 03:26:49 AM EST
But at least with non-Linux OSes you only have to learn the suckitude once.

[ Parent ]
Yes by Man (4.00 / 1) #21 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:35:36 AM EST
I mean, if you are a Windows developer, you just have to learn

[ Parent ]
Been there. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:37:09 AM EST
Done that.

Up until just before .NET, though. Then went fully UNIX.

[ Parent ]
Driver interface by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #4 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 02:59:53 AM EST
What's so hard about:

cd /usr/src
tar zxf kernel-source.tar.bz2
Oh crap, I got the wrong one.
tar jxf kernel-source.tar.bz2
make menuconfig
WTF are all these options?  *random choices*
make dep; make clean; make...wait, clean after dep?  Can that be right?  OK, whatever.
make bzImage
make modules
make modules_install
Oh crap, I overwrote all my old drivers!  Well, I'll just try to make these work.
cp bzImage /boot/
NONE OF MY DEVICES WORK!  (goto beginning)

Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
I'm one up on you! by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 03:26:03 AM EST
I discovered make cloneconfig....

Still, yes, all bad. My problem is that I want to install some ADSL PCI card drivers too. Which is a whole world of fun.

[ Parent ]
Never install hardware under Lunix by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #7 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 03:29:17 AM EST
Buy a new machine with the hardware already in there and Lunix pre-configured.

Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Not possible. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #8 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 03:42:44 AM EST
I'm making an "appliance". I suspect I will be making my own distribution too, the way it's all going.

[ Parent ]
On a serious note by Evil Cloaked User (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 03:44:33 AM EST
IM me if you need any help with that. I've rolled quite a few home-brew linux installs and linux appliances by now.

[ Parent ]
You are very kind. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 04:33:35 AM EST
I've only made appliances with *BSDs, and I've always avoided this Linux stuff.

[ Parent ]
*BSD FOR LIFE by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 2) #10 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 04:13:04 AM EST

Whither free or open, or appropriated into OS X, BSD RULES MY WORLD!

You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
That man, by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 04:34:50 AM EST
he speaks the TRUTH.

I generally use OpenBSD for servers, and the Apple Abomination for my desktop. It makes sense. So much sense.

[ Parent ]
IAWTD by lb008d (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 05:23:17 AM EST
I use BSD for personal servers (FreeBSD) or firewalls (OpenBSD). Both have manual pages that are unsurpassed by any other OS, including Windows documentation - MSDN is nice but it's too much, almost. Linux documentation is a joke. The BSD's way of integrating the whole system is a pleasure to work with.

However I did put Kubuntu linux on my home laptop and was pleasantly surprised by it's appearance - I like it almost as much as my "Windows Classic" themed XP desktop, which is saying something because the last time I used Linux as a desktop FVWM was the best option you had (MkLinux on a PPC 6100). Incredibly enough, while my RTL8180 wireless card worked on this laptop out of the box with OpenBSD I had to configure ndiswrapper to get it to work in Kubuntu. Not a huge pain because thankfully the kernel comes with ndiswrapper available, but it should work out of the box.

Don't get me started on the Linux boot scripts. Gah.

boot scripts. by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #19 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:12:47 AM EST
They're the thing which is my greatest annoyance when encountering a random Linux box.

vi /etc/rc.local

and you're done, on OpenBSD at least. But on Linux... who can tell?

[ Parent ]
I can. by Awakened Dreamer (4.00 / 1) #22 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:40:04 AM EST

But it would take the equivalent of a printed manual of about seven hundred pages to cover all the possibilities.

Well, let me revise that. To cover all the possibilities I'm currently aware of. (SuSE, Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Gentoo, and I think I've got another one floating around in my head somewhere. Gah.)

[ Parent ]
I'm glad you can! by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #34 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:38:10 AM EST
You can tell me next time I log into some random box.

(BTW, if you could enlighten me on how to load kernel modules and start daemons on startup on SuSE, that would be lovely of you.)

[ Parent ]
SuSE? by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #40 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 11:59:40 AM EST

All things SuSE involve a little thing called YaST. Because, if you don't use YaST, eventually some script or another will called SuSEconfig and reset everything that you've done manually anyway.

Go to a command line and type YaST or on the newer versions (above 9 if I remember correctly) just 'yast'. It's actually surprisingly easy to set up daemons from the yast interface. Though completely unintuitive to look there for anyone that actually knows the command line and how to set up any other *nix daemons.

Kernel modules? If it doesn't work automagically, as they say it always will (and rarely actually does), head for the script /etc/rc.d/boot.local and add whatever (command) you need. Stupid and backwards, but easier than trying to wade through their odd-ball version of kernel mod scripting.

[ Parent ]
Ta muchly. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #45 Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 01:24:32 AM EST
Very useful hints, thanks. Especially the boot.local one... Sounds like a proper UNIX.

[ Parent ]
You would think so. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #46 Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 04:28:09 AM EST

Except, it comes up AFTER networking starts. So, if you, for instance, need to add a PCMCIA network adapter module, it'll add it, but the network will have already tried to come up, and failed. Therefore, you must also add a manual network start command. Which isn't probably that big of a deal, but seems bas-ackwards to me anyway.

[ Parent ]
Defend Linux? by Awakened Dreamer (4.00 / 1) #14 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 05:48:10 AM EST

Who would be dumb enough to want to defend it?

And believe me when I tell you, you've only just begun to discover the problems with it. Try using it in a corporate setting for about six years, three of which it ran on every computer in the company. There's a lot of positives it has over Windows, and a HUGE almost unwieldy number of problems it has in comparison with anything else (sometimes even including Windows) in a networking environment.

Linux has k00l k1d crowd appeal with the first install. By the time you've been using it for a while you realize what people mean when they say "computers suck."

Now there's a statement I could defend.

Addendum. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 05:50:11 AM EST

Your poll should have been multiple choice. The first two really, REALLY need clicked at the same time.

[ Parent ]
I'm doing a linux on you. by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #16 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 06:40:44 AM EST
Choosing options deliberately to annoy.

[ Parent ]
If I could, I would rate you an '8'. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 07:17:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's easy for you to say, by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:11:02 AM EST
what with 4 being the maximum.

Again, this is just like Linux. Make sure the default option doesn't allow most users to do what they need to do without a bit of twiddling.

[ Parent ]
To be fair. . . by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #25 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:44:44 AM EST

Trying to target "most users" with any application is a bit like trying to target "most people's tastes" when it comes to fetishware.

Also, I still think given the alternatives that currently exist, Linux strikes a nice balance between available applications and useability for those who need it. (Server administrators mostly.) It still sucks, but then again so do most others.

But, in keeping with the theme of this thread. Yeah, someone should really build a time machine so they can kill that Lunis Torvaldariaycerdi guy before he invents l00n1x and unleashes it upon the unsuspecting masses.

[ Parent ]
Defaults. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #35 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:39:03 AM EST
My experience of Linux has been that the defaults are not sane. Contrast to OpenBSD, where the official line is that if you need to tweek it, you're doing something wrong.

They're right, too.

[ Parent ]
Defaults. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #41 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 12:01:51 PM EST

Look at the bright side. At least you're not coming into it five years ago, when the default was to install every daemon and run it by default, and leave every port open.

Then there were the dark times, when they first realized security was important, and just stopped installing any daemon, and made it damn near impossible to open ports once you did figure out how to install them.

[ Parent ]
I've been around a while. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:47 AM EST
Why do you think I got into *BSD in the first place?

[ Parent ]
Well, there you go. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #47 Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 04:29:17 AM EST

I enjoyed BSD briefly. Still tinker with it some. But it's a delicate balancing act in the corporate world. And unfortunately, Linux's name recognition means more than BSD's usefulness.

[ Parent ]
How would they tell the difference? by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #48 Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 04:42:27 AM EST
I mean, it costs the same...

[ Parent ]
It's all in the name baby. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #49 Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 05:18:51 AM EST

Plus, sadly, it doesn't cost the same anymore. Linux costs more. Or, at least, the version we're allowed to use does. (We need someone to hold accountable, according to the big boys. Because us being accountable on our own would be anti-corporation or some such nonsense.)

I gave up trying to make complete sense of it years ago.

[ Parent ]
Now we're back to "which Linux"... by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #50 Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 05:44:59 AM EST
... funny how things go in circles.

[ Parent ]
Yeah. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #51 Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 10:09:59 AM EST

We've gotten many lectures on the merits of Red Hat, but I'll be dead before I purposefully install that on every server. We have ONE server that has to have it on it because the software vendor wouldn't support it if it were on any other Linux install, but everything else runs SuSE.

Which is surprisingly alright once you get used to all it's odd little quirks. Like YaST. Beautifully simple once you know what it is, aggravating as all get out when you don't.

[ Parent ]
LOL LUS3er Phix it urself. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:35:10 AM EST
Or something.

[ Parent ]
I'm so ingrained in Linux that. . . by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:41:22 AM EST

my knee-jerk reaction to your comment was to download the style sheet and start tweaking it to make each rating show up as "rating.number * 2"

[ Parent ]
Please share in your files area. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:42:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm a self-aware knee-jerker. . . by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 08:47:34 AM EST

And caught myself before it was completed.

[ Parent ]
I just popped out to the shops, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:05:10 AM EST
and was mulling over whether it was actually possible in the CSS spec. And then wondering if I could render ratings and/or comment numbers as roman numerals.

[ Parent ]
On the bright side. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #28 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:23:21 AM EST
I just saw Opera's new built in source viewer, and I also found out the comment header shows the date and time of posting if you hover over it. How good can you get?

I didn't think of a way to hack rendering comment numbers in roman numerals, though.

[ Parent ]
I don't know. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:42:36 AM EST

I've done a lot of CSS hackery, but it's not real easy to replace actual content in it. CSS needs a replace tag dammit.

[ Parent ]
No, it seems not. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:57:49 AM EST
I thought there was a glimmer of hope with the content :attr(xxx) rule, but it doesn't do it, so there we go.

[ Parent ]
There might be a way to hide content. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:05:43 AM EST

But I wouldn't know where to look to come up with something that would place new content in through CSS. Unless it's right in front of me and I'm too burnt to see it right now.

[ Parent ]
I've been saying this for awhile now. by mrgoat (2.00 / 0) #29 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 09:24:04 AM EST
(Free|Open)BSD has the same "coolness" factor everyone likes about linux, only you can make it work, and it's suitable in a corporate server farm.

--top hat--
I've been saying that too. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #36 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:40:26 AM EST
But will they listen? Will they write drivers for *BSD? Will they?

Bastards. No, they go and propagate badly designed constantly changing rubbish. It really gets my goat, beg your pardon.

[ Parent ]
Well, by mrgoat (2.00 / 0) #37 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 10:54:35 AM EST
Fortunately the drivers BSD has are functional, and they do keep making more of them. I've not had a problem on that front yet. (Plus, they don't change the kernel interface every two seconds, so if you write one, it's likely to stay useful past dinnertime.)

Also, BSD's Linux ABI is decent.

--top hat--

[ Parent ]
Yes, quality drivers. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #38 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 11:36:23 AM EST
I am forced to use Linux because I want drivers for ADSL PCI cards and some telephone hardware.

[ Parent ]
Trends by Man (4.00 / 1) #39 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 11:40:37 AM EST
DOS, Windows, Linux succeeded.

AmigaOS, OS/2 and BeOS all failed.

The lesson? If you create a coherently designed OS, it will fail.

[ Parent ]
WOOOOOOOOO! by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #42 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 12:03:10 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Suitable != suit able. by Awakened Dreamer (2.00 / 0) #43 Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 12:06:19 PM EST

The big boys in the head office haven't heard of BSD, and therefore, it's not suitable in a corporate environment. The only ones that have heard of it, have heard that there's no applications for it. Because we all know the only applications that matter on computers are office suites.

Frankly, I agree to a certain degree with your assessment, but, here in the real world, name recognition goes a lot further than technical capability. I figure I'm lucky I got any *nix through the door.

[ Parent ]
"or as required by your distribution" | 51 comments (51 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback