|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 22nd Mar 2016 09:57 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 26th Mar 2016 15:38 Post subject: Re: Major Linux Issues 2016 |
|
|
the featured comment on the end of that article pretty much sums it up.
| Quote: | The reason I stopped recommending Linux to "normal users" is _because_ of the concept of distributions.
Coupling the updates of single apps with the updates of the whole desktop or framework and libs, is just plain wrong. Having to upgrade the whole distro (including all the other installed apps you dont want to upgrade) just to install a new version of one single app you _want_ to update is a nightmare. Total bullshit. Users. Dont. Want. That. Users dont want one update to trigger another update, or even to trigger the upgrade of the whole desktop.
The blog post by ESR is one prominent example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822
He basically wanted to upgrade just one (obscure) app, and the process triggered the automatic removal of Gnome2 and installation of Unity. Just _IMAGINE_ how nightmarish this must look for normal users. You simply dont remove somebodys installed desktop sneakily from under their feet. You simply dont. That feels like the total loss of control over your computer.
I personally had, during the last 10 years, people go from Linux (which I talked them into trying) back to windows, _precisely_ of this reason, of having to upgrade the whole distribution every few months just to be able to get new app versions. They dont have to put up with this insane bullshit on Windows, why should they put up with it on Linux?
This "distribution" bullshit is not what is killing desktop Linux, it is what _already_ killed desktop Linux.
The other reasons why desktop Linux never made it (no games, no preinstallations on hardware) are imho just consequences of the distribution concept and the 6-month planned-obsolescence cycle. Nobody wants to bother with something which will be obsolete half a year down the road. Nobody wants to develop for a target that moves _that_ fast.
Windows installations, once installed or preinstalled, run for a decade. Develop something, and it will run on a 10 yr old Windows your grandparents use. Most people encounter new Windows installations only when they buy a new computer. PC manufacturers know that customers will hate it when their new computer OS is obsolete within half a year and that they wont be able to install new apps, so they dont preinstall Linux, it's as simple as that.
If anybody _ever_ really wants to see Linux succeed on the desktop (before the desktop concept itself is gone), he will have to give up on the distribution concept first. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 27th Mar 2016 00:33 Post subject: |
|
|
The last thing is overexaggerated. Both distros which are actually suitable for workstations (Ubuntu LTS and CentOS) do have 5 and 10 years support cycle respectively, which is impressive considering the notorious distro - app/library version coupling. But this coupling is a valid point and hard pain in the ass, hopefully to be resolved once Ubuntu pushes Snappy concept beyond the server world (although Windows does have its share of DLL hell, but it's well hidden from end user).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 29th Mar 2016 10:49 Post subject: |
|
|
System update concept is not user's job, it's job of the distribution's author. Why someone must know such low level details just to be able to install newer app than shipped within distro repos? Not to mention that current multilib and systemd-based distributions have overly complicated structure compared to old Unixes, which once were hard core operating systems reserved for system programmers and administrators.
Regarding Linux, noone in its right mind uses Fedora on workstation, with its support cycle of 12 months. Any decent computer project takes longer than that. Fedora is a beta test environment for future Centos versions, period. I need a platform on which my software builds and runs the same way now and in 10 years.
Also, the rolling Arch? So I get to work one day, let it update and end up with broken system so I have to spend the next several hours fixing it? No thanks, I have real work to focus on. You just can't bash Windows 10 concept of forced and poorly tested updates, and then recommend Arch.
My job is building and maintaining embedded Linux distros where almost everything is being done manually, but I really have problem with applying the same logic to the desktop PC. That's why I don't even try newer Slackware versions, fuck it, if you cannot develop an elegant dependency and update system for 20 years, then you can just shut your business and go doing something else.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 29th Mar 2016 13:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy_Incognito wrote: | System update concept is not user's job, it's job of the distribution's author. Why someone must know such low level details just to be able to install newer app than shipped within distro repos? Not to mention that current multilib and systemd-based distributions have overly complicated structure compared to old Unixes, which once were hard core operating systems reserved for system programmers and administrators.
|
I can see your point, but i feel the user should need to understand whats under the hood, systemd, xorg, bootloader, filesystems to properly use the OS. The same is true in the MS ecosystem, for several years it was my job cleaning up the mess made of other highly paid professionals that have no idea what they are doing.
| Guy_Incognito wrote: | | Regarding Linux, noone in its right mind uses Fedora on workstation, with its support cycle of 12 months. Any decent computer project takes longer than that. Fedora is a beta test environment for future Centos versions, period. I need a platform on which my software builds and runs the same way now and in 10 years. |
By workstation i was inclining personal machine, not what I'd recommend to hundreds of staff. Personally I've not had any major hindrance but again personal preference (Which to me is a linux advantage). Regards software builds why not just use docker and rule out your underlying OS?
| Guy_Incognito wrote: | | My job is building and maintaining embedded Linux distros where almost everything is being done manually, but I really have problem with applying the same logic to the desktop PC. That's why I don't even try newer Slackware versions, fuck it, if you cannot develop an elegant dependency and update system for 20 years, then you can just shut your business and go doing something else. |
Good points, I like the simplicity though, I run mass storage and all my media center needs on slackware 13. Its rock solid, I never have to touch it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Invasor
Moderator
Posts: 7638
Location: On the road
|
| Posted: Tue, 29th Mar 2016 19:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy_Incognito wrote: | | Also, the rolling Arch? So I get to work one day, let it update and end up with broken system so I have to spend the next several hours fixing it? No thanks, I have real work to focus on. You just can't bash Windows 10 concept of forced and poorly tested updates, and then recommend Arch. |
I never had a really broken system with arch updates. Yes, there were issues, but nothing lethal. Meanwhile windows 10 had two meltdowns...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
, could see the same thing for a diehard Win7 user hit by forced Win10 upgrade.
