6 ms·

Your comment is more depressing in my opinion, as it shows that it's still typical with the linux to blame users. Software is there to be used by humans, if you

Your comment is more depressing in my opinion, as it shows that it's still typical with the linux to blame users. Software is there to be used by humans, if you put the blame on your users, you have actually failed to design the software correctly. Why blame someone for wanting to install linux on apple hardware (which btw is often better supported than other hardware)? Why blame someone developing 3D acceleration for virtual machines for wanting to have a GUI on the server that contains test VMs? Why blame someone for being annoyed having to know the difference between 3 package manager programs? Why blame someone for talking about the usability of command line options, of which command length certainly is a part?

alkz 10y ago
What does apple do in order to help support their hardware on Linux? nothing. It's all coming from reverse engineering efforts, correct me if I'm wrong. You can't expect it to work flawlessly. He's installing the mac mini server in order to run jenkins, redmine and backup. Why would you need a GUI for that?Fortunately he doesn't say anywhere he's going to run VMs on that 4GB ram machine. I blame laziness. I blame not trying to understand why new programs were written instead of merging new features in old ones. Or failing to appreciate an OS that at least has a package manager which is not a third party one. But then well, you know what they say. Unix IS user friendly, it just chooses its friends. And I like Linux like that.
mSparks 10y ago
apple go to a lot of effort to make only their software work on their hardware, and vice versa, the days of the linux crowd caring enough to test it have long since passed. whats the point in having a gui installed on a machine that by definition has no keyboard mouse or moniter (Aka a server) they arent 3 "package managers". yum is a package manager, rpm is a package installer and dnf is a proposed replacement for yum. fyi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy nearly all linux commands can be completed with around 4 key presses. e.g. aptTAB should give you apt-get
- laumars 10y ago
  I don't disagree with your points but your aptTAB example isn't quite right as apt has a number of tools with that prefix (apt-get, apt-cache, apt-key, etc). Plus there's aptitude too. In fact I often set aliases for apt-get and apt-cache because of apt breaking the 4 key press / tab rule you raised.
  - alkz 10y ago
    or you can use just the "apt" command to search/install/upgrade/remove packages nowadays
    - laumars 10y ago
      I did not know there was a new apt command. Thanks for the heads up
michaelmrose 10y ago
Point by point. - If he has a recent model Macbook its KNOWN to be problematic. Searching "2016 macbook linux" most of the top results are about how it doesn't work well. He specifically says he assumed because redhat offered it that it worked with linux. When you can't spend 30 seconds researching your development machine it might be your fault. - Server guis are known to be limited, hard to automate and just generally inefficient desiring a gui for your server is normally a sign that you just aren't very good. - Users don't have to use ANY command line package managers there is in fact a gui for that if they prefer. If they choose wholly of their own accord to use a command line package manager they probably ought to read the relevant help document https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_management_system https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_management_system which makes the usage of the relevant tools pretty clear. I don't think its untoward that red hat employees that wish to set up Fedora servers be expected to read documentation.
- legulere 10y ago
  > a sign that you just aren't very good. Another attack on users, this time pretty direct. I won't discuss the other points as it's again just shifting blame. The reality is that with Desktop Linux there's nobody taking responsibility that things actually work.
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    You mean you wont address them because you cannot I presume? The critique is aimed at desktop Linux as a whole but is 99% is about how fedora works on his particular known to be problematic hardware. Fedora is first of all an unstable test bed for a commercial product running on hardware known to be problematic and the user is a red hat developer. I realized I had more useful things to do than beta test rhel in 2011 and I started buying hardware that works well with linux in 2003. Not knowing to how do this is certainly a forgivable thing in joe random business user but it becomes ridiculous when we are talking about a red hat dev. If a device doesn't work with its target platform be it windows, Linux, or mac you blame the oem. In this case whose job do you imagine is it to donate free labor to a multi billion dollar juggernaut to ensure their machines work well with Linux? Given the benefit Apple has derived from open source software it would be nice if they would help but they certainly have no real obligation nor do open source devs whose time is inherently a limited resource. In the end Linux has plenty of room for improvement but supporting everyone's hardware for free with finite dev resources just isn't a rational or achievable goal and lampooning linux as a whole because fedora doesn't work on your mac isn't even useful dialogue. Rational actors will react to this by reasonably picking hardware that is known to be well supported. Irrational actors will continue to complain on the Internet.
forgottenpass 10y ago
Software is there to be used by humans, if you put the blame on your users, you have actually failed to design the software correctly. I understand the idealistic goal that all software be turn-key simple for every user and every use case. But even if we assume it's a plausible, reachable goal, I just can't get on board with blaming the people working towards this for the failure of not being done. We're simply not there yet. We've barely even started. I can simultaneously respect the notion that we should be striving towards it as a goal, while still having practical expectations towards the experts of today that have to interact with systems that are imperfect enough to require expert users. We only have a few warm bubbles where interaction are easy. And there are still expectations of the users, the bar is just lower. Even the most-comfortable of tools makes demands of the users' literacy and ability to figure out how to carry out their particular goals. And we paradoxically put blame on expert users when they use those environments and want to be able, or (more ominously) allowed to do the kinds of things they know are possible but not supported. So I can sympathize that the tools suck. I get livid at the limitations of my tools too. I can share in the frustration of fresh new roadblocks and suddenly having to learn something new. I hate hitting that kind of roadblock. But I have a hard time getting on board assigning blame when I'm a colleague of the people working to solving these problems, and I don't have the answer either.
- legulere 10y ago
  This isn't about things that might be feasible or not, but about pretty basic things that work in windows and/or macOS without problems for years. I also applaud to people working to improve the linux desktop experience, especially if they do so unpaid. But one has to accept that it's still pretty bad. Just think if someone would want to sell you a product with all the same bugs. Often if you point out the weak parts like the article does, you will get attacked as being the fault. Or the blame gets put to other external parties like Apple. And I really think that this hostility is one of the greatest problems in the linux community. I hope it should be clear that I also don't like putting blame on people, and I think there needs to be some collective taking responsibility by the linux community. If someone has problems the answer to that shouldn't be RTFM and PEBKAC, but questions if those issues can be averted directly in software.

alkz 10y ago

What does apple do in order to help support their hardware on Linux? nothing. It's all coming from reverse engineering efforts, correct me if I'm wrong. You can't expect it to work flawlessly. He's installing the mac mini server in order to run jenkins, redmine and backup. Why would you need a GUI for that?Fortunately he doesn't say anywhere he's going to run VMs on that 4GB ram machine. I blame laziness. I blame not trying to understand why new programs were written instead of merging new features in old ones. Or failing to appreciate an OS that at least has a package manager which is not a third party one. But then well, you know what they say. Unix IS user friendly, it just chooses its friends. And I like Linux like that.

mSparks 10y ago

apple go to a lot of effort to make only their software work on their hardware, and vice versa, the days of the linux crowd caring enough to test it have long since passed. whats the point in having a gui installed on a machine that by definition has no keyboard mouse or moniter (Aka a server) they arent 3 "package managers". yum is a package manager, rpm is a package installer and dnf is a proposed replacement for yum. fyi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy nearly all linux commands can be completed with around 4 key presses. e.g. aptTAB should give you apt-get

laumars 10y ago
I don't disagree with your points but your aptTAB example isn't quite right as apt has a number of tools with that prefix (apt-get, apt-cache, apt-key, etc). Plus there's aptitude too. In fact I often set aliases for apt-get and apt-cache because of apt breaking the 4 key press / tab rule you raised.
- alkz 10y ago
  or you can use just the "apt" command to search/install/upgrade/remove packages nowadays
  - laumars 10y ago
    I did not know there was a new apt command. Thanks for the heads up

michaelmrose 10y ago

Point by point. - If he has a recent model Macbook its KNOWN to be problematic. Searching "2016 macbook linux" most of the top results are about how it doesn't work well. He specifically says he assumed because redhat offered it that it worked with linux. When you can't spend 30 seconds researching your development machine it might be your fault. - Server guis are known to be limited, hard to automate and just generally inefficient desiring a gui for your server is normally a sign that you just aren't very good. - Users don't have to use ANY command line package managers there is in fact a gui for that if they prefer. If they choose wholly of their own accord to use a command line package manager they probably ought to read the relevant help document https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_management_system https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_management_system which makes the usage of the relevant tools pretty clear. I don't think its untoward that red hat employees that wish to set up Fedora servers be expected to read documentation.

legulere 10y ago
> a sign that you just aren't very good. Another attack on users, this time pretty direct. I won't discuss the other points as it's again just shifting blame. The reality is that with Desktop Linux there's nobody taking responsibility that things actually work.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  You mean you wont address them because you cannot I presume? The critique is aimed at desktop Linux as a whole but is 99% is about how fedora works on his particular known to be problematic hardware. Fedora is first of all an unstable test bed for a commercial product running on hardware known to be problematic and the user is a red hat developer. I realized I had more useful things to do than beta test rhel in 2011 and I started buying hardware that works well with linux in 2003. Not knowing to how do this is certainly a forgivable thing in joe random business user but it becomes ridiculous when we are talking about a red hat dev. If a device doesn't work with its target platform be it windows, Linux, or mac you blame the oem. In this case whose job do you imagine is it to donate free labor to a multi billion dollar juggernaut to ensure their machines work well with Linux? Given the benefit Apple has derived from open source software it would be nice if they would help but they certainly have no real obligation nor do open source devs whose time is inherently a limited resource. In the end Linux has plenty of room for improvement but supporting everyone's hardware for free with finite dev resources just isn't a rational or achievable goal and lampooning linux as a whole because fedora doesn't work on your mac isn't even useful dialogue. Rational actors will react to this by reasonably picking hardware that is known to be well supported. Irrational actors will continue to complain on the Internet.

forgottenpass 10y ago

Software is there to be used by humans, if you put the blame on your users, you have actually failed to design the software correctly. I understand the idealistic goal that all software be turn-key simple for every user and every use case. But even if we assume it's a plausible, reachable goal, I just can't get on board with blaming the people working towards this for the failure of not being done. We're simply not there yet. We've barely even started. I can simultaneously respect the notion that we should be striving towards it as a goal, while still having practical expectations towards the experts of today that have to interact with systems that are imperfect enough to require expert users. We only have a few warm bubbles where interaction are easy. And there are still expectations of the users, the bar is just lower. Even the most-comfortable of tools makes demands of the users' literacy and ability to figure out how to carry out their particular goals. And we paradoxically put blame on expert users when they use those environments and want to be able, or (more ominously) allowed to do the kinds of things they know are possible but not supported. So I can sympathize that the tools suck. I get livid at the limitations of my tools too. I can share in the frustration of fresh new roadblocks and suddenly having to learn something new. I hate hitting that kind of roadblock. But I have a hard time getting on board assigning blame when I'm a colleague of the people working to solving these problems, and I don't have the answer either.

legulere 10y ago
This isn't about things that might be feasible or not, but about pretty basic things that work in windows and/or macOS without problems for years. I also applaud to people working to improve the linux desktop experience, especially if they do so unpaid. But one has to accept that it's still pretty bad. Just think if someone would want to sell you a product with all the same bugs. Often if you point out the weak parts like the article does, you will get attacked as being the fault. Or the blame gets put to other external parties like Apple. And I really think that this hostility is one of the greatest problems in the linux community. I hope it should be clear that I also don't like putting blame on people, and I think there needs to be some collective taking responsibility by the linux community. If someone has problems the answer to that shouldn't be RTFM and PEBKAC, but questions if those issues can be averted directly in software.