6 ms·

Describing Linux as "horrendously difficult to use" is disingenuous at best. There are so many different variations between distros and what people mean when th

Describing Linux as "horrendously difficult to use" is disingenuous at best. There are so many different variations between distros and what people mean when they say "Linux" that to categorize them all in this tone is hardly professional. I'm not familiar with betanews.com, but it does claim to be a tech site.

rbanffy 9y ago
Anyone who says this has never tried to troubleshoot a Windows Wifi connection...
_asummers 9y ago
Knowing how to use Linux is easy if you have a decent mental model of CPU, memory, hard drive, network, drivers. Most people outside of tech don't and would be hopelessly lost debugging many Linux issues., the same way they're lost debugging iOS issues or Windows issues. That all said, it has gotten much more user friendly with e.g. Ubuntu over the past decade or so and hopefully the aforementioned state of affairs begins to change. The language chosen is harsh, but outside of our community, I'd argue that's commonly true without massive training for users.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Knowing how to use Linux is easy if you have a decent mental model of CPU, memory, hard drive, network, drivers. ... and of Linux internal unstructure and how it came to be. As someone who grew up with Windows and only later started to use Linux more and more, I'm still puzzled by the latter whenever something breaks. I'm no longer annoyed the way I used to be, though, because I understood the crucial thing: Linux distros are big hodgepodges of components. A distro is nothing but someone's opinionated vision of what software should be put on top of the kernel, and thus depending of the distro, version and the phase of the moon, you get different combination of stuff. And each piece of software has its own quirks, its own way of management, stores configuration in its own format in its own special place, etc. I suppose it's fine for an ever-evolving landscape of solutions, but for a casual user, it made it impossible to reconfigure pretty much anything in the system without having Google on-hand (preferably on a secondary machine, in case you break something).
  - kpil 9y ago
    I can say the exact same about windows. It's confusing as hell, a mishmash of weird semi-trustable drivers and utilities with no overall plan. For a casual user it's impossible without google to figure out how to change simple settings like making alt-tab stop being on crack and disappear after 0.5 seconds of indecision. Or figure out why plugging in a headphone requires a confirmation on some machines, but not on others... Etc.
rayiner 9y ago
That's part of the problem. You face a problem, look online for a solution, and find answers that pertain only to different distros than what you're using. It hasn't gotten much better as far as I can tell. I used Linux as my primary desktop for a few years around 2002-2005 (Red Hat, Fedora, and Ubuntu). Back then, configuration was mostly automatic, though you had to do stuff like install the NVIDIA kernel blob manually. When things broke, it was at least possible to fix it by dropping into the CLI. I recently tried to set up Fedora running a VNC or RDP server, and after a couple of days of futzing I gave up. I guess Wayland has managed to regress on that from where X was a decade ago? Systemd also made startup issues impossible to debug, and also apparently f--ked up with how log files are stored? It's a mess.
- kevingadd 9y ago
  My experiences are similar. The more time passes the harder (???) it gets to work with Linux. I had to bump my Linode machines forward to avoid getting left behind by the Ubuntu upgrade train and the transition to systemd broke all my services and made everything harder to debug. Not pleasant. I used to operate under the assumption that I could sit down and use Linux if I needed to - and I started a job that required just that, and it was fine. I'm increasingly less certain of that, because things seem to change rapidly and it's very hard to find documentation that is clear and up-to-date. It's already hard enough to figure out how to do things like add a shortcut to Ubuntu's app launcher.
  - walterbell 9y ago
    Debian Wheezy (systemd-free) is still receiving security updates. Devuan provides systemd-free Debian.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    > made everything harder to debug It's not harder, it's just different. As a counterpoint, I never figured out how sysvinit works and got by with guesswork and Stack Overflow answers. And I hated how logs were scattered all over the place. Nowadays you have systemctl(1) and journalctl(1) which are exceptionally well-documented in their manpages, and now services and logs work the same all the time across all distros. (Not going to argue about journald's weird binary log format though. I don't get that. But at least it doesn't get in the way for me.)
netsec_burn 9y ago
I came here to comment the same thing. Have they even tried Ubuntu? Most Debian derivatives are remarkably easy to use, if not easier than Windows (single GUI to install software, no worries about finding the right drivers 99% of the time).
II2II 9y ago
It is filler for an article that covers part of one section of the AOSP documentation. I scanned the Kernel section of the AOSP documentation and it appears to be a far more comprehensive summary of the new requirements, as well as some nice background information (such as the kernel development process). The overview to that section is here: https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/ https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/
davemp 9y ago
Honestly if someone had no prior experience with opperating systems, Ubuntu is probably easier to learn than windows.
orbifold 9y ago
Try getting any moderately complicated software to work on more than one distribution at once. There is a reason why people keep inventing variations of https://github.com/LLNL/spack https://github.com/LLNL/spack, docker, virtual machines. Distribution packages are usually horribly outdated, broken or both (Arch Linux is one slightly better example). Professional software on Linux is usually tied to some old RedHat Enterprise Linux Distribution (in the case of Scientific Linux, version 6 was based on a RedHat enterprise version from 2010-11-10), which ships with say gcc 4.4.7, so if you want to use any modern C++ features you have to install your own compiler. It ships with an outdated Java version, so you have to install your own JDK.
- cat199 9y ago
  > Try getting any moderately complicated software to work on more than one distribution at once. Anyone concerned with ease of use wouldn't be doing this in the first place - and at the same time, people can Ubuntu and get a full environment for internet, media, etc. pretty much out of the box, with most other 'incompatibility' issues having to do with poor vendor support and having nothing to do with the system itself being hard to use.. I'm in agreement with the parent here - just because being a F1 car mechanic is difficult doesn't mean changing the oil in a Honda requires an expert and is difficult.. different actual tasks being performed...
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  AppImages are a way to allow devs to distribute linux software that will run on any linux machine, by packing in dependencies.
- hathawsh 9y ago
  That may be so, but it is unfortunate that the author tacked on a highly subjective first paragraph to an otherwise informative article. Who regards Linux as "horrendously difficult to use" and why? That's a strong statement that needs explicit justification or citation in any trustworthy publication. We shouldn't have to guess the author's intent. This article makes me not want to find out any more about this news site.
n4r9 9y ago
Technically the quote was "regarded as horrendously difficult to use." The question is really whether it's true in popular thought.
- cat199 9y ago
  conversely, windows is 'regarded as X' and macos is 'regarded as Y' - some of the critique here also falls on choosing to include such a statement, rather than the specifics of whether that statement is actually the author's opinion or not..
pier25 9y ago
I agree with your point, Linux is really broad. OTOH for a lot of users even Windows is "horrendously difficult to use".
valuearb 9y ago
All unixes are wonderfully difficult to use.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  With the exception of Apple and Google OSes, because being a UNIX is almost an implementation detail.

rbanffy 9y ago

Anyone who says this has never tried to troubleshoot a Windows Wifi connection...

_asummers 9y ago

Knowing how to use Linux is easy if you have a decent mental model of CPU, memory, hard drive, network, drivers. Most people outside of tech don't and would be hopelessly lost debugging many Linux issues., the same way they're lost debugging iOS issues or Windows issues. That all said, it has gotten much more user friendly with e.g. Ubuntu over the past decade or so and hopefully the aforementioned state of affairs begins to change. The language chosen is harsh, but outside of our community, I'd argue that's commonly true without massive training for users.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> Knowing how to use Linux is easy if you have a decent mental model of CPU, memory, hard drive, network, drivers. ... and of Linux internal unstructure and how it came to be. As someone who grew up with Windows and only later started to use Linux more and more, I'm still puzzled by the latter whenever something breaks. I'm no longer annoyed the way I used to be, though, because I understood the crucial thing: Linux distros are big hodgepodges of components. A distro is nothing but someone's opinionated vision of what software should be put on top of the kernel, and thus depending of the distro, version and the phase of the moon, you get different combination of stuff. And each piece of software has its own quirks, its own way of management, stores configuration in its own format in its own special place, etc. I suppose it's fine for an ever-evolving landscape of solutions, but for a casual user, it made it impossible to reconfigure pretty much anything in the system without having Google on-hand (preferably on a secondary machine, in case you break something).
- kpil 9y ago
  I can say the exact same about windows. It's confusing as hell, a mishmash of weird semi-trustable drivers and utilities with no overall plan. For a casual user it's impossible without google to figure out how to change simple settings like making alt-tab stop being on crack and disappear after 0.5 seconds of indecision. Or figure out why plugging in a headphone requires a confirmation on some machines, but not on others... Etc.

rayiner 9y ago

That's part of the problem. You face a problem, look online for a solution, and find answers that pertain only to different distros than what you're using. It hasn't gotten much better as far as I can tell. I used Linux as my primary desktop for a few years around 2002-2005 (Red Hat, Fedora, and Ubuntu). Back then, configuration was mostly automatic, though you had to do stuff like install the NVIDIA kernel blob manually. When things broke, it was at least possible to fix it by dropping into the CLI. I recently tried to set up Fedora running a VNC or RDP server, and after a couple of days of futzing I gave up. I guess Wayland has managed to regress on that from where X was a decade ago? Systemd also made startup issues impossible to debug, and also apparently f--ked up with how log files are stored? It's a mess.

kevingadd 9y ago
My experiences are similar. The more time passes the harder (???) it gets to work with Linux. I had to bump my Linode machines forward to avoid getting left behind by the Ubuntu upgrade train and the transition to systemd broke all my services and made everything harder to debug. Not pleasant. I used to operate under the assumption that I could sit down and use Linux if I needed to - and I started a job that required just that, and it was fine. I'm increasingly less certain of that, because things seem to change rapidly and it's very hard to find documentation that is clear and up-to-date. It's already hard enough to figure out how to do things like add a shortcut to Ubuntu's app launcher.
- walterbell 9y ago
  Debian Wheezy (systemd-free) is still receiving security updates. Devuan provides systemd-free Debian.
- majewsky 9y ago
  > made everything harder to debug It's not harder, it's just different. As a counterpoint, I never figured out how sysvinit works and got by with guesswork and Stack Overflow answers. And I hated how logs were scattered all over the place. Nowadays you have systemctl(1) and journalctl(1) which are exceptionally well-documented in their manpages, and now services and logs work the same all the time across all distros. (Not going to argue about journald's weird binary log format though. I don't get that. But at least it doesn't get in the way for me.)

netsec_burn 9y ago

I came here to comment the same thing. Have they even tried Ubuntu? Most Debian derivatives are remarkably easy to use, if not easier than Windows (single GUI to install software, no worries about finding the right drivers 99% of the time).

II2II 9y ago

It is filler for an article that covers part of one section of the AOSP documentation. I scanned the Kernel section of the AOSP documentation and it appears to be a far more comprehensive summary of the new requirements, as well as some nice background information (such as the kernel development process). The overview to that section is here: https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/ https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/

davemp 9y ago

Honestly if someone had no prior experience with opperating systems, Ubuntu is probably easier to learn than windows.

orbifold 9y ago

Try getting any moderately complicated software to work on more than one distribution at once. There is a reason why people keep inventing variations of https://github.com/LLNL/spack https://github.com/LLNL/spack, docker, virtual machines. Distribution packages are usually horribly outdated, broken or both (Arch Linux is one slightly better example). Professional software on Linux is usually tied to some old RedHat Enterprise Linux Distribution (in the case of Scientific Linux, version 6 was based on a RedHat enterprise version from 2010-11-10), which ships with say gcc 4.4.7, so if you want to use any modern C++ features you have to install your own compiler. It ships with an outdated Java version, so you have to install your own JDK.

cat199 9y ago
> Try getting any moderately complicated software to work on more than one distribution at once. Anyone concerned with ease of use wouldn't be doing this in the first place - and at the same time, people can Ubuntu and get a full environment for internet, media, etc. pretty much out of the box, with most other 'incompatibility' issues having to do with poor vendor support and having nothing to do with the system itself being hard to use.. I'm in agreement with the parent here - just because being a F1 car mechanic is difficult doesn't mean changing the oil in a Honda requires an expert and is difficult.. different actual tasks being performed...
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
AppImages are a way to allow devs to distribute linux software that will run on any linux machine, by packing in dependencies.
hathawsh 9y ago
That may be so, but it is unfortunate that the author tacked on a highly subjective first paragraph to an otherwise informative article. Who regards Linux as "horrendously difficult to use" and why? That's a strong statement that needs explicit justification or citation in any trustworthy publication. We shouldn't have to guess the author's intent. This article makes me not want to find out any more about this news site.

n4r9 9y ago

Technically the quote was "regarded as horrendously difficult to use." The question is really whether it's true in popular thought.

cat199 9y ago
conversely, windows is 'regarded as X' and macos is 'regarded as Y' - some of the critique here also falls on choosing to include such a statement, rather than the specifics of whether that statement is actually the author's opinion or not..

pier25 9y ago

I agree with your point, Linux is really broad. OTOH for a lot of users even Windows is "horrendously difficult to use".

valuearb 9y ago

All unixes are wonderfully difficult to use.

pjmlp 9y ago
With the exception of Apple and Google OSes, because being a UNIX is almost an implementation detail.