5 ms·

I will get irritated with the flaws in Windows; The ones listed in the article and more. I will also get irritated with the flaws of Linux and its flavors! Some

I will get irritated with the flaws in Windows; The ones listed in the article and more. I will also get irritated with the flaws of Linux and its flavors! Some examples - The ABI diaspora - Sudo nominally being for special/power use cases, but being required for many things - Doesn't feel like it's aimed at single-user PCs, and has associated UX problems - Non-standard hardware has limited support. Summarized: I feel like Linux has some deep philosophical design differences from what I look for in a computer. I'm not trying to administer anything; I just want to write and launch software.

megaloblasto 1y ago
Linux has UX problems isn't quite a correct statement because Linux has many, fully flexible user interfaces that can be customized however you like. It's possible that you are just experiencing friction moving to Linux because you are used to MS. Easily writing and launching software is something Linux excels at.
- the__alchemist 1y ago
  Context: I've been using linux for 20 years, and do currently at my job. "Linux has many, fully flexible user interfaces that can be customized however you like." feels like a "you're holding it wrong", or "chose the wrong distro". I don't want to go into the details, but I regularly experience UX problems in Ubuntu. Even things like reading/writing a USB port requires sudo, or editing system config files, which is wild to me. And adding a trailing newline to the config file in question will prevent your GUI from booting. Adding an item to the PATH is a combo of unintuitive, or filled with incorrect instructions (Including Go's home page CAO yesterday...). Or, software I write can't be launched without using having the user go to the CLI, or creating a GUI-specific config file and placing it in a certain location. This leads to the line I hear regularly "You should publish your software on the distro-specific app store", or "You should only install software from the app store". Which immediately leads me to think I have a use-case mismatch.
  - hulitu 1y ago
    > And adding a trailing newline to the config file in question will prevent your GUI from booting. Now do the same in Windows. Messing with system files, without knowing what you are doing, is a recipe to disaster.
    - the__alchemist 1y ago
      > Now do the same in Windows. Messing with system files, without knowing what you are doing, is a recipe to disaster. I think I didn't communicate something clearly: My concern isn't that misediting a system file causes disaster. It's that you need to edit system files to do routine things. On Windows, the solution is simple: USB/serial works without editing system files or requiring launching the program via CLI with sudo. You double-click the program in GUI, and it works.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - megaloblasto 1y ago
    Got it, but those are more Ubuntu specific qualms that you have, not arguments against Linux in general. I use NixOS and I don't have UX problems because my UX is fully customized to work exactly how I want. Plus, for every but of friction you may experience in Linix, the cons of Microsoft are much greater. They have no concern for your privacy, and exploit their workers and the environment. Last time I used Microsoft (~8 years ago) I couldn't get that malware OS to stop forcefully suggesting and using their cloud services automatically. There are many things that MS does that are just unacceptable.
  - esafak 1y ago
    Linux lacks designers and product managers; it's very programmer heavy, and this is the consequence.
    - ItsBob 1y ago
      > Linux lacks designers and product managers I don't think that would be enough: adding those people to a team won't matter if the overall vision isn't there. It needs, and I'm about to choke on my words here, a Steve Jobs at the helm saying "No, it needs to be like this". Yes, I know that won't achieve perfection but there needs to be a coherent vision of what the OS is trying to be, or who it is aiming for. Linux, right now is pure techie-driven. There isn't any vision at all! Every distro is subtly different and reflects the wants of the team that work on it. It needs a company to take a distro and pick a direction, e.g. Linux for normies would have to remove almost all traces of command line, hard disk partitions, configs, package managers etc. All that shit would have to be hidden away, still in the background and available if wanted, but to use the OS it should not be a requirement. Anyway, Linux is what it is :)
bbkane 1y ago
See my comment above, but I'm in the same boat. Linux definitely has problems that need to be solved, but unlike Windows its less likely to "change underneath me" once I've solved those problems to my satisfaction. In fact, a Windows update breaking my desktop is what facilitated my switch to Linux. I'm also more willing to solve problems in Linux. Because I primarily write web software, I've also found "Linux debugging" skills more useful to learn than "Windows debugging skills" - the Linux skills tend to translate almost directly to my career. And it usually feels worthwhile to contribute good bug reports/fixes upstream; in stark contrast to Windows OS issues (and some of the more popular Windows software).
troupo 1y ago
> Sudo nominally being for special/power use cases, but being required for many things Just the fact that installing user software still requires sudo in most distributions is very irritating to me. Hence the rise of `curl <something> | bash` I think
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Just the fact that installing user software still requires sudo in most distributions The permissions are required because you will put the files in places that can be seen by all users of the system. It's not different from UAC on Windows getting in the way of installing "for all users".
  - troupo 1y ago
    > The permissions are required because you will put the files in places that can be seen by all users of the system. Why does software installed by a user puts stuff where it will be seen by all users? > It's not different from UAC on Windows getting in the way of installing "for all users". When I'm not installing "for all users" UAC isn't there, right? Edit For the purposes of installing software Linux is a single-user OS masquerading as multi-user.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > Why does software installed by a user puts stuff where it will be seen by all users? Because the software package has its install paths predetermined. But other distribution methods absolutely are available. Flatpak works much more like what you're accustomed to; you can supply --user at the command line. Of course, this also means you get the bloat you're accustomed to; it still tries to share dependencies, but it's much harder in that world. Also, because it is a good thing to think twice before installing any software. > When I'm not installing "for all users" UAC isn't there, right? Yes, and you can correspondingly put an Appimage in ~/.local/bin (or anywhere, if you don't care about having it on your PATH) without sudo, or run flatpak install --user without sudo. > For the purposes of installing software Linux is a single-user OS masquerading as multi-user. I am the only actual person who uses my system, but I made 7 user accounts (so far) and use at least 2 of them regularly. To say nothing of all the non-privileged users the system creates automatically, specifically so that certain background processes can run without violating privacy or corrupting anything important if they go haywire.
pessimizer 1y ago
These seem very trivial, except the ABI (but only for people marketing software) and the last one, which is simply untrue. If you absolutely refuse to handle your own system's security ("Enter a password to do something on my own computer? No thank you!"), you really should leave the management of your computer to Microsoft, and ask their permission personally to view your own files. They'll faceid you, consider the merits of your request, and decide how much access you should have to your own life. In that way you can avoid sudo, or the concept of a multiuser computer entirely. As for the last one, it is simply untrue. Linux supports as much as or more hardware than Windows. Windows will more likely support the latest greatest stuff because people don't release hardware specs. But once Linux catches up, it keeps that hardware compatibility longer, and can always be reverted back to by using an old kernel even a decade or two after a piece of hardware is dropped.
bigyabai 1y ago
All of those are express non-issues for me. I feel bad for anyone shackled to Windows over such a minor gripe.
zahlman 1y ago
> Sudo nominally being for special/power use cases, but being required for many things Many things are special/power use cases. Freedom is power, and with power comes responsibility. > Doesn't feel like it's aimed at single-user PCs It isn't. But what you think of as problems, I consider opportunities. Switching between multiple user accounts is useful for identity management. > I'm not trying to administer anything; I just want to write and launch software. If you test and package and distribute your software, you necessarily administrate the environments in which the tests and builds occur.
CoolCold 1y ago
Indeed, I agree here, Linux, and basically Unix was not designed to work without administrator. I would argue that more time was spent on thinking "how we do hotplug CPU on our machine" than on "how that user will work with USB drives".
port11 1y ago
My Logitech keyboard and mouse connect perfectly at boot, but never reconnect again if Linux goes to sleep; unless I change the RF plug to another USB port, but eventually I run out of ports and must reboot. Several online solutions claim "you just have to…" and how it's your fault for buying Logitech. Until Linux can give me a consistent basic experience, I'm not sold. And I try to migrate almost every year.

megaloblasto 1y ago

Linux has UX problems isn't quite a correct statement because Linux has many, fully flexible user interfaces that can be customized however you like. It's possible that you are just experiencing friction moving to Linux because you are used to MS. Easily writing and launching software is something Linux excels at.

the__alchemist 1y ago
Context: I've been using linux for 20 years, and do currently at my job. "Linux has many, fully flexible user interfaces that can be customized however you like." feels like a "you're holding it wrong", or "chose the wrong distro". I don't want to go into the details, but I regularly experience UX problems in Ubuntu. Even things like reading/writing a USB port requires sudo, or editing system config files, which is wild to me. And adding a trailing newline to the config file in question will prevent your GUI from booting. Adding an item to the PATH is a combo of unintuitive, or filled with incorrect instructions (Including Go's home page CAO yesterday...). Or, software I write can't be launched without using having the user go to the CLI, or creating a GUI-specific config file and placing it in a certain location. This leads to the line I hear regularly "You should publish your software on the distro-specific app store", or "You should only install software from the app store". Which immediately leads me to think I have a use-case mismatch.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > And adding a trailing newline to the config file in question will prevent your GUI from booting. Now do the same in Windows. Messing with system files, without knowing what you are doing, is a recipe to disaster.
  - the__alchemist 1y ago
    > Now do the same in Windows. Messing with system files, without knowing what you are doing, is a recipe to disaster. I think I didn't communicate something clearly: My concern isn't that misediting a system file causes disaster. It's that you need to edit system files to do routine things. On Windows, the solution is simple: USB/serial works without editing system files or requiring launching the program via CLI with sudo. You double-click the program in GUI, and it works.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- megaloblasto 1y ago
  Got it, but those are more Ubuntu specific qualms that you have, not arguments against Linux in general. I use NixOS and I don't have UX problems because my UX is fully customized to work exactly how I want. Plus, for every but of friction you may experience in Linix, the cons of Microsoft are much greater. They have no concern for your privacy, and exploit their workers and the environment. Last time I used Microsoft (~8 years ago) I couldn't get that malware OS to stop forcefully suggesting and using their cloud services automatically. There are many things that MS does that are just unacceptable.
- esafak 1y ago
  Linux lacks designers and product managers; it's very programmer heavy, and this is the consequence.
  - ItsBob 1y ago
    > Linux lacks designers and product managers I don't think that would be enough: adding those people to a team won't matter if the overall vision isn't there. It needs, and I'm about to choke on my words here, a Steve Jobs at the helm saying "No, it needs to be like this". Yes, I know that won't achieve perfection but there needs to be a coherent vision of what the OS is trying to be, or who it is aiming for. Linux, right now is pure techie-driven. There isn't any vision at all! Every distro is subtly different and reflects the wants of the team that work on it. It needs a company to take a distro and pick a direction, e.g. Linux for normies would have to remove almost all traces of command line, hard disk partitions, configs, package managers etc. All that shit would have to be hidden away, still in the background and available if wanted, but to use the OS it should not be a requirement. Anyway, Linux is what it is :)

bbkane 1y ago

See my comment above, but I'm in the same boat. Linux definitely has problems that need to be solved, but unlike Windows its less likely to "change underneath me" once I've solved those problems to my satisfaction. In fact, a Windows update breaking my desktop is what facilitated my switch to Linux. I'm also more willing to solve problems in Linux. Because I primarily write web software, I've also found "Linux debugging" skills more useful to learn than "Windows debugging skills" - the Linux skills tend to translate almost directly to my career. And it usually feels worthwhile to contribute good bug reports/fixes upstream; in stark contrast to Windows OS issues (and some of the more popular Windows software).

troupo 1y ago

> Sudo nominally being for special/power use cases, but being required for many things Just the fact that installing user software still requires sudo in most distributions is very irritating to me. Hence the rise of `curl <something> | bash` I think

zahlman 1y ago
> Just the fact that installing user software still requires sudo in most distributions The permissions are required because you will put the files in places that can be seen by all users of the system. It's not different from UAC on Windows getting in the way of installing "for all users".
- troupo 1y ago
  > The permissions are required because you will put the files in places that can be seen by all users of the system. Why does software installed by a user puts stuff where it will be seen by all users? > It's not different from UAC on Windows getting in the way of installing "for all users". When I'm not installing "for all users" UAC isn't there, right? Edit For the purposes of installing software Linux is a single-user OS masquerading as multi-user.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Why does software installed by a user puts stuff where it will be seen by all users? Because the software package has its install paths predetermined. But other distribution methods absolutely are available. Flatpak works much more like what you're accustomed to; you can supply --user at the command line. Of course, this also means you get the bloat you're accustomed to; it still tries to share dependencies, but it's much harder in that world. Also, because it is a good thing to think twice before installing any software. > When I'm not installing "for all users" UAC isn't there, right? Yes, and you can correspondingly put an Appimage in ~/.local/bin (or anywhere, if you don't care about having it on your PATH) without sudo, or run flatpak install --user without sudo. > For the purposes of installing software Linux is a single-user OS masquerading as multi-user. I am the only actual person who uses my system, but I made 7 user accounts (so far) and use at least 2 of them regularly. To say nothing of all the non-privileged users the system creates automatically, specifically so that certain background processes can run without violating privacy or corrupting anything important if they go haywire.

pessimizer 1y ago

These seem very trivial, except the ABI (but only for people marketing software) and the last one, which is simply untrue. If you absolutely refuse to handle your own system's security ("Enter a password to do something on my own computer? No thank you!"), you really should leave the management of your computer to Microsoft, and ask their permission personally to view your own files. They'll faceid you, consider the merits of your request, and decide how much access you should have to your own life. In that way you can avoid sudo, or the concept of a multiuser computer entirely. As for the last one, it is simply untrue. Linux supports as much as or more hardware than Windows. Windows will more likely support the latest greatest stuff because people don't release hardware specs. But once Linux catches up, it keeps that hardware compatibility longer, and can always be reverted back to by using an old kernel even a decade or two after a piece of hardware is dropped.

bigyabai 1y ago

All of those are express non-issues for me. I feel bad for anyone shackled to Windows over such a minor gripe.

zahlman 1y ago

> Sudo nominally being for special/power use cases, but being required for many things Many things are special/power use cases. Freedom is power, and with power comes responsibility. > Doesn't feel like it's aimed at single-user PCs It isn't. But what you think of as problems, I consider opportunities. Switching between multiple user accounts is useful for identity management. > I'm not trying to administer anything; I just want to write and launch software. If you test and package and distribute your software, you necessarily administrate the environments in which the tests and builds occur.

CoolCold 1y ago

Indeed, I agree here, Linux, and basically Unix was not designed to work without administrator. I would argue that more time was spent on thinking "how we do hotplug CPU on our machine" than on "how that user will work with USB drives".

port11 1y ago

My Logitech keyboard and mouse connect perfectly at boot, but never reconnect again if Linux goes to sleep; unless I change the RF plug to another USB port, but eventually I run out of ports and must reboot. Several online solutions claim "you just have to…" and how it's your fault for buying Logitech. Until Linux can give me a consistent basic experience, I'm not sold. And I try to migrate almost every year.