4 ms·

Linux is overrated. Other problems include: o Complex, confusing terminology including multiple non-obvious names for various components. o Huge number, abou

by Hello71 12y ago

Linux is overrated. Other problems include: o Complex, confusing terminology including multiple non-obvious names for various components. o Huge number, about 2000, of commands with many sub-commands that often do non-obvious, even unrelated things. o There are numerous commands to do similar, overlapping but nonetheless different tasks. o A supposed virtue of Linux is that it makes it extremely easy to create "mounts." This often leads to a proliferation of mounts, making locating files extremely difficult. o Cryptic "paths" for identifying files instead of sequential numbers for individual files as well as snapshots of the entire project. o These many flaws in Linux and its command line interface have resulted in a proliferation of third-party add-on tools like GNOME, KDE, many of which fail to fully wrap the complexity of Linux forcing users to both master the wrapper tool and the Linux command line especially on more complex projects. Some of these GUI/wrapper tools like GNOME seem to have serious bugs as well. o Lack of backward compatibility with real mode-style version control systems like DOS. Instead of building on 20+ years of success and experience with DOS-style operating systems, but extending them sensibly for distributed projects, Linux took a "reinvent the wheel badly" approach. o A fanatical, cult-like following apparently mesmerized by Linus Torvalds that is unable to recognize or acknowledge the many obvious problems with Linux. Yours truly, Inspire satire

NumberSix 12y ago
Actually many of these are genuine problems with Linux specifically and Unix in general. This is one of the reasons Microsoft Windows dominates. For example, cryptic non-English commands like grep, ls, rm, etc. make the Unix command line difficult to learn, remember, and use. One exception: Despite their faults, the Linux/Unix file paths are far more human readable than a Git SHA (hexadecimal code). The issue with Git versus RCS-style version control systems is that a RCS-style sequential numbering scheme such as 1.2.3 (major release number, minor release number, patch) is much more human readable than a SHA (a3fee20). The analogy in the satire misses the mark. Linux actually has suffered from a fanatical cult-like following mesmerized by Linus Torvalds that often was (still is sometimes) unable to recognize and acknowledge weaknesses of Linux versus Microsoft Windows. Linux has had to play catch up to provide a comparable GUI, installers for software packages, and other usability features in Windows and the Mac. Sincerely, Bit by Git
- not_kurt_godel 12y ago
  Those are definitely fair criticisms. However I personally believe that the foundation of both Linux and Git are very solid and that's why I will always prefer them.
- shadowmint 12y ago
  oh come on, windows dominates the desktop market purely for historical reasons. It has nothing to with windows' developer tools, which are significantly more obscure than the unix equivalents. Have you written powershell scripts? How about .bat files? Youre partially right; some unix tools are obscure, and have odd invokation syntax (find for example)... but I think you've completely lost the plot (or never actually developed for the platform) if you think windows has done a better job.
  - NumberSix 12y ago
    In the 1990's and early 00's, Linux was significantly more stable (and cheaper) than Windows. The infamous "blue screen of death" occurred frequently. Linux gained a lot in server-land compared to Windows for this reason. Windows has gotten more reliable in the last decade. It is rare that it out and out crashes anymore, but it still seems to start doing odd things that go away after rebooting. I would still pick Linux for reliability of the underlying OS any day. On the other hand, Linux was (still is) difficult for a typical end-user on the desktop. It was easier to install and operate software due to the Windows GUI etc. Linux has played catch up with GUI desktops etc. As far as development tools (I have developed both Windows and Unix software), Microsoft Visual Studio has some very nice features such as IntelliSense compared to the Unix/Linux vi/vim and emacs tools. Notably, emacs has the CEDET project which is working hard to add IntelliSense like capabilities to emacs. Bit by Git

by Hello71 12y ago

NumberSix 12y ago

Actually many of these are genuine problems with Linux specifically and Unix in general. This is one of the reasons Microsoft Windows dominates. For example, cryptic non-English commands like grep, ls, rm, etc. make the Unix command line difficult to learn, remember, and use. One exception: Despite their faults, the Linux/Unix file paths are far more human readable than a Git SHA (hexadecimal code). The issue with Git versus RCS-style version control systems is that a RCS-style sequential numbering scheme such as 1.2.3 (major release number, minor release number, patch) is much more human readable than a SHA (a3fee20). The analogy in the satire misses the mark. Linux actually has suffered from a fanatical cult-like following mesmerized by Linus Torvalds that often was (still is sometimes) unable to recognize and acknowledge weaknesses of Linux versus Microsoft Windows. Linux has had to play catch up to provide a comparable GUI, installers for software packages, and other usability features in Windows and the Mac. Sincerely, Bit by Git

not_kurt_godel 12y ago
Those are definitely fair criticisms. However I personally believe that the foundation of both Linux and Git are very solid and that's why I will always prefer them.
shadowmint 12y ago
oh come on, windows dominates the desktop market purely for historical reasons. It has nothing to with windows' developer tools, which are significantly more obscure than the unix equivalents. Have you written powershell scripts? How about .bat files? Youre partially right; some unix tools are obscure, and have odd invokation syntax (find for example)... but I think you've completely lost the plot (or never actually developed for the platform) if you think windows has done a better job.
- NumberSix 12y ago
  In the 1990's and early 00's, Linux was significantly more stable (and cheaper) than Windows. The infamous "blue screen of death" occurred frequently. Linux gained a lot in server-land compared to Windows for this reason. Windows has gotten more reliable in the last decade. It is rare that it out and out crashes anymore, but it still seems to start doing odd things that go away after rebooting. I would still pick Linux for reliability of the underlying OS any day. On the other hand, Linux was (still is) difficult for a typical end-user on the desktop. It was easier to install and operate software due to the Windows GUI etc. Linux has played catch up with GUI desktops etc. As far as development tools (I have developed both Windows and Unix software), Microsoft Visual Studio has some very nice features such as IntelliSense compared to the Unix/Linux vi/vim and emacs tools. Notably, emacs has the CEDET project which is working hard to add IntelliSense like capabilities to emacs. Bit by Git