Is Linux For Losers?

Is Linux For Losers?
Daniel Lyons, 06.16.05, 6:00 PM ET

NEW YORK - Theo de Raadt is a pioneer of the open source software movement and a huge proponent of free software. But he is no fan of the open source Linux operating system.

"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"

De Raadt makes a rival open source operating system called OpenBSD. Unlike Linux, which is a clone of Unix, OpenBSD is based on an actual Unix variant called Berkeley Software Distribution. BSD powers two of the best operating systems in the world--Solaris from Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ) and OS X from Apple Computer (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ).
----------------------------------snip------------------
<http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html>

They're actually two separate things: Solaris is licensed from the original AT&T UNIX code. The BSDs are Unix "clones" and don't actually contain any AT&T code.

I really like the BSDs (esp FreeBSD), but it's really a matter of using the right tool for the job. Linux excells at things that BSD doesn't, just as BSD excells at things that Linux can't.

Live and let live, I say.

What are the strengths of each? Would a photoshop and inDesign user be able to use either? Or would I have to Gimp it?

OS X is based loosely on FreeBSD, which is (of course) one of the BSDs. IIRC one of the lead FreeBSD guys was hired by Apple to do Darwin, which is at the core of OS X.

As far as Gimp goes..... eh. I don't get it, myself. It's about as user-friendly as a pitbull eating a raw steak, IMHO. Sure, it's cool, it's powerful, but the usability just plain SUCKS.

That's one of the big downfalls of much free software these days: technically, it's very good, but as far as usability goes most of it is not nearly as good as commercial equivalents. They really don't have a lot of UI designers/engineers on the Open Source side, which is something they'll need if they ever want to achieve mass acceptance.

Just my $.02 of course-- your mileage will vary ;)

He was thrown off the NetBSD project for pissing people off.

I will grant that OpenBSD is a very solid and secure system, however Theo is an absolute jerk to deal with.

Folks I know who have dealt with him verify this.

But the BSD guys are very bigotted against Linux since they thought one of the Open Source BDS's would take over the world. At this point in their developement there is little difference between being a clone or a variant. Both have moved away from that original core. I worked for one of the top storage device companies, and Linux was one of our favorites in everything except their SCSI layer (which I understand is/has been rewritten).

Do you work for Microsoft? ... :)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=240x605

Aren't you the dude who used to post all the "study shows Windows is more secure than Linux," "study shows Linux has more bugs than Windows" threads a while ago? Or am I losing it? :crazy:

I still have a PM from you in my inbox. Why the change of heart?

Did you not read the link that I posted?

;-)

:blush:

I use Mozilla on Windows XP at work and OS X Tiger at home. I wish there were more alternatives to Microsoft and dread them getting into media in a big way.
:argh:

Understandable in one respect, in that BSD has been doing open source since long before anyone coined the term, back in the seventies, and then comes this upstart Linux and steals all their thunder.

Nevertheless, Theo is well known as frankly being a bit of an asshole. It happens.

...but my involvement in "pro-this, anti-that" ends there. See, I have this thing called a life, and I'm enjoying it. The flaming has been going on for years, and it's all gotten old and stale.

That aside, any article that biased has an agenda behind it. And yes, this guy De Raadt is a whiny as*hole.

There's a level of usability that linux is missing. It scales well to the sense that the mac-heads think windows is unusable to the windows heads that think linux is unusable. Windows looks better, it's more consistent, consistency brings comfort, comfort brings efficiency, but the desktop is clunky, oh no
panic

The usability of Linux is evolving rapidly.

I am moderately limited when it comes to hardcore computer expertise, and even just a few years ago I would not be technically proficient enough to practically use Linux. Now I can.

I predict in 5 years or less Linux will be user-friendly enough that casual Windows users will be able to use it and configure it enough to be desktop-friendly.

there's nothing more dispiriting than when you install a new distro, and some stuff just plain doesn't work, even though you haven't had chance to fuck anything up yet. It would be better if they spent more time testing things rather than ramming out 3 new versions a year.

Oh, and all package management systems suck. Except Slackware's, because it hardly does anything. That's the way I like it.

They release a new update about every 100 years or so, but it's all as stable as the rock of Gibraltar. At least that's what I've heard - I've never used it myself. I've only used Ubuntu and SuSE.

I need strong package management because I went with Linux for stability, efficiency and to give the boot to Microshaft, not because I'm a technical wizard who can maintain everything in a perpetual state of harmony - hence, I love the "Linux for Human Beings". I crashed Ubuntu a few times, once severely, but that has more to do with my lack of an Internet connection at home (to obtain patches) rather than Ubuntu itself.

BTW: Do you know of a nationwide dial-up ISP who is Linux friendly?

or not in your country anyway. I'm in the UK. I get along with NTL well enough.

Sorry about that. You have my condolences conc. the mess in London.

:)

in my 30 second analysis is

A) you have to have a good install system, that any idiot can use
B) At some point those old distros are going to be a security threat, and the rock o Gibralator isn't going to know how to defend it
C) Nobody knows what that point will be until that point is reached, thus no amount of planning can help a person running linux, or MacOS, or Windows.
D) If the new distros are getting rushed like I saw elsewhere, then they're going to fall into the same M$ trap of constant releases.]
E) The only way for a distro of any type of Operating System that's designed to be hooked up to the internet is to have regular free updates that are "highly" recommened for the users.
F) The only other way to have a distro not be targeted by virus and worm writers is to make it so obscure or difficult to use that nobody would catch on and try hack it. Maybe turn your monitor upside down OS. I don't know.

...but concerning security - isn't that more of a firewall issue and not an OS issue? The only way these viruses and hacker attacks can affect an OS is if they somehow gain access to the computer itself.

And when did Microshaft start doing "constant releases"? I still use Windows 2000 at work (only management is cursed with the toxic wasted called "XP") and the sh*t browser I'm forced to use (IE) is technically older than that, even though periodic patches seem to be released whenever the overpaid asses in Redmond get around to it.

My home OS is Ubuntu 5.04 (2+ months old). My browser is Firefox, not sure which version, though. It runs much smoother than my work computer, even though the computer itself (a hand-me-down) isn't as powerful.

That's why I love Linux.

and the price is right.

that is growing, world-wide, against Micro$haft (there ya go youspeakmylanguage). Of course, unless you look for it you won't hear anything in the U$, but entire countries are jumping off the M$ money sucking machine.
Apparently somebody actually got out a calculator and figured out how much money was being wasted just to keep Bill & Melinda, and their little dog Steve, in yachts and jets.
So now the FUD campaign is fully underway.
Can't beat the classics.

Open source is useful. It's great for products that are moderated. Apache. PostgreSQL. Firefox. The list goes on. But these are either individual applications or application suites.

A true Linux zealot will tell you that Linux is the kernel, and all the tools that come with your common distro are GNU based tools. So stuff like cp and ls and man and vi are all tools, but not Linux. But this doesn't make any sense to the average user, so let's just describe Linux or BSD as a distro.

Well, what about it? First off, the directory structure is archaic. Configuration files go in /etc. Binary files go in /bin, /opt, /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/sbin, etc, etc. Compare that to C:\Program Files and C:\Windows, or Apple's Applications folder.

Secondly, nobody can agree on a standard for packaging binaries. There's RPM, DEB, Autopackage, klik, etc, etc, and when you want to install a binary, you can't simply double click to install most of the time, you have to run rpm -ivh *.rpm or dpkg -i *.deb in a terminal.

Third, because there are so many different distros, many pieces of software are uncompatible. Ubuntu is a debian based distro, but it is not completely debian friendly. The release schedules of some libraries which have been packaged with the distros prohibit some software from being installed.

Fourth, there's no standard for a window manager and desktop environment. Some people like this because it gives them flexibility with what they want to do, and I'd agree with them that not all Linux boxes need to have a GUI interface. However, what you end up with is a bunch of free software with a bunch of different targeted window managers so that your desktop ends up looking like a mismatched frankensteinian pile of crap.

Fifth, and related to the fourth topic of contention, shortcuts and menus are not consistent, nor are they persistent. Some of these programs are developed by people who never make a dime for their efforts, which is a nice altruistic thing, but it also means that they're not overly concerned with ease of use. After all, they know where everything goes, and their programs are normally defaulted to their favorite settings. To copy and paste stuff, you can either use the mouse, or depending on which program you use, the key presses are <ctrl>-c and <ctrl>-v, or <ctrl><shift>-c and <ctrl><shift>-v, or even <ctrl>-insert and <shift>-insert.

Sixth, Linux and BSD boot very slowly compared to Windows and OSX. I'm from post to desktop in less than 10 seconds with Windows in a system built by myself. It takes a full minute and a half to boot to Ubuntu.

Seventh, some people involved in Linux need to grow the heck up. There are valid reasons why some companies choose not to open their source up for inspection. If the Open Source movement is truly about freedom, then that also means they must respect the rights of corporations who may want to distribute a binary but keep the source private. The biggest companies who are benefitting from Open Source nowadays are the large vendors who supply mediocre labor at extravagant prices. IBM comes to mind, and although they have given back to the community, it's a drop in the bucket to what they're gaining.

What I'd like to see is a distro that totally reconfigures the way Linux as a complete GUI driven OS works. Eliminate the archaic directory structure and replace it with a simpler one. Make installing software as easy as dragging an application to a directory. Make sure that you can drag and drop documents and files from program to program to improve usability. Make an effort to standardize the user interface and to make shortcuts and macros persistent OS-wide. Reorganize configuration so that all configs are done via the gui in a simple and easy to understand way. Every daemon deserves a front end or a configuration center where they can be started and stopped. Create a standard look and feel that won't confuse users. Let users install drivers via the desktop. And make it fast. KDE takes a full 10 seconds for some programs to load, while Gnome takes 2 and the former memory hog Enlightenment takes less than either of them.

Just don't look at me to do it. :)

like Windows.

I like Linux because it isn't like Windows.
I don't want a big fat Gui anyway.

Who cares how long it takes to boot. I only do it once a month.

It seems one of the Redmond lackeys found his way here from Usenet. The propaganda machine rolls on!