log of Logfish.net

This is a reply to http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.html (v0.2.2)

I'll leave out the points mentioned as "(Being resolved)" and for the rest, I'll follow the same order as the original author. And before I begin, I must say it was a well written list and I think there are a lot of places where programmers really need criticism like this or more proper project management to get the quality everybody is looking for.

And now for the list.

0.Premise: proprietary software will stay indefinitely. Full stop. You may argue eternally, but complicated software like games, 3D applications, databases, CADs(Computer-aided Design), etc. which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced. Software patents are about to stay forever.
0. Agreed. It seems to be written as a kind of 'don't believe in open source as much as you do', but it doesn't really hold ground on that. The linux kernel is worth millions of dollars in development and has taken a lot of man-hours to create (blender is another example). Arguably as complicated as a 3D game. So saying that open source means "not complex and cheep" is simply not true. But, yes, there will always be some kind of software that somebody will need to pay for, no argument there. And yes, there will always be secrets when it comes to competitive business.

1. No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing, many (old or/and proprietary) applications still open audio output exclusively causing major user problems and headache.
1.* Agreed, although I would consider all sub-points the same problem: audio settings are two hard. I'm not sure windows is completely free of this problem, as the best solutions I have seen come from programs specifically written for the sound card which come with the drivers. These programs allow you to say: 5.1 surround settings, stereo settings, movie watching settings, etc. I think Linux should solve this, but Windows has not been responsible for the solutions on that platform.

X system: slow, not standard yet
2.* Agreed, X is still working with different acceleration methods. I can't even keep up: GLX, XVideo, Xrandr, DRI? What do they all mean and what do they achieve? I don't know. However, I am confident that these are all solutions which are general enough to allow for accelerated graphics within the decoupled (network-transparent) framework that X is based on.

2.4.3 Default fonts (often) look ugly.
2.4.3: An opinion which I do not share.

2.4.3.2 By default most distros come without good or even compatible with Windows fonts.
2.4.3.2: Linux is not Windows, and it is not about being the same as much as possible. I do not think it is constructive to state that Linux fails where it does not mimic Windows.

3.2: There is no unified installer for Windows either. There are however, installer systems for Linux which just ask you for root and put it where they like to have it and they work. But just like Windows, un-installing is often not properly handled.

3.3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software. User should never be bothered with using ./configure && make && make installer. It should be possible to install any software by downloading a package and double clicking it (yes, like in Windows, but probably prompting for user/administrator password).
3.3: Tell it to the developers. Most software is already distributing packages and that works great: try www.getdeb.net . Some programs, like most Games and other commercial software, use their own installer just like Windows. But I agree, no user should ever use ./configure && make && make install.

3.4 Applications development is a major PITA. Different distros can use a) different libraries versions b) different compiler flags c) different compilers. This leads to a number of problems raised to the third power.
3.4: True, just like developing an application for windows, you should develop an application for a distribution. Saying you are developing an application for linux is like saying "I'm developing an application for the x86 architecture".

4. Fully agree.

5.1 Few software titles, inability to run familiar Windows software. (Some applications (which don't work in Wine) have zero Linux equivalents).
5.1 Not being able to run Windows software is not a real problem. If that was possible, people would not switch because: what would be the difference? It can't be the price tag, because you get Windows free with every new PC. Switching should be done because you either want more control as a user or you want to completely try something new. Not because you want to do MS This and MS That on top of something that is NOT MS Windows.

5.1.1 No equivalent of some hardcore Windows software like AutoCAD/3D Studio/Adobe Premier/Corel Painter/etc. Home and work users just won't bother installing Linux until they can work for real.
5.1.1 True, if you program depends on Windows, then you depend on Windows. If you job depends on Windows, then you depend on Windows. Nothing Linux can do about that. Even having an almost equal system won't help! As an example, developing web apps in Firefox thinking they will run on IE won't work, even though I would call Firefox an IE equivalent program. There is no way around it: if you want special software that only runs on a special system, you want that special system. No solution here, not even with extra programs.

5.2 No games. I would have to say: build it and they will come ;) Although Quake is doing well. Again, if a program is written for Windows, trying to get it to run on Linux is stupid.

(lack of drivers)
5.3.1 Big problem, I agree. The same holds for WinModems although they are less of a problem these days.
5.3.2 Yes, another big problem, totally agree. You should complain to the manufacturer about this though.

5.4 It's impossible to watch Blue-Ray movies.
5.4 Even better, with the freedom Linux supplies it's users, it will NEVER be possible to watch Blue-Ray movies. Buy a proper player if you wan tot watch those or just pay the mob to crack the key every week and use their software. I think that to solve this problem, we will probably end up with a dark-net doing blue-ray distributed crypto cracking :D But before that, everybody will just have to pay criminals to play their blue-ray movies.

5.5 Questionable patents and legality status. US Linux users cannot play many popular audio and video formats until they purchase appropriate codecs.
5.5 You can not expect to get something you have to pay for, for free. This point is just plain stupid. I would like to add that if you download Linux you won't get the Windows operating system bundled with it for free.

6. Regression testing is already implemented, however there is not enough hardware available to test all configurations. With Windows, the hardware developers will test and even change their hardware to work with Windows. They should do the same for Linux, so I guess I agree with this point but it seems you are pointing at the open source community instead of the manufacturers here. You should have just said: companies like Lexmark hate open source.

7. A galore of software bugs across all applications. Just look into KDE or Gnome bugzilla's - some bugs are now ten years old with over several dozens of duplicates and no one is working on them.
7. Just because you can't see them on windows, does not mean that they are not there. Some bugs in Windows are over ten years old. But I agree, they should all be fixed. Maybe bounties would help. More and more we see developers being hired by companies to fix these bugs, so maybe that is a solution.

8. Poor interoperability between applications and their components. E.g. many kernel features get a decent userspace support years after introduction.
8. Same for newer DirectX features and older games. What is your point really?

8.1 Most distros don't allow you to easily set up a server with e.g. such a configuration: Samba, SMTP/POP3, Apache HTTP Auth and FTP where all users are virtual. LDAP is a major PITA. Authentication against MySQL/any other DB is also a PITA.
8.1 Does any desktop allow for this? I think you are missing the title of your page here: the desktop does not require a LAMP installation! Samba is dead easy in Ubuntu: right-click, choose Share and you are done. Asking for easy setup of Apache is just plain stupid if you are trying to make a list of Why linux is not ready for the desktop.

9. Yes, Linux is slow, but not to slow for use as a desktop system if you ask me. Improving the linker is always welcome.

10. Where does this even come from? There are windows programs that output errors to a log file or the commandline also, what is really your problem here? If you are saying: a GUI app should run without a commandline, I agree: the usability should never depend on it. However, putting debug information on stdout is not a problem. Sounds like you are taking one bug and saying it is a disease.
12. Sudo does not require the CLI, there is gksu and programs like Synaptic which do not require any commandline interface.
13. Yes, choosing between a stable API and a better API is hard, linux development mostly chooses a better API and leaves a major version for backwards compatibility. This is a problem in any development, read up on OpenGL 3 hypes and gripes.
13.1 Agreed, see 13 above.
13.2 True, there have been ABI changes, again, see 13.
13.3 Agreed.
14. Totally agree and you left out "commercial support" there. Conanical is doing that, but it is not enough.

14.3 (Being slowly resolved) No SMB/AD level replacement/equivalent (samba doesn't count): 1) Centralized and easily managable user directory. 2) Simple file sharing. 3) Simple (LAN) computers discovery and browsing.
14.3 You say slowly resolved, but bonjour/avahi already works great on my laptop and I can regularly see Mac users without any problems. Windows, being as closed minded as it is, doesn't join the party which is not a Linux problem. So that makes 3 solved in my opinion. I would also like to add that I think Samba is a big loss of development effort, they should focus on a proper file-sharing solution instead of trying to port a bad solution to Linux.

in conclusion...
Yes, most points are valid and sure there are still big problems out there. I do think you are not being fair if you put all these points under the title "Linux is not ready for the desktop", as you are combining a very varied number of complaint. For example, the number of bugs doesn't matter: as long as most users don't encounter them. No games is no problem, not every desktop user is a gamer. API stability is not something a desktop user is worried about, most people don't even know what API stands for. Not being able to install a webserver easily is something nobody expects, even though installing a LAMP system is very easy, you still need to manager the security etc. Installing Linux just doesn't change you into any more of a system administrator as installing Windows would.
Drivers are still a problem, but without manufacturers caring about that, it is just going to be a slow start. Just make sure you buy Linux compatible hardware and complain when it is not Linux compatible.

I think some points are weird and most points should be better categorised: when could you use linux, when shouldn't you? Make sure that when publishing a list like this you are not trying to answer the question "can I use Linux after using Windows without learning anything?": applications are different (as I think most of them should be), procedures are different (like I think they should be), configuration of deamons is different (yes, I for one am glad I don't need a remote desktop to configure my webserver).