Why I Hate Linux

[Ancient Dragon]

[rant]
Its so damed confusing and difficult to use. I spent three days trying to install something on my Fedora 11 machine that would take me no more than about 10 minutes in Vista (or any other version of MS-Windows). As an example: wxWidgets. I couldn't even successfully compile their online Hello World tutorial because of uninstalled extra packages. Then after installing more packages using yum program, tried to compile Hello World and the g++ compiler couldn't find some include files. So I used find command to locate the header files and created a makefile to set -I flags for the include directories. That finally worked, but now I get trillions of undefined variables error messages. From this short experience it is no wonder that more *nix programmers don't commit suicide!

As for Vista: the same Hello World tutorial compiled without errors or warnings in about 15 minutes using VC++ 2008 Express. And not much more than that using Code::Blocks.
[/rant]

[er_ashwini]

[rant]
Its so damed confusing and difficult to use. I spent three days trying to install something on my Fedora 11 machine that would take me no more than about 10 minutes in Vista (or any other version of MS-Windows). As an example: wxWidgets. I couldn't even successfully compile their online Hello World tutorial because of uninstalled extra packages. Then after installing more packages using yum program, tried to compile Hello World and the g++ compiler couldn't find some include files. So I used find command to locate the header files and created a makefile to set -I flags for the include directories. That finally worked, but now I get trillions of undefined variables error messages. From this short experience it is no wonder that more *nix programmers don't commit suicide!

As for Vista: the same Hello World tutorial compiled without errors or warnings in about 15 minutes using VC++ 2008 Express. And not much more than that using Code::Blocks.
[/rant]

See, Switching to linux is like learning a bike or you can say, remember the time when you started to learn windows. Tell me at that time did you able to compile the helloworld program in one go, I can bet you did not. coz first you will have to install VS then you will learn how to compile and so on.
Migrating to linux is little bit tricky. Initially you will face lot of problem coz of totally new OS then latter you will compile .NET codes on your linux machine. So what I will suggest is keep paitince, every thing needs time in world specially migration to linux , and try to strt with UBUNTU or use yum extender on fedora to install softwares and before compiling any code fist google out hte avilable options there is g++, gcc, cc etc. many compilers commands.
and once you will completely migrate to linux and get habitual of using linux then only you will come to know about the features or linux and power of linux.

All the best and Keep paitince .

[sknake]

AD,

Try using Ubuntu or Gentoo. I would recommend Ubuntu to start out with. I have been using linux for years and I still hate fedora to this day.

Fedora does have its uses with large server farms or for "enterprise" deployments of machines but for day to day use or end-user purposes I find it a PITA.

[kaninelupus]

See, Switching to linux is like learning a bike or you can say, remember the time when you started to learn windows. Tell me at that time did you able to compile the helloworld program in one go, I can bet you did not.

So to summarise, moving to Linux is like moving to Win 95 - forget ease of use and get used to doing it yourself the hard way? Couldn't have said it better myself really :D

...coz first you will have to install VS then you will learn how to compile and so on.

"Learn to install VS"? On Windows one wouldn't of had to "learn" how to install - run the exe file and it's installed.... duh!

Migrating to linux is little bit tricky. Initially you will face lot of problem coz of totally new OS then latter you will compile .NET codes on your linux machine.

Translation:
"Linux is generally a clumsy and un-user-friendly OS, but if you stick with it long enough, you might get used to it"

So what I will suggest is keep paitince, every thing needs time in world specially migration to linux , and try to strt with UBUNTU [WTF... stop right there!!]

As soon as I see "Linux" and "Ubuntu" in the same comment, immediately tune out. If you want to use the poor-man's OS X, be my guest; but please don't ply it as a real Linux distro, as it ain't!

@Ancient Dragon

• I'm sure you knew how inflamed the *nix community would be over your post, given your history on the boards
• Given your experience, why on earth are you even moving to Linux when Win7 would answer all your needs?

[Nick Evan]

remember the time when you started to learn windows. Tell me at that time did you able to compile the helloworld program in one go, I can bet you did not. coz first you will have to install VS then you will learn how to compile and so on.

I use Linux on a regular basis (ubuntu) and let me tell you that it is not the same thing as learning to compile on windows.
Here's the difference:

Windows:
- dowload visual studio and install it by click 'next' a few gazillion times.
- start it by clicking it's icon.
- click 'new project'
- type in name etc.
- make code
- hit F5 to run

Linux:
- install a compiler by typing yum install g++ - find something to make code with like VIM, gedit or Netbeans etc
- go back to a console
- type g++ blabla.c
- find out you're missing dependencies.
- google for two hours
- try to yum install all the suggestion given to you by linux-regulars
- try to compile again
- edit your .bash_profile file to set library and include paths
- try to compile again.
- forgot to install libc++xxx, so yum install again
- chmod +x a.out
- run by ./a.out

Not to mention adding external libraries from source ....

And what if you need a big-ass project? Then you need makefiles... I've read a 200 page document on makefiles. In windows, you would just right-click and add a file to the project.

When (and if) it works on Linux, it works great. But until you get to this point it is a enormous pain in the behind IMO.

[sloan31]

As soon as I see "Linux" and "Ubuntu" in the same comment, immediately tune out. If you want to use the poor-man's OS X, be my guest; but please don't ply it as a real Linux distro, as it ain't!
[/LIST]

What kind of foolishness is that? Nevermind the fact that Ubuntu is a real linux distro as it uses a linux kernel. I didn't know you were the authority on what is linux, sorry Linus, I didn't recognize you.

[Ancient Dragon]

niek: Yes, that's a good description of what has to be done on *nix and Windows in order to successfully compile a program. I thought I wanted to try *nix for a little while -- I must have been temporarily insane.

[sloan31]

Dependency issues can be a pain. But that's more of a problem with rpm based distros. That's why so many new users have a better and easier time on ubuntu. And it's not nearly as hard as this list would make it seem. And yum on ubuntu...why?

I use Linux on a regular basis (ubuntu) and let me tell you that it is not the same thing as learning to compile on windows.
Here's the difference:

Windows:
- dowload visual studio and install it by click 'next' a few gazillion times.
- start it by clicking it's icon.
- click 'new project'
- type in name etc.
- make code
- hit F5 to run

Linux:
- install a compiler by typing yum install g++ - find something to make code with like VIM, gedit or Netbeans etc
- go back to a console
- type g++ blabla.c
- find out you're missing dependencies.
- google for two hours
- try to yum install all the suggestion given to you by linux-regulars
- try to compile again
- edit your .bash_profile file to set library and include paths
- try to compile again.
- forgot to install libc++xxx, so yum install again
- chmod +x a.out
- run by ./a.out

Not to mention adding external libraries from source ....

And what if you need a big-ass project? Then you need makefiles... I've read a 200 page document on makefiles. In windows, you would just right-click and add a file to the project.

When (and if) it works on Linux, it works great. But until you get to this point it is a enormous pain in the behind IMO.

[NicAx64]

:( , and with respect I don't like this that Acient Dragon , experienced C++ programmer saying I hate linux.

[NicAx64]

"Linux is generally a clumsy and un-user-friendly OS, but if you stick with it long enough, you might get used to it"

that may be correct for the linux, bt nt all for the *nix world. Do nt
forgot that OS X is also a *nix and it is the most user friendly OS in
the world not MS windows.

[kaninelupus]

that may be correct for the linux, bt nt all for the *nix world. Do nt forgot that OS X is also a *nix and it is the most user friendly OS in the world not MS windows.

Put Win7 and OS X side-by-side, and really a moot argument. Not saying OS X isn't a good OS, but highly over-rated (and highly locked down and restrictive for power users).

NB: OS X is a UNIX derivative, not a LINUX derivative... not the same thing

[sknake]

As soon as I see "Linux" and "Ubuntu" in the same comment, immediately tune out. If you want to use the poor-man's OS X, be my guest; but please don't ply it as a real Linux distro, as it ain't!

I think I see the point you're trying to make here.... Ubuntu is debian based, so Ubuntu can't be linux.. and since debian is based on the linux kernel and GNU tools it also is not linux. To run true linux you should be able to double click on the kernel's exe file and it installs itself. After the kernel.exe is done you will have a klunky user environment.

I understand people do not like various operating systems and I am OK with that. I have some I don't like. However you merely flamed about how crappy, clunky, not "real enough", etc that Linux is. To truly dislike something you should understand it enough to have an argument based on features or mechanisms in the operating system or software package. You are doing a poor job at being a Windows evangelist. What value did you add to this thread?

*One* feature of linux --
With Linux you can delve much deeper in the network stack than Windows will even allow for security reasons. To combat the threat of the viruses and malware spreading Microsoft made the decision to forcibly crash applications that made certain calls on the network. With Linux this is not the case. Is it a shortcoming with Windows? No, it is intended to be desktop and server based -- no route packets. Is this an advantage Linux has over Windows? No, it is a difference in functionality. Why do you think most of the routers out there are running some form of embedded Linux?

FYI - I'm develop entirely in Microsoft.NET code and make my living from Microsoft and its' products. I do, however, recognize the utility in Linux.

[Nick Evan]

. And yum on ubuntu...why?

That's not what I said. I said I was using Ubuntu. AD uses Fedora which has yum, so that's what I used in my example.

[cwarn23]

As soon as I see "Linux" and "Ubuntu" in the same comment, immediately tune out. If you want to use the poor-man's OS X, be my guest; but please don't ply it as a real Linux distro, as it ain't!

Well Ubuntu if my Favourite OS as Windoze is too slow and Windoze just can't keep up with the technology. And if you think Ubuntu is so good that it's not classed as Linux then good for you because it must be something better than Linux.

[kaninelupus]

Actually can't stand Ubuntu.... why? Two reasons:

• The whole concept of Linux as far as I can tell is to maintain not just the whole open-source concept, but maximum configurability. A really good Linux distro maintains that configurability whilst keeping the front end simple enough for first-times to be able to jump in and run with it. Ubuntu seems to be solely aimed at that latter group, lacking the hard-core configurability that other Linux distros have, instead offering a completely dummied-down build (very much like Apple's offering), thus the "poor-mans OS X" remark.
  
• Ubuntu seems to breed the same fanticism as OS X. In the case of where some *nix troll comes along spamming just about every Windows-based blog/newscast/forum etc, 99.9% of them claim to be Ubuntu users!

I have no issues with Linux - very nearly made the full transition after being fed-up with constant security issues in XP. In the end, dropped XP for Vista and now Win7 - do a lot of digital art-work (both as a teacher and for own purposes) and found no real alternatives in Linux to proprietary offerings.

As far as Ubuntu goes, it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what SUSE offers. Ubuntu offers a simplified user experience (much like OS X).... trouble is, when something goes wrong, the end-user can be left stranded as much is either absent or locked under the hood. To be honest, how many Windows-based "power-users" would really be satisfied transitioning to such a limited distro??

I understand people do not like various operating systems and I am OK with that. I have some I don't like. However you merely flamed about how crappy, clunky, not "real enough", etc that Linux is. To truly dislike something you should understand it enough to have an argument based on features or mechanisms in the operating system or software package. You are doing a poor job at being a Windows evangelist. What value did you add to this thread?

You do realise that this entire post began as a rant, not some request for either help or conversion?? And I did NOT suggest Linux was crappy at all (would LOVE to see Linux to become cohesive enough to encourage the proprietary application development that would allow at least some distros to become mainstream contenders), but merely Ubuntu. I've outlined above why I fell this way - and I'm entitled to this opinion (even more so given the number of bombardments us Windows users have copped from that field of users!!). A rant is a rant; it can either be agreed with/added to; or it can be disagreed with. Welcome to the free internet! All opinions welcome :twisted:

[cwarn23]

Well one of the things that I like about Ubuntu that I find hard with some other distributions that that it is easy to use. Is easy to use a bad thing because more complex=better? Also with Ubuntu you don't ever need to use a single command line. So are all these easy to use features what makes Ubuntu so bad? I might stay with Ubuntu because as it is I'm finding it difficult to setup a CentOS server in a Virtualbox where as Ubuntu has a wizard like tool (Synaptic Package Manager) that allows easy install with a GUI. Now that's what I call a good feature unlike those other versions that force you to use the command terminal.

[kaninelupus]

Also with Ubuntu you don't ever need to use a single command line. So are all these easy to use features what makes Ubuntu so bad? I might stay with Ubuntu because as it is I'm finding it difficult to setup a CentOS server in a Virtualbox where as Ubuntu has a wizard like tool (Synaptic Package Manager) that allows easy install with a GUI. Now that's what I call a good feature unlike those other versions that force you to use the command terminal.

Wizards are a great feature so long as one also has the option to use command lines for advanced configuration - the one area wizards tend to be less tuned for. Even in Windows - which has a wizard for just about anything - one can use command prompt (or even RegEdit) for tweaking and hardcore fixes and troubleshooting. Hiding those tool-sets away, or completely locking them under the hood is never a good thing. JMO

[NicAx64]

Well Ubuntu if my Favourite OS as Windoze is too slow and Windoze just can't keep up with the technology. And if you think Ubuntu is so good that it's not classed as Linux then good for you because it must be something better than Linux.

no ubunthu is based on the debian , in other words it is debin based.
if you want to use 'Prue' linux use the slax based linux distros. and I love slax because of this , and I don't know why many ppl are against
the slax.

[NicAx64]

Wizards are a great feature so long as one also has the option to use command lines for advanced configuration - the one area wizards tend to be less tuned for. Even in Windows - which has a wizard for just about anything - one can use command prompt (or even RegEdit) for tweaking and hardcore fixes and troubleshooting. Hiding those tool-sets away, or completely locking them under the hood is never a good thing. JMO

old linux ppl always saying
"when you know slax you know linux" and "when you know red-hat you know red-hat"

one advantage of using the command shell without the GUI is that
GUI tools are based on the distribution. bt shell is based on the
concept of linux. Shell isn't a part of the "linux kernel" , but part of
the "linux" itself.

[Nick Evan]

old linux ppl always saying "when you know red-hat you know red-hat"

That's actually probably true :icon_wink:

[sknake]

That's actually probably true :icon_wink:

I think that is very true .. which gets back to my original post about not liking redhat. I have used slackware, ubuntu, debian, gentoo, lfs, and even some *BSD systems in the past .. and little things I picked up here and there usually applied to another flavor or OS.

However the things I learned on redhat only applied to redhat systems, and only certain versions of redhat at that.

[sloan31]

I wonder what is it that people think they can't do in ubuntu? It's not like command line access is hidden or locked away.

[cwarn23]

Wizards are a great feature so long as one also has the option to use command lines for advanced configuration - the one area wizards tend to be less tuned for. Even in Windows - which has a wizard for just about anything - one can use command prompt (or even RegEdit) for tweaking and hardcore fixes and troubleshooting. Hiding those tool-sets away, or completely locking them under the hood is never a good thing. JMO

Wasn't the whole point of Linux to replace the Unix command line with a GUI. Because when I think of Linux, I think of Unix with a GUI. I believe that Linux to be called Linux doesn't need a command line - just a GUI to replace the Unix command line. By saying that I am not saying all of the above in this post is what actually happens but is what I currently believe.

[sknake]

Wasn't the whole point of Linux to replace the Unix command line with a GUI.

No. It was intended to be an educational project for Linus Torvalds and it took off when he started showing it around:

From: [e-mail] (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready.I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system(due to practical reasons)
among other things). I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40),and
things seem to work.This implies that I'll get something practical within a
few months, andI'd like to know what features most people would want. Any
suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
Linus ([e-mail])
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's
all I have :-(.

[cwarn23]

No. It was intended to be an educational project for Linus Torvalds and it took off when he started showing it around:

I just read Linus Torvalds wikipedia article and it looks like the only Operating Systems that are true linux are controlled by an authority with Linus Torvald onboard as Linus Torvald is part of the authority for what code goes in. So basically if Linus Torvald isn't in charge then it ain't linux. I would have to do a bit of research to find out exactly what versions of linux Linus Torvald controlls.

[sknake]

He controls the kernel but most every distro ships their own version of the kernel with patches applied, or include code he hasn't yet approved. The code he controls is the git repository @ kernel.org

[cwarn23]

Well then wouldn't that make only one true version of linux? The one approved by Linus Torvald.

[sknake]

A kernel is the "guts" of an operating system but a command line or GUI puts a front end on the OS...... Are you on a quest to find what Linus Torvalds approves? Who cares

[MosaicFuneral]

Well-duh-AD, you're using the wrong distro. You need Dettu[Xx], if you want simplicity.

[cwarn23]

Well-duh-AD, you're using the wrong distro. You need Dettu[Xx], if you want simplicity.

Is that a joke? I did a google images search and found this and that. Doesn't look very simple to me. Looks like something between a Mac and Unix.