Why Linux Sucks and Why it Doesn't

Discussion in 'all things UNIX' started by Hungry Man, May 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
  2. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    I'll watch these now, thanks. At the same time, I'm frightened as to what you may have started :D
     
  3. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Video two is great if any Windows fanboys watch. He rips on 8 in both of them a few times but in the second video he's a bit meaner.
     
  4. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    I like this guy. In the first video, he nailed all the problems that are still happening. I mean, it's true, some of these issues should not be with us in 2012. In the second video, he never denies that these issues exist (although it did kinda turn into a Linux rally, which admittedly will happen at a Linux discussion with Linux users), but that they are much less an issue than say, 2-3 years ago. I loved the Win 8 comments, they're so true, lol. My only complaint is that I wanted to put the camera guy into one of those brace-devices they used in early photography to help subjects stay still.

    Very interesting videos and a very no-BS, entertaining presenter.
     
  5. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Hmm.. 45 minutes, I'll watch it later.

    There's only 2 reasons I can think of Linux "sucking".

    1. Its full potential is probably held back by patents.
    2. It still doesn't have a shell as good as Aero, although XFCE is so close.

    I guess the video will bring up other things.
     
  6. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    For me, what really sucks about Linux is the LibreOffice spreadsheet. For example, consider a 75MB Excel file (XLSX) with 300K lines in six sheets. Using Excel 2007 on Windows 7 x64 on a low-end machine with an AMD Athalon II X4 645 CPU (3.1 GHz) and 6GB memory, that file opens in under two minutes. Conversely, opening that file takes over 15 minutes using LibreOffice 3.4 on Ubuntu 11.04 x64 on a machine with an Intel Core-Duo Quad CPU (2.66GHz) and 6GB memory. Furthermore, even Excel 2003 running in a Windows XP x86 VM (one core and 1GB memory) on that same Ubuntu machine opens the file in under two minutes. In my experience, OpenOffice does no better.
     
  7. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Just curious but how does it handle after it is saved in .ods format?
     
  8. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    For me, what really sucks about Windows is the LibreOffice spreadsheet...

    LibreOffice is not Linux, nor Linux exclusive.
     
  9. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    It's slow!

    There's a sheet with 60K rows and 40 columns. Column A contains row headers, row 1 contains column headers, and the rest of columns B through AN contain integers. For each column, I want subtotals for 15 of the most common column header values. So I write "=SUMIF($A$2:$A$60000,$A60002,B$2:B$60000)" in cell B60002, copy that cell, and paste it into cells B60002 through AN60016 (585 cells).

    In Excel 2007 on the Windows 7 x64 box, it takes less than a second to calculate after pasting (using all four CPUs). In LibreOffice 3.4 on the Ubuntu 11.04 x64 box, after converting the file to ODS format and saving it, it takes 30 seconds to calculate after pasting. Only one CPU can be used. In Excel 2003 on the Windows XP VM on that same Ubuntu 11.04 x64 box, after converting the file to XLS format and saving it, it takes about one second to calculate after pasting.

    Somebody's probably going to tell me that I could do it in 300 msec using a shell script. Maybe I could. But I'd rather use Excel. On the other hand, if I had 100K small text files to process, I'd use grep and sed in Linux.
     
  10. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    That's true.

    So is there a better spreadsheet that runs in Linux?

    In my experience, Excel 2003 in Wine is iffy, and Excel 2007 is useless.
     
  11. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    I would say your experience is clearly a deal breaker and totally justifies staying with Windows. Fortunately, I don't need to handle such large spreadsheets and so LibreOffice is just fine with me. I do have a lot of data but I have structured it into chewable bites.

    BTW, the first video is horrible. I'm not going to bother with the second. That was due to "technical reasons" at my end.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2012
  12. Cudni

    Cudni Global Moderator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    6,956
    Location:
    Somethingshire
    ot posts removed
     
  13. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,029
    I wasn't clear enough, it seems. I'm quite OS agnostic. I have Windows boxes, Linux boxes, BSD boxes (including pfSense) and an ESXi box (which is basically Linux, I think) -- both real and virtual. My data sits on various NAS boxes. I use whatever tools are appropriate, on whatever OS they like best, with whatever hardware is required. I haven't needed a Mac, but I'd use one if appropriate. I also have about six hammers ;)
     
  14. chronomatic

    chronomatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,343
    I actually like the way packaging is done. Yes, it sucks if you want your software to target all the distros, but overall it is better for security. If we had one standard install file (say .deb) across all distros, then people would ignore package managers and go around downloading random crap off the Internet just like they do on Windows. Then we would have a lot of boxes getting owned.

    So the different package formats actually help with security in a way. Newbs have no idea how to install software *unless* they use their package manager (which they should be doing anyway), which protects them from being stupid.
     
  15. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Being hard to use is not a great security feature.
     
  16. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    I can still go around and "download random crap". Nothing protects a persistent, stupid user from doing stupid things. Only an unplugged box can do that. Repositories are one of the reasons for better security, not packaging. If it's from a trusted source, .rpm, .deb, none of that matters. I've also seen many occasions where you're simply better doing a manual install because the package manager completely screws up the process.
     
  17. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Pretty much dw. The big thing that protects a user from social engineering is that you don't google for a PDF viewer or some such thing you search "PDF" in your app-repository.

    A nice side effect is that Linux also handles all updates for the user. Even my Flash, which I downloaded from Adobe, is updated through my Linux Update Manager shortening the gap between a hacker finding a vulnerability and the time that I'm unpatched.
     
  18. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Yeah, I love not needing to keep up with software updates and not having to have a separate program for just such a job. A guy like me can install something, only use it once in a while, forget it's even there, and miss updates. Not the case with Linux and a solid repository.
     
  19. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I think my favorite part about using Linux would be not having to think about updates. Updates for all of my programs are checked for daily, it's great.
     
  20. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Yeah, that, and pretty much having no concern for malware etc....
     
  21. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    I haven't seen even one instance since I switched to Linux last August.
     
  22. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    The only issue I've had is when downloading a .deb and when I open it up it's "corrupted." My in-manager installs have been more reliable.
     
  23. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    That's not what Chronomatic said, if I read the post above yours correctly.
     
  24. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I read this as: people don't know how to install software (because of the fragmentation with rpm deb etc) which protects them because they have to use the package management service

    ie: it's hard to install without the package management so users are protected

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
     
  25. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    PCLinuxOS (a big source of such issues), OpenSUSE, Mepis, those all gave me sometimes screwed up installs of programs. Never had a single issue and still don't with Ubuntu itself and another favorite of mine, Sabayon.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.