Linux is for Losers

ftbusdatia said:
I have found that specialized linux distros made for firewalls are awesome, quick, well thought out and just plain work without fuss.

but the amount of bloat-ware in X as well as just about every application seems to kill me.. im all aobut making my system microsoft free, but i wont do it at the expense of taking 2-3 times longer to do my simple day to day crap. for example...

Loading mozilla in Linux on my computer = 10 seconds
Loading mozilla in windows on my computer = 1-3 seconds.

Linux seems to have a great kernel.. seems to run stable.. but im sorry, it just doesnt have its act together. i have to agree with the point made that linux's development track is 10,000 hackers hacking a code to work, 250 people sorting through hacks, passing those hacks into a universal hack, that is officialy developed so its not a hack.

Also, i can rememeber looking through the source code for a kernel about a year ago. I can remember the line commented //* does this belong here? while it may not exist currently in the "kernel" code (look elsewhere you will find crap like that all the time), it did at one point.

Linux is great. No lie. I have a linux box. it protects my windows boxes from attack and makes my internet connection alot quicker. :)

But if i was to install X on that thing, i would be waiting years and years for anything on that box. Not like i need it, its a box, that has no holes, no external ports open, just a firewall and proxy.

Shame on coders for writing X. Clean it up guys... your code sucks. Why should i have to wait 5 minutes for my CPU to compute how a window will fade out?!?! BS! !$#@^!%$#
Click to expand...


While I understand your frustration, it is misplaced in the same way as saying "windows sux" because nero won't work with your burner.

The problems you talk about (windows taking forever to fade, the whole interface feeling klunky) sound more like you don't have the proper video drivers installed. Not that I'm trying to place blame on, or insult you; correctly installing graphics drivers can be a pain in the ass in linux at times.

Again, the only problem I have with your post is the app you blame. Linux is nothing more than the kernel. Just the kernel, not more, not less. Saying that Linux sux because you don't like how slow X is, is just as dumb as saying you don't like windows because 3D studio MAX has a memory leak.

Also, even if you were not having a driver issue, the slowness is unlikely to be the fault of X. Your graphical slowness probably comes from bloated desktop environments like KDE or Gnome, etc. X, by itself, is usually just as fast as windows, possibly a little slower, but only to an extent that you can't usually tell. (This all assumes you have a halfway decent card and the drivers properly installed.)

If you are looking for a solution to the slowness problem (not that you are), try switching to FluxBox, TWM, or one of the lighter window managers. Also be sure to double check your graphics card driver as this is probably why things are running so slow for you.

Firefox load times usually have little dependence on X. And yes, in Linux it does take a while on some boxes. This is because firefox on windows uses a little trick: it loads firefox at boot and then just sits hidden in memory. When you start firefox on a windows box you are not really waiting for firefox to load, just a fraction of it. On a linux box, you usually have to wait for the whole thing to load. Although, linux does have a file cache. Try this: boot to linux, and then see how long firefox takes to load. Then close it, start and time it again. It is usually much faster the second time because all the libraries it uses were already cached. You could argue with me all day, but linux's use of memory for a file cache is better hands down than windows wasting memory by locking firefox libraries in RAM.

Anyways, my firefox pops up in linux before I can count to "1", and takes about the same amount of time in windows.
 
Quanticles said:
I'd like to point out that the Theo de Raadt didnt say "Linux is for Losers", Forbes put that as the title to get a rise out of people.
Click to expand...

That's the most important bit here. I doubt Theo really meant to come off sounding like an asshole; I consider it more likely Dan Lyons did a hatchet job, because that's one of the things Lyons likes to do. I've personally seen him do it with people I know very well. He doesn't like Linux, and he doesn't like the people who use and develop it. He tries to troll them every once in a while, probably to grind the axe. Add a very low standard of fact-checking and journalistic integrity, and you've basically got another Maureen O'Gara.*

In fact, Theo recently gave an interview on this same subject on Newsforge and was quite civil. So I know this isn't the attitude he likes to profess. He may personally feel that Linux is a pile of crap (and he's got a right to his opinion), but he typically has the decency and good sense not to waste his time maligning it.

I'm not anti-linux, btw, since I spend 40 hours a week developing for it. But it *is* a pain when a new kernel release breaks old code, etc etc, and knowing they're using bad programming practices doesnt help either. I put a lot of time into writing very solid, very easy to follow code so that when I *do* have to update it, it takes almost no time, and there's no hidden suprises down the road.
Click to expand...

Important thing to remember is that the first few releases of a "stable" Linux kernel are like the FreeBSD -RELEASE tree--it's still a bit of a developer's playground. 2.6 will likely remain so until 2.7 or whatever is forked. I'm personally still using 2.4, because it's still "pretty good" and still has broader device support.

Userland is a morass of possibly incompatible packages, but that problem is not unique to Linux, nor is it Linux's fault. Userland is to some extent common to both Linux and the BSDs. It's up to a Linux distro provider, or the core team developing a BSD flavor, to get everything working together. Debian and SuSE do this quite well in the Linux world.

{*} (Ironically, Lyons was shopping for interviewees a while back, apparently to put together some story trying to justify or excuse O'Gara's outrageous misconduct in the PJ stalking affair. That story never came, probably because he couldn't find enough people willing to support his viewpoint. He hasn't quite stooped to O'Gara's level yet, but he's pretty close. :rolleyes: )
 
Kelledin said:
Userland is a morass of possibly incompatible packages, but that problem is not unique to Linux, nor is it Linux's fault. Userland is to some extent common to both Linux and the BSDs. It's up to a Linux distro provider, or the core team developing a BSD flavor, to get everything working together. Debian and SuSE do this quite well in the Linux world.
Click to expand...

FreeBSD does it fairly well, too. However, that they have to do it; that ordinary software requires a dedicated team to tweak, hack and mangle it so it'll work togeter with other ordinary software, or to patch things up so they'll work on more than one specific OS, might be indicative of something, such as a lack of standarisation or planning. This is not the fault of the OS, though.
(Mmh, rambling, run-on sentences.)

Back to the original topic, I like to point out the different ways linux and the BSDs have handled SATA. In FreeBSD they added it to the ATA driver, and now it just works. Linux, OTOH, seems to have trouble making up it's mind between the minor versions, which makes for all sorts of fun when upgrading.
However, I think Linux was first, and it probably supports more controllers.
This seems to be indicative of what Theo is speaking about.
As someone said it: (Free-)BSD is constructed. Linux grows. And that's not an insult to either.
 
To say that Linux is for losers would be to undermine most of the progress that evolved around Linux community and within Linux Operating System. I have used Suse Linux from the 8.1 release onwards and have therefore witnessed that with each release the OS got slicker, easier to operate and yet still maintaining incredible levels of reliability and security. Windows XP was the same back than and it's still the same now except it has less security holes in it, way to go Micro$oft. One must understand the giant strides that Linux community and developers have made over the last few years to foresee what we can expect from it in the future. It's not really important as to where Linux stands now as to where it will stand in the future. For example, people, especially governments do not trust Microsoft since it's a US based company and thus open source seems the natural way to protect ones privacy and maintain ones security. So just like China and Japan does with TurboLinux and many municipalities in Germany do with Debian, people will make the switch, one by one. I think the idea behind Linux, GNU to be exact, is not just one to be limited by the capabilities or the shortcomings of an OS, they are grander and people do not use Linux just because it's free.
I wish there were some sort of stats that google published to determine how many people or what percentage use Linux and it's variants.
Linux is definetaly more widespread than BSD and variants, because everyone has some distro they can like or feel more comfortable with, they are not limited to just 3-4 alternatives, there is a distro out there that will float your boat. However I truly agree that a unified distro (kernel, management tools,binaries etc...) is a practical solution on the long run for binary compatabilityreasons mostly but I also fear that a one distro, if it fails to satisfy linux users of today will be abandoned by many.
I feel guilty, because I jumped on this thread without reading the whole article, so I might miss the point completely, my comments on this post are based more on the thread title, some offensive comments made by some Windows users and my perspective on these subjects.
FYI, I also use Windows because most of the software written for it, is better compared to Linux alternatives and most games take a hassle to play in Linux but the lack of software on it's own is not enough to just diss an operating system and say it sucks or it's for losers, heck if Linux had some of the software (in binary form :D) that Windows has undoubtedly many Windows users would switch tomorrow. These are just my thoughts, please think (just like i did writing this post) before you flame
 
I think Theo's point (as opposed to the point of the article, which might just be to create disagreement) is that the code and structure of Linux (the kernel) today could have been better, because there's a tendency to prioritise features and "good enough"-support over correctness. To give some background on Theo, OpenBSD is known for it's "correctness first"-approach.

The usability of Linux (the OS) as a desktop is another matter, though the general discussion of programming practices and motivations is relevant.
 
While they might say that the Linux community lacks direction, it could be good or bad. I've found something that runs in Linux and does a specific role, the IPCOP firewall/router project. Its free, it works great for me. Sure a lot of other OS's can do the same thing, but you know, its a small distro, easy as hell to install, nice web interface and all. It doesn't take any make commands to get it all up and running, so maybe its too much for losers to use :p

On the other hand, I was trying to get a webcam server to work in Linux, and you really have to go out of your way to get it working correctly. Yeah I know some of you can do it in a snap, but everyone has to have a learning experience. Call me stupid, then I call you a loser :)

Though I have had no experience with any BSD, if he says his shit is so much better, then I'll give it a try.

I thought Mandrake/Mandriva was the 4 year old's OS. If not, I don't think its gonna get any simpler than that.

Just my 2c...
 
MooCow said:
While they might say that the Linux community lacks direction, it could be good or bad. I've found something that runs in Linux and does a specific role, the IPCOP firewall/router project. Its free, it works great for me. Sure a lot of other OS's can do the same thing, but you know, its a small distro, easy as hell to install, nice web interface and all. It doesn't take any make commands to get it all up and running, so maybe its too much for losers to use :p

On the other hand, I was trying to get a webcam server to work in Linux, and you really have to go out of your way to get it working correctly. Yeah I know some of you can do it in a snap, but everyone has to have a learning experience. Call me stupid, then I call you a loser :)

Though I have had no experience with any BSD, if he says his shit is so much better, then I'll give it a try.

I thought Mandrake/Mandriva was the 4 year old's OS. If not, I don't think its gonna get any simpler than that.
Click to expand...


OpenBSD is not simple. Indeed, it's one of the least beginner-friendly distros or OSes I can think of.
It's however secure and well made, coherent and orderly, and has some interesting features.
OpenSSH began its life in OpenBSD. You've probably used it. :)
Also, their firewall (pf) is really nice. It's also in FreeBSD now, so I've played a bit with it. It's like iptables with a much nicer syntax and some nifty new features.
 
I run my web/ftp server on a raid linux box. I use my XP box for the usual stuff, surfing, gaming, etc. because it's comfy and easy. What I like about Linux is it's free and it also forces the user to know what he's doing.

I work on bsd everyday at work. The open source nature has allowed the company I work at to develop a sweet storage system based on FreeBSD. Windows does not allow you to rework their OS for your own needs and/or desires.

Currently at work I ssh and serialcon into BSD nodes from a linux box and use Outlook and MS Project on a windows box. They all have their place in my world and I think I like it.
 
I would have to agree with the article. I do not claim to be a linux hacker, but I am a linux user and a software developer. I feel as if linux gained too much attention in the last few years. Because of this, every person who learned to write basic programs and didnt get paid for it, wanted to get involved. On the internet they go and find a variety of GNU/GPL projects and sign up. I am generalizing here, obviously, but every package of an operating system should be of top quality. OS hackers are very skilled with code as well as overall infrastructure. FreeBSD has been around longer and reamained much smaller, which is why it tends to be a more solid OS, but lacks features. As Linus will tell you: there is no such thing as perfect, so I go with the "its good enough" method. Maybe he is right... I am running linux right now. I guess I have faith in its growth.
 
simpsond said:
I would have to agree with the article. I do not claim to be a linux hacker, but I am a linux user and a software developer. I feel as if linux gained too much attention in the last few years. Because of this, every person who learned to write basic programs and didnt get paid for it, wanted to get involved. On the internet they go and find a variety of GNU/GPL projects and sign up. I am generalizing here, obviously, but every package of an operating system should be of top quality. OS hackers are very skilled with code as well as overall infrastructure. FreeBSD has been around longer and reamained much smaller, which is why it tends to be a more solid OS, but lacks features. As Linus will tell you: there is no such thing as perfect, so I go with the "its good enough" method. Maybe he is right... I am running linux right now. I guess I have faith in its growth.
Click to expand...


Of course, "lacks features" depends on your POV. IT does everything I want it to, as long as I do my gaming in windows. OpenBSD, on the other hand, is not really suited for desktop use, but that's also because that has never been their goal.
 
Vitruvius said:
Unfortunately, his credibility should be called into account. The phrase "does this belong here?" appears no where in the source for the Linux Kernel - at least the newest version. Check http://www.kernel.org to see the source yourself.
Click to expand...
Code: 
cd /usr/src/linux
grep -R "belong here" *
arch/ppc/8xx_io/Kconfig:# This doesn't really belong here, but it is convenientto ask
arch/ppc/8xx_io/cs4218_tdm.c: * I think these routines belong here because they're not yet really hardware
arch/i386/kernel/smp.c:         /* nothing. lockup detection does not belong here */
arch/m32r/kernel/smp.c:         /* nothing. lockup detection does not belong here */
arch/m68k/q40/q40ints.c: * this stuff doesn't really belong here..
arch/m68k/math-emu/fp_entry.S:  | it does not really belong here, but...
arch/parisc/kernel/real2.S:     /* Doesn't belong here but I couldn't find a nicer spot. */
arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c:               mb();   /* nothing. lockup detection does not belong here */;
drivers/usb/storage/sddr09.c: * First some stuff that does not belong here:
drivers/char/ftape/lowlevel/ftape-tracing.h:/*  Abort the current function whensignalled. This doesn't belong here,
drivers/scsi/dc395x.c:           * KG: This was in DATAOUT. Does it also belonghere?
drivers/video/sa1100fb.c: *     - remove allow_modeset (acornfb idea does not belong here)
drivers/ieee1394/amdtp.c:/* FIXME: This doesn't belong here... */
fs/qnx4/inode.c:           if we don't belong here... */
include/linux/fs.h:/* the read-only stuff doesn't really belong here, but any other place is
include/asm-ppc64/prom.h:       /* PCI stuff probably doesn't belong here */
net/core/netfilter.c:/* This does not belong here, but locally generated errorsneed it if connection
sound/oss/dmasound/dmasound_paula.c: * I think these routines belong here because they're not yet really hardware
sound/oss/dmasound/dmasound_atari.c: * I think these routines belong here because they're not yet really hardware

This is from version 2.6.9 or so. He's not quoting word-for-word, just giving the gist.

I actually agree with some of his point. I think it shouldn't be easy to use Linux; it has so much power exposed to the user that if it were easy many users would manage to irretrievably screw things up a lot more often. Keep it obscure and difficult, and those who manage to decipher its arcane syntax will profit.

I'm unhappy_mage, and I'm an elitist schmuck.

Switch (tm).
 
Only fans of a particular OS are losers.

Anyone who knows their stuff knows the OS is the last thing you pick in making your decisions on what to use.

Order of importance:

1. What do you want to do?
2. What applications fill the need?
3. What platform does the apps run on (os/hardwae)?

Take that De Raadt!!! :p
 
fatrat said:
Only fans of a particular OS are losers.

Anyone who knows their stuff knows the OS is the last thing you pick in making your decisions on what to use.

Order of importance:

1. What do you want to do?
2. What applications fill the need?
3. What platform does the apps run on (os/hardwae)?

Take that De Raadt!!! :p
Click to expand...

He's commenting a longterm secondary effect, namely "the ability of the linux kernel to keep being easy to extend/improve so it provides what you need and runs on as many hardware platforms as possible while maintaining stability".
:p

(Still too easy to understand. I need more training before I can get a job in marketing.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top