Subject: Re: Linux downsides?
From: Arthur Corliss (arthur@corlissfamily.org)
Date: Mon Apr 15 2002 - 13:45:10 AKDT
> A few I've got:
>
> Very long and steep learning curve
I agree and disagree with this. On one hand, yes, there is little
consistency when it comes to configuring each individual package (syntax in
conf files, etc.), which does make it harder for someone to learn. On the
other hand, a large part of a person's learning curve is spent *unlearning*
the crap they acquired from other platforms. I think if someone started on
UNIX they'd have less of a hard time than if they started with a Mac or
Windows.
> No 'instant experts' (not sure this is a real downside, but that's a
> separate discussion)
Granted. But there isn't any such animal on *any* platform, so this is
pretty much moot.
> Organization (and the people in it) must take more responsibility
> for its systems (can't pass the buck when something goes wrong)
This isn't necessarily true. Like any commercial version of UNIX you can now
get support from a vendor (say, IBM) who will take that responsibility on.
> Admittedly, these are fairly diffuse, and the only really true
> downside is the first one. But I'm interested in what some others
> think are downsides to linux, and open systems in general.
<rant>
I'll tell you what my biggest gripe with Linux is at this time: poor %*&&%@
kernel management. The 2.4.x series is the most poorly managed series I've
ever seen from Linus. At what point did we abandon the mantra that even
numbers are stable/maintenance releases, and odd numbers are development?
This is starting to feel like freaking Windows where every service pack is
actually a considerable feature creep, with a whole new slew of bugs.
I would futher gripe that if they're going to stuff new features in the
kernel in a 2.4.x series, they could at least make some logical decisions.
We've got how many beta-quality journaling filesystems in the main kernel
tree, and yet XFS, one of the most stable and mature filesystems in the
industry, let alone Linux, still isn't? Luckily, SGI's cvs server tracks the
2.4.x series pretty closely.
Another downside (one that doesn't really bother me, but I can understand the
complaints) is how rapidly some standard tools change. Consider firewalling:
v2.0.x: ipfwadm
v2.2.x: ipchains
v2.4.x: iptables
While I don't consider each evolution a radical change, it is a significant
change, and that can make it harder for a person to stay current.
Then there's the problem of the application developers. While it's certainly
understandable that they're going to code for the platforms they have access
to, you would think they'd be at least conscious of the fact that there's
other platforms in the world. I'm getting tired of dealing with code that
makes brain-dead assumptions, like every X server runs with true-colour
visuals, or every processor's natural register size is only 32 bits. Ever
try to get a negative number from a 64 bit register when you're only checking
the lower 32 bits? <Sheesh>
</rant>
Sorry about that, I had to get that off my chest. In short, Linux is
seriously flawed in several respects. Which isn't as bad as it sounds, since
the perfect platform has yet to be invented. I'd still rather be saddled
with Linux than Windows, but I'm not about to pretend there isn't a huge
amount of room for improvement.
----Arthur Corliss Bolverk's Lair -- http://arthur.corlissfamily.org/ Digital Mages -- http://www.digitalmages.com/ "Live Free or Die, the Only Way to Live" -- NH State Motto
--------- To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Tue Apr 16 2002 - 07:40:44 AKDT