Re: Linux is evil
ragnar, Thu May 04 2006, 06:50AM

That's just malicious :$

**/Defends Linux, carefully...**
And someone complaining about no "Frontpage for Linux".. "How could you possibly make a website?"

The same way I make a website on any other operating system - I open up a text editor and start coding. Then I open up GIMP and start chopping. ^^

*sigh*.. dangerous.

Re: Linux is evil
Carbon_Rod, Thu May 04 2006, 07:26AM

a troll's FUD...

Mod up!

Re: Linux is evil
Desmogod, Thu May 04 2006, 07:30AM

just found this, so it is obviously VERY good humour.

Re: Linux is evil
Bjørn, Thu May 04 2006, 07:38AM

If it is an attempt to make republicans look like morons than it is not working very well because it is not very clever: "Hallucinations from excessive use of Linux might be similar to those of LSD or pot.".

So my guess is that it is a republican that is trying to make everyone else look like morons by posing as a non-republican posing as a republican.

Re: Linux is evil
Hellmark, Thu May 04 2006, 08:37AM

For the frontpage bit, there are other WYSIWYGs avaiable, but no self respecting person uses one.

Re: Linux is evil
Steve Conner, Thu May 04 2006, 03:56PM

Well, I'm starting out building my fancy new PC at the weekend and it's gonna have "Evil European Linux" on it. Maybe I should get a desk ornament of a plush penguin toting an AK-47. :P My boss and I both think it's tongue in cheek unless the guy is completely insane.

I am going to cheat and make it dual boot with XP SP2 though, for when I realise that I forgot how to work vi and can't get anything done.

Re: Linux is evil
Hellmark, Thu May 04 2006, 04:51PM

you know there are other editors besides vi and emacs. on the commandline, nano is good, and I use the built in one on mc alot.

Re: Linux is evil
..., Thu May 04 2006, 11:37PM

wow, isn't it amazing what windoze will do to people

the comments are what really worry me, some look like they actually believe the article

Re: Linux is evil
Bjørn, Fri May 05 2006, 12:08AM

I did not read everything but the truly brainless replies had a tendency to be very early in the list so I suspect it is the same person trying to get people to step into the salad bar.

Re: Linux is evil
Simon, Fri May 05 2006, 01:44AM


Is it serious? Probably not, but wouldn't the real question to ask be, should anyone take it seriously? Definitely not. Entertainment purposes only.

Re: Linux is evil
Alex, Fri May 05 2006, 03:14AM

Comedy gold!

I thought that was pretty amusing. Blatant sarcasm. Good stuff.

Re: Linux is evil
AndrewM, Fri May 05 2006, 03:41AM

amusing, yes. Humorous, very. at the same time, however, aren't we, here, enlightened enough to admit that linux does make some task which are painfully simple in Window very very cumbersome? I use Windows at home and Linux at work for good reason; at home, I don't want to fuck around for 20 minutes getting my printer installed, I just want to plug it in and it to work. The most annoying people, to me, are those users of either camp, Linus OR Windows who insist that either is better. The fact remains that Linux sucks ass in the home, and Windows sucks ass at work.

Macs, however, have no place anywhere

Re: Linux is evil
Simon, Fri May 05 2006, 06:37AM


Of course, Windows makes many tasks that are unpainfully simple in *nix very tedious. Then, that doesn't contradict your comment but I felt like pointing it out.

As a reminder, if this thread shows any more tendency towards, "Windows sucks", "No, Macs suck harder", it will get locked by someone. In fact, It wouldn't surprise me if next time I check this thread it's locked already.

Re: Linux is evil
Carbon_Rod, Fri May 05 2006, 07:26AM

For server design a *nix box will always win out as its cost per processor is very economical (or free.) They typically are low maintenance, have a long service life, and generally do not need upgrading (clusters are very efficient.) The command line is very powerful for those that know how to use it properly. The new GUIs for *nux are profoundly more advanced – yet contain many windows workflow bugs some users may find annoying.

GimpShop is GPL and runs on windows or *nux -- price again make this a great option for most people ( $0 versus a few grand.). It’s ironic but some application/game designers build in Linux because it’s easier to back port (some IDEs make it transparent) to other platforms (and generally its free.)

Windows is popular for multimedia, standard business formats, and cheap hardware support. Most of these problems will slowly disappear as some countries adopt the low cost media appliances like cell phones, PDAs, and MP3 players..

If they were vehicles:
Linux would be a formula 1 car – professional driver needed.
Windows would be a clowns’ SUV– it would get you there eventually, but cost you.

“Linux’s strength is its not windows -- Linux’s weakness is its not windows” (?)
It depends on what you are doing.

Re: Linux is evil
Steve Conner, Fri May 05 2006, 09:56AM

No Mac bashing please, Macs don't suck any more since OS X Once they have Intel CPUs and can dual-boot Windows, they will be perfect, especially as far as Bill is concerned

There are other editors than vi, but I always got the impression you need to know vi if you want to do anything serious, like run a Linux system with no X windows, or get your X working if it's not. It seems to be the equivalent of "edit" that came with MS-DOS: the one text editor that you can count on being available no matter how borked your box gets.

For a long time I used kedit, the Notepad clone that comes with KDE, for all my text file editing. I wrote some quite long academic papers using kedit to drive troff. (although in the end I gave up and dual booted with win95 so I could run MS Word.) Before that I think it was PICO on some old Solaris machine or other. I never "got" the vi/emacs thing.

I don't think the Formula 1 car/clown car analogy is particularly good. Nowadays, you can almost drive Linux to the store to get your groceries, without closing off all the roads and hiring a pit crew. I think it's more Uncle Cletus's souped up Ford Bronco vs. a Lincoln Navigator.

Re: Linux is evil
Ben, Fri May 05 2006, 08:29PM

my OS car analogy:

vax/vms -- volvo (for absolute safety)
*nix -- mac truck (requires a special license)
windows -- ford explorer (good enough for most people exceptional at nothing)
mac -- porsche boxster (for the "style conscious" and people with money to burn)


Incidentally the next computer I buy will probably be a mac laptop, I've yet to get linux to run to my satisfaction on a laptop.

Re: Linux is evil
HV Enthusiast, Fri May 05 2006, 09:14PM

Here is my OS toilet analogy:

Windows - Shit
MAC - Some think its cool, but it is still shit.
UNIX - Difficult *to* shit
VAX/VMS - Bend over, this won't hurt a bit . . .
DOS - Have to work quite a bit for a little bit of shit

Re: Linux is evil
Carbon_Rod, Sat May 06 2006, 01:20AM

If they were movie monsters:

Linux is Frankenstein.
Mac is the Blob.
Windows is Dracula.

Re: Linux is evil
Bjørn, Sat May 06 2006, 06:59PM

Windows - George Bush - Keeps blowing up in everybodys faces while robbing and abusing the users
MAC - Silvio Berlusconi - Started in a backyard with a good idea and ended up as a pathetic freakshow
Linux - Tony Blair - Criminally ignorant and based on ancient technology with a really bad record
DOS - Nelson Mandela - Put in 8086 segmented jail by Intel and never really got out to prove anything

Re: Linux is evil
Steve Conner, Sat May 06 2006, 08:09PM

Would Damn Small Linux be a folding bike? Or a Fiat 500?

Bj0rn: Let's not go down the Bush bashing road. I won't say that I disagree with your view on politics (on the one hand, I voted for Tony Blair once, on the other hand, I sure regret it now) but bringing up that sort of stuff will just lead to flaming.

Re: Linux is evil
Chris Russell, Sat May 06 2006, 10:07PM


I use linux almost exclusively now, and I honestly don't have a clue how to use emacs or vi. I've always used pico (now called nano). It's the one that I found to be the most intuitive and useful. However, simply because *I* found that it works better for *me* doesn't mean that it's better overall, just better for me. The same applies to the whole "which OS is better" debate. Use whichever one works for you, and try not to make a crusade out of it.

My laptop dual-boots WinXP and Ubuntu linux. Since the latest Ubuntu came out, all my hardware is supported 100%, but I do still boot into Windows when: 1) I want to use a program for which no equivalent exists in Linux, such as Google Earth, or Spectrum Lab, or, 2) I am in a damn hurry, and I need my OS to load in less than 30 seconds. WinXP recovers from hibernate much, much faster than Ubuntu.

Re: Linux is evil
Hazmatt_(The Underdog), Sun May 07 2006, 06:43AM

i read the thread to find out WHY Linux was evil, but I can see all there is, is a BIAS here, so I'm sticking with what I can handle which is XP.

Such a shame, could have been informal. Lock the damn thread.

Re: Linux is evil
Bjørn, Sun May 07 2006, 07:08AM

Well... It is a humour thread, it is just not good at it.

The only way you can find out if Linux is useful for you is to try it for yourself. A good tip is to find someone that uses it every day that you can ask questions so you don't get stumped by beginner problems.

Re: Linux is evil
..., Sun May 07 2006, 07:24AM

well since you asked and I am bored... I will try to explain with Linux is evil using all of the bs tactics I have learned...

Since securety seems to be a big thing these days, lets start with that. Everyone SAYS that Linux is very secure, but they are just trying to scare hackers from hacking in because they KNOW that a 15 year old could break into their systems. This is because all of the source code of Linux has leaked, so hackers know what all of the security measures are, and thus how to get around them. And to make matters worse there are NO firewalls available that have not had their source code compromised available for it. This makes for a VERY vulnerable system. In fact the makers of Linux designed it so 'you' can remotely connect, but (because of the compromised security) anyone with 3 brain cells can connect to a Linux box from anywhere in the world--and you never know about it, they connect completely secretly! This means that Al Qaeda could be connecting into the pentagon (which is using a modified type Linux) and getting our sensitive information without use even knowing it! Ever wonder why they are always one step ahead of us? They could even be hacking into our tax systems and stealing YOUR money! See, the government using linux is taking money out of YOUR POCKET
And since it is like 12:30 in the morning here I am going to have to stop there...

Re: Linux is evil
Carbon_Rod, Sun May 07 2006, 09:20AM

Well I would like to say your wrong – but you are not aware why you are right.

There have been buffer overflow, user promotion, and routing code exploits. However, almost 99.999% Linux FUD out there is usually related to user space applications breaking something. There is only 1 known true lab based virus that can harm Linux and it must be loaded. The Mandatory Access Control schemes, thread safe libraries, and ROM based boot media make Linux as strong as the administrators. As for source code exploits – several thousand people review the SHA cryptographic signature verified code base for possible vulnerabilities. This is why there is a zero tolerance for binaries in the Linux kernel development as to prevent a trapdoor compiler from entering into the community (it has been tried before and the trusted member was caught.) If you were referring to Ubuntu’s root password issue – that has been fixed too (often automatically updated with newer package managers.)

Remote access is usually given out as decoy over a state monitored latency compensated Network Bridge to monitor activity of clients and routers on a lab network. It’s like flypaper for dumb people. For instance it’s the same thing as thinking a system is a 1995 windows box with Sock 1 running file and print sharing. Its great bait for finding out peoples’ intentions. Otherwise known as a honey pot.

Admins these days use port knocking, port stealth, and encrypted tunnel connections (some networks use a private xor key on top of regular encryption.) These systems are invisible to non-trusted hosts and also need a key.

Besides its open source – the licence requires if you find a problem and fix it you must share. As for firewall options for linux – first guess which one, second wait for it, third your IP and routing signature is now banned!

I suppose one could stick with XPs Zonealarm ICQ exploits and Sony root kits, or BSD and Apples “ignore” it and it will go away policy (its called denial people -- ask Gates.)

Something to think about during reinstalls.

Re: Linux is evil
Steve Conner, Sun May 07 2006, 06:15PM

As you can see from Carbon_Rod and ...'s posts, both sides use the open source thing as a stick to beat each other with. I personally agree with Carbon_Rod, that having the source available actually makes for a stronger system.

Take the RSA encryption that you use when you buy things online. The RSA algorithm is published in the open literature, so everyone knows how it works and how to crack it. In theory. The catch of course is that cracking it takes about 10 years and there are no known weaknesses that can be exploited to speed it up. There is actually a cash prize for the first hacker to break it, and I think it might still be unclaimed.

I believe that Linux is much more secure than Windows by the same argument, and also because I've read about a lot of shocking design "features" in the NT/2000/XP kernel that seriously compromise security.

My new PC is going to dual boot XP and the Studio-To-Go Linux distro. I just bought a copy of XP on Friday.

Re: Linux is evil
Hazmatt_(The Underdog), Sun May 07 2006, 07:52PM

I'd just like to say that in all of the years that I've run Windows systems, '98 was by far the worst thing I've ever run (but then again Norton is notorious for BREAKING the system! how was I supposed to know, I believed what I was told! GGGRRR!!!)

And that a virus has comprimised my system twice, both from email I DIDN'T open! (thanks dad)

Re: Linux is evil
Simon, Mon May 08 2006, 01:26AM

pico is just a simple text editor. You type, so it's like DOS Edit or Notepad.

vi is also a text editor but with loads of fancy shortcut keys that let you do things like rip out everything up to the third instance of the word "the", jump three pages and dump that text four times after the second semicolon in just a few keystrokes.

I use vi exclusively. Having used it a lot I'm used to it and it's faster to use. It's an example of the whole Unix philosophy: make everything hard to learn and understand, but really efficient for when you finally understand it.

Re: Linux is evil
Steve Conner, Tue May 09 2006, 09:24AM

You mean "If" you finally understand it I just tried vi again the other day and couldn't remember a damn thing apart from ":q" to abandon what you're doing and quit. Probably my favourite vi command, that one. :P

I guess from what Chris is saying, the guys who make Linux distros are starting to supply a pico clone, so that makes me happy.

BTW, I like Win98SE a lot. I suppose it's the OS equivalent of a Geo Metro, and an 8 year old second-hand one at that. But I've worked with it for years and I know how to wrench out the back seats and any unnecessary trim, swap in the engine from a Geo Storm, and do donuts round the car park

Re: Linux is evil
Ben, Tue May 09 2006, 12:29PM


I don't think its intentionally hard to learn. It's just not the "intuitive" way of doing things. It's the way that will work best. Also most of the early unix tools are written by and for programmers. And a lot of amateurs. And CS majors, and engineers. That seems to be the whole problem, the tools were written by people who understood computers without regard to useability. It's also in my opinion what makes them particularly useful. Who doesn't like regex's, they make magic happen.

Re: Linux is evil
Steve Conner, Tue May 09 2006, 03:27PM

I'm sure I would love regexp's if I could ever remember how to write one for more than 5 minutes after looking at the documentation.

I'm in the middle of trying to wean myself off Windows/Labview and onto "proper" programming. I've got to the stage at work where the code I'm being asked to write is getting that bit more complex. Right now I have a clash caused by two Labview programs that need to be loaded at once, but they both have a subroutine that goes by the same name, but does a different thing. This causes Labview's JIT compiler to (quite rightly) throw a fit so neither program will run while the other is in memory.

Now if you were editing a C program in vi (or whatever) that would be a 5 second job to fix with a regexp search and replace. But it's going to take me a whole day of pointing and clicking on graphical function calls. I think I'm going to start getting real friendly with cygwin/mingw and gcc soon. Ew, Creeping *nix

Re: Linux is evil
Carbon_Rod, Wed May 10 2006, 03:59AM

The GCC is a great tool and is used as the engine for AVR and DSPIC compilers among many others. If you have ever played around with various compilers it has to be one of the nicer set of tools you can have around. However, I will tell you now that cygwin has serious limitations for cross compiling binaries with some make scripts.

It can be quite good when combined with apt-get and other tool chains on the debian console (KNOPPIX has it built in too.) I run a minimal debian environment with the tool chains inside a bochs environment with network support (nice -- backups are a simple 8min DVDR write.)

Agreed, if someone has not studied computer science the chances are one will not appreciate its design. Did you read that interview with Tanenbaum – he is such a hypocritical wiener as minix has/had to be the worst OS ever made. Ironically it’s indirectly partially responsible for Linux.

Notably there is much documentation about design etc. However, the development cycle can most definitely not be user friendly as many groups develop an elitist attitude. MSDN is much nicer to its developers, but gets you hooked on using non-standard C libs Microsoft owns.

It is usually the academic environment that produces *nix programmers. As for writing/modifying HPIB or other i/o drivers there are groups that are dedicated to scientific applications.

Just to let you know I would never “beat someone with a stick” -- its called a pipe "|" . =} ...evil grin...

Re: Linux is evil
Simon, Wed May 10 2006, 04:56AM


Perhaps it would have been clearer for me to say: *nix is utility over cuddliness.

I've once thought of starting a "*nix wizardry" thread. Post computing problems and see who can find the most elegant solution to it. I couldn't think of enough clever problem/solutions.

Re: Linux is evil
Bjørn, Wed May 10 2006, 06:12AM

*nix is utility over cuddliness.

Coders generally don't know about things that involves humans. Making a program that is almost impossible to exit without resetting the computer is not utility, it is just plain bad design. The same is using keys combinations that are easy to do on keyboards in a specific language but difficult on other keyboards.

Most of the *nix usability problems stems from ingorance and incompetence, not from any goal of efficiency or utility.

Re: Linux is evil
Hellmark, Wed May 10 2006, 09:29PM

almost impossible to close? Uhm, I find it is easier to close Linux stuff than in windows, especially on daemons/services.

Also, when it comes to minix, it was meant to be educational, on learning how an OS works and is made.

Re: Linux is evil
Simon, Thu May 11 2006, 12:12AM


I'm surprised at this one. *nix programs are usually completely sealed off from the OS (unlike in DOS, for example). That means that no matter how fubarred the applications get, there shouldn't be any need to reboot. The most extreme things usually need to get is a SIGKILL. (The exception is some non-*nix root SUID programs that take over the computer and don't do it well.)

I can't think of any time in the past months that I've had to powerdown my FreeBSD box unless I've specifically wanted to but Win98 on my parents' computer seems to crash and burn at a rate of about one in three. (Later versions of Windows seem to be more stable as they are designed with networking in mind.)

Re: Linux is evil
Carbon_Rod, Thu May 11 2006, 03:01AM

“...” Correctly pointed out there are problems. Applications and daemons can do funny things -- especially when bad coding allows them to go zombie. The security watchdogs cover many problems in addition to the classics.

Just ignore the FUD about things like “random number generator problems” with a Fixed Seed pool – I am surprised this came from academics. It’s analogous to saying “uncut bread is bread that has not been cut” – these people have PHDs in what?.

Keyboard maps are great for loading onto European machines. Correct character placement is better than pulling keys. =] Just about Every language and keyboard is supported. Oh btw: Secretly I hate vi too -- I mean “ Shift+;+x “to exit was an intuitive design. ;p

If you cook one console – not to worry as most distros automatically load a few consoles. Switching between them is easy as “Shift+F1” in console or “Ctrl+Shift+F1” in KDE. Also F1 to F4 are usually command line, and higher F keys will have the GUI or other special interfaces loaded on them (like handy recent DNS and firewall logs.) Go to another console and login, “kill –9” the PID of the cooked terminal, and most systems will init a fresh new terminal when you logout and switch back.

I like live CDs for two reasons:
1.) Great for daemon, network, and low level design (if you are forced to crash etc..)
2.) If they crash (as they are traditionally unstable) they will not care.

Free network testing of your machines -- win98 can be fun... ;]
Win32:

Other:

Re: Linux is evil
Steve Conner, Thu May 11 2006, 08:35AM

I agree that *nix boxes are a lot more stable and harder to "bluescreen" than Windows boxes. Badly written programs will often crash themselves, but the great thing is that it hardly ever brings the system down. When I was using *nix I would just smush the dead windows with the "xkill" tool and keep on surfing the net, drinking tea, and asking my office mates annoying questions about how to do stuff in Fortran.

I remember debugging a C program (written by someone else) under Linux. It turned out that it had bad array indexing with no bounds checking, and it was wandering out the end of one of its arrays and writing onto memory that didn't belong to it. Or trying to Linux stomped on the program at this point and spat out error messages and a core dump. By feeding the program through the gdb debugger a couple of times, I was able to figure out what was going on.

I'm sure Win2k/XP has memory management like this nowadays, and MS development tools have debuggers as good as gdb, but the Linux stuff is all free, how can you resist

Carbon_rod, I couldn't get the nessus.org software to scan anything here I remember using the Shields Up scanner at grc.com, do you think it's any good?

Bj0rn: Usability is a different problem that traditional computer science doesn't cover. I agree that nix developers may have a lot to learn there. Microsoft and MacOS have usability guidelines that they try to force their developers into. I like this rant by Eric Raymond.

I used to work with the guys who wrote the esp-r building simulation software. They were real nice guys who taught me a hell of a lot about *nix and programming. esp-r was about a million lines of code in a mixture of Fortran and C, that ran under Solaris (although they ported it to Linux with no hassle while I was there) I think it probably had the worst user interface ever. I was required to learn it and it took me about a month of extreme pain >_< I eventually did some development work on it, so if my branch ever got merged, maybe 20 of those million lines could be mine

Re: Linux is evil
Chris Russell, Thu May 11 2006, 03:28PM

Excellent link, Steve. I laughed, I cried... I've been through the same exact thing so many times! I guess this could be an example of one way in which linux is evil.

Ubuntu doesn't support WPA encryption out of the box, just WEP and unecrypted. WEP is useless; it is trivial to break. Unencrypted just isn't secure enough for me. All my important transactions take place over secure protocols, but I'd still rather some kiddie across the street couldn't sniff, say, my IRC conversations, or the cookie that my browser sends to identify me as the administrator of this website.

At any rate, in order to make it work, you have to download a tool called "wpa_supplicant." Of course, you're not connected to the 'net, so you will have to steal some access from your neighbor's open AP, or you'll have to plug in an ethernet cable. You will have to edit the config file, following the documentation carefully. You will have to generate a WPA key, and you will have to set it up to start when your computer starts. If you're really unlucky, like me, it doesn't work. No apparent reason is given, your network card just doesn't associate with your AP. Even the raw logs don't say much, just "trying to associate" over and over and over. Finally, after googling every possible combination of keywords, you figure out that you will also have to download the source of your latest wireless drivers, and recompile them. Of course, that still doesn't work. More googling reveals that recompiling new drivers doesn't always remove the old drivers, so you'll have to hunt those down and delete them. Then, finally, it works.

Getting my wireless working for the first time took about a day. From then on, it took only about ten minutes to get it set up again every time I did a kernel update. The latest version of Ubuntu, Dapper, has all the drivers I need, so I only had to set it up once (20 minutes or so), and it works. That's a marked improvement, but the problem here is clear: in WinXP, you select "WPA Encryption," enter your passphrase, and it just works. You don't have to know or care about your drivers, about the hex key generated from your passphrase, or anything else. WEP is just as easy to use on linux, but nobody's bothered to put WPA in the GUI yet. It's low priority, since there's a "workaround." Emphasis on "work," I suppose. Astonishingly, the above solution is apparently considered pretty reasonable by a lot of people in the linux camp. For now, I guess I will stick to linux when I want something to work reliably and correctly, and I will stick to WinXP when I want something to work "well enough" very very quickly.

Usability is going to become a larger issue in the coming years for linux, and I am glad that there are distros out there like Ubuntu that are focusing on making linux as usable as possible.

Re: Linux is evil
Ben, Thu May 11 2006, 04:39PM

I agree that linux is an awful bitch to get to work sometimes, but I don't like the suggestions Eric Raymond gives either. I don't want my computer automatically searching nor do I want it disabling choices for me. Perhaps I want to set up the computer for a network I'm not on...etc.

So the difference to me is, linux will always work if you really want it to, where as windows will work really quickly and easily....if it works.

Re: Linux is evil
Carbon_Rod, Thu May 11 2006, 09:57PM

The “WPA key” is not fool proof (nor kid proof after a time as NetStumbler had some interesting helper-programs that are not generally reported in the mainstream.) Kerberos with a virtual TCP over IPX proxy (static DHCP list only.) with a VPN network on top can be much better. Novell makes money for a reason. Also lowering the broadcast strength requires individuals to get close enough to spot. WHAX is a neat live CD that is specialized for wireless leak testing.

I don’t like the grc guy too much – tries to tell people he discovered the packet runt (years too late.) Does he still publicly hype this with the testing software? Ha ha ha -- what a character. But I do respect some of his placebo utilities for legacy hardware (mostly how he went about the design.)

As for passwords -- there are verification routines that monitor how you type too (a failed login even with valid data.)

Cheers,

Re: Linux is evil
Simon, Fri May 12 2006, 02:35AM


Well put.

You could also paraphrase the "GUIs make simple things simple and complex things impossible." Except it's not strictly impossible, just a lot of work.

Try using a typical Microsoft application to take everything in a document surrounded by * (as in "I *love* regular expressions") and surround them instead with <B> and </B> ("I <B>love</B> regular expressions"). You've got a day's work ahead of you. In *nix, you can just use a simple sed command - if you know how to use sed.

Re: Linux is evil
Bjørn, Fri May 12 2006, 06:19AM

I agree that linux is an awful bitch to get to work sometimes, but I don't like the suggestions Eric Raymond gives either. I don't want my computer automatically searching nor do I want it disabling choices for me. Perhaps I want to set up the computer for a network I'm not on...etc.

There is no universe where making a simple setup program has to cause any problems (even if it frequently does). It is a matter of providing documentation of all parameters that needs to be configured and a set of autodetect buttons that also document what they are autodetecting and when they are useful. The "wizard tree" should be set up so that if you want to do something that is not covered you get a list of the commands you need to use and up to date documentation on how the commands work. At the end of it all there should be a simple report/test option.


The last *nix insanity I had to endure was to get X to work on FreeBSD.
1. The documentation promised that the files should be on the HD (they were not).
2. The friendly program to get the files off the CD needed frequent resets and used 5 hours to load the files off the CD.
3. The commands promised in the documentation did not exist.
4. The commands that did exist did not take the same parameters.
5. Starting X resulted in a display of random dots that needed a reset.
6. The documentation for configuring the hardware was not correct.

It all took two days and makes buying Windows XP a sensible alternative. Luckily Linux usually does not require two days to set up basic configurations but there are still many traps to fall into that are completely needless. It is not because it is the best solution but because it was the simplest way out for the developers.

The alternative? Look at Oberon where the documentation is the setup program, you can execute commands directly from the document and edit the parameters as needed. Then add some ideas from Wiki and a big sign saying "No Cargo Cult documentation allowed!".

Re: Linux is evil
Simon, Sat May 13 2006, 12:19AM

Getting X to work took some effort for me, too, but strangely I had none of the problems you listed.

FreeBSD is great, but it's not the instant noodles kind of OS.

Re: Linux is evil
Hellmark, Sat May 13 2006, 10:11PM

the nice thing about *nix is that while you can have a nice GUI manage stuff for you, if there is something that is difficult to do using that GUI, you aren't forced to have to use the GUI. You have the best of both worlds right there, letting you pick and choose what you want.