I don't know if this is permitted here. If not. Just delete this and if it's permitted, reply with go ahead. As Linux users we have large software choices. I gave this thread the title of Garbage-ware because there is some software that is garbage. Either it's incomplete or it is so poorly written it just doesn't work or crashes like Windows 98. What Linux programs you came across that earns the title of Garbage-ware?

basically everything that is preinstalled on windows laptops and desktops by all the OEM's

those programs are what i call "crap ware"

basically you are looking for a 1,000,000+ long list of programs

too long to post

1 members found this post helpful.

This thread is only about Linux software. No, Microsoft or Apple. But you gave me a good laugh.

You sound like a consumer complaining about defective products.
The beauty of open source is that anyone can create/modify/release stuff that you can also use freely.

If it's not up to your standards, or doesn't work as you would expect or like, file a bug report, improve it yourself, or use something else.

Each distro that maintains a repo should have policies about what standards software needs to meet to be included - it's your choice what to use, or not.

Complaining that some software that someone built (for whatever reason inspired them) is "crap" is pointless - it may be that you don't understand how it works or it wasn't intended to function with the setup you are running, or it was a 'first draft' that has been abandoned for any number of reasons or ... whatever.

1 members found this post helpful.

You respond like one of those that creates Garbage-ware. I don't create software or know how to create software. Some software doesn't allow bug reports. It's great we have these choices with Linux, but the way you responding is you support bad software.

So you're a step below the "crapware writers" in the "qualified to comment" category then.I don't know of any (real) distro's that don't have a bugtracker of some description for the software they include.
If you're talking about direct to upstream - it's not a requirement, again, anyone can write code and release it.No, I support anyones right to write and release whatever code they want, without it needing to comply to your expectations.
Most of the time it is simply because it is something useful to them - and you can either use it or not or (learn how, like they did, and) rewrite it to your liking.

3 members found this post helpful.

Your comments are useless.

Given the openness of the web and Linux, this is an extremely difficult question. People are free to post their ideas, code, or compiled programs, and the rest of us are free to try their code or not. For instance you can web search for a coding example and find many examples. I do this, and invariably they help me, but I usually copy what helps me best, edit the code to fit my coding style, and also to fit the individual case. Plus what I've searched for is not my entire architecture, but just a function of some type to accomplish something I haven't written before, or it's been so long I'd like some new ideas. When following practices as I describe, you clearly encounter incomplete code, as well as very bad code. Well, I'm not going to even start by copying code which I find to be very poorly written, and thus I ignore it. Not that it has a name, or anything either, it's just something someone posted somewhere.

Meanwhile there's code that's more well known, like gimp, or ffmpeg, or other utilities. And I'm sure there are plenty of utilities that people have written which haven't grown like ffmpeg did, or a similar example, because their functions were not so widely useful, or the code was poor and never maintained.

To answer fully, I really don't have any big public examples that I'd cite, in fact the exact opposite would be that I'd cite code where it once was some free thing written just by a person who posted it, and that code turned into something very useful and now is a part of normal distributions of Linux.

The other part of my answer would be to ask what the thinking is behind your question? Are you trying to avoid encountering bad software? Or just asking a general question?

1 members found this post helpful.

Excellent response. The reasoning behind the question is to see which programs are bad and are more trouble than it's worth. This information could possibly be beneficial not just for myself, but for everyone. The vast majority of Linux software is great. But sometimes we encounter poorly written software. Sometimes it can look like a bad software because it's very old or outdated and these old are still floating around and don't play well with other modern software, modern hardware, and modern Linux distros. Long live Linux.

So, your way or the hiway, huh?

I thought descendant_command's comments had a lot of merit. To have them summarily dismissed by someone who admits up front to having no knowledge of the subject is just another form of crap.

This is beginning to look like a garbage-thread - as if there aren't enough already.

No. But when someone is a wise guy and wants to defend a problem, that problem keeps getting bigger.

Are we reading the same post??

I see nothing in descendant_command's post that could remotely be construed as defending any problem!? I see only a very constructive and important, if brief, bit of perspective being expressed. If you are going to label other people's work as crap, you must at least admit of some context other than "just because I think so"!

If the "wise guy" label is to be applied, I see only one good candidate so far.

Even well written software in the wrong hands could be considered crapware after a "user" has hosed his system with it.
Then they love to blame anyone but themselves.

Old software? What's that?
The original code for vi was written by Bill Joy in 1976 and it's one of the best "old" programs in the world.

Can you cite some specific examples, or even one that doesn't play well with modern hardware... modern Linux Distros?

You seem pretty defensive about the subject.

I can honestly say I can't think of any "garbage" software that I have installed under Linux. There are things like Unity that I don't like and things like command-line IRC and email clients that either I've been to stupid to learn how to use (the IRC) or there's a known issue meaning I can't use it (the email client).
I think the buggiest thing I use is Google Earth, which buggy or not is one of the few applications I "must have".

1 members found this post helpful.

I think considering it as an overall "in general" topic, you'll find two or three variations on answers, but they'll also all be subjective.

1. Something someone doesn't "like", so they say they don't like it. Doesn't mean it's bad software
2. Something someone didn't understand or couldn't use and they say they don't like it, but perhaps the person commenting was their self, a poor user of software, where nothing is ever going to satisfy their needs/desires
3. A biased attack for no reason, once again, because someone's passionately against something and they just wish to have their say.

It is far easier to criticize, people do this all the time, versus offer good feedback.

Meanwhile I've seen possibly effective questions about particular software where the OP has asked, "Has anyone used blah-blah? I'm using it for this task and would like to know if anyone has any experiences they can share?" Usually this works fairly well in communicating benefits and pitfalls on a particular software utility, as well as possible alternatives should the OP be interested in trying some alternates.

1 members found this post helpful.