This blog is devoted to nonconstructive criticism, bashing, and other things that, being neither answers nor questions, are evidently unwelcome anywhere else in Linux Questions.
Yet another commented example of why nada
Posted 02-26-2011 at 07:13 AM by AGer
As we all know, the Linux desktop share is flat since 2004. Yet another example of why it is so follows.
I have the latest Ubuntu in a VM and update it occasionally. Right now it asks for permission to install 115 updates and download 1 MB. OK, granted.
Unfortunately, there are 5 (five) packages that are missing on the mirror it uses. So, it tries to download them, creates a list of 5 "404 - not found" errors, recommends to check the Internet connection(!), and returns to the initial position.
I guess it is needless to explain that each and every step in the update procedure is implemented so that no professional company will allow the discussion to go beyond "there are no open janitor positions, so you are fired".
Yes, being free and open to everyone is the great way to start, but to advance beyond the first percent something else must be added.
I have the latest Ubuntu in a VM and update it occasionally. Right now it asks for permission to install 115 updates and download 1 MB. OK, granted.
Unfortunately, there are 5 (five) packages that are missing on the mirror it uses. So, it tries to download them, creates a list of 5 "404 - not found" errors, recommends to check the Internet connection(!), and returns to the initial position.
I guess it is needless to explain that each and every step in the update procedure is implemented so that no professional company will allow the discussion to go beyond "there are no open janitor positions, so you are fired".
Yes, being free and open to everyone is the great way to start, but to advance beyond the first percent something else must be added.
Total Comments 2
Comments
-
Refusing to update is better than partially updating and breaking... Oh wait it's already broken because it's Ubuntu. Either way, I'm sure windows users are used to reinstalling anyway. On top of that, if you are using it like windows (e.g. every day with automatic updates turned on) you will probably never have such problems.
Aside from Ubuntu's shortcomings, no company should be using it in a production environment. It's not designed for that, it's designed for the home user. Red Hat is designed at production. They have set versions, recommended up date plans, long version support, support plan built into the cost. Red Hat is also the only linux os that I've seen officially supported by server hardware.Posted 02-26-2011 at 02:16 PM by lumak 
-
Let me list the main faults:
1. Unable to update what can be updated.
2. Does not understand that if the 404 error is received the Internet connection is OK.
3. Unable to switch to another mirror. It knows it, BTW.
4. Does not assume it is silly and imperfect. THE MOST COMMON FOSS GLITCH.
More on 4. The pro way is: if something may be wrong, provide an override. The Ubuntu way: try to do that which cannot be done.
With the upgrade, why not highlight problematic packages, show dependencies, and let me decide.
Next I ran the Janitor. It suggested to remove a bunch of packages that are not used anymore. HOW COME this is possible with automatic package management and updates?
More so, how come that only 1 of 3 kernel headers packages was selected for removal? Ubuntu feels free to release pure junk?
You write Ubuntu is already broken. I agree, but it is THE distribution that defines Linux for the masses.
Now "Refusing to update is better than partially updating and breaking". Correct. But it sounds somewhat like an achievement and I disagree here. Yes, it is common to write crap and iron it until the main use cases are more or less covered. There is a special buzz word for exactly that - tests first development. The problem is that it cannot be the only way to develop, but to do something better one has to sacrifice some freedom, and FOSS is all about freedom. This is why there is either a charismatic leader capable of taking away freedom, or a boss, or a road to failure (like firefox - Firefox - Firefox!! - FIREFOX!!! - Chrome).
Frankly, when I compare Linux to QNX I am not that sure Linux is a proof of the FOSS superiority as the way to develop software.
Re: "officially supported by server hardware". Either nonsense, or yet another problem. Hardware is interacting with the kernel and only with the kernel. If Linux cannot provide me with an environment where this thing either works with some kernel or money back, I am not interested. I would better use Windows which can discipline hardware vendors, even though it can neither do fork nor send a signal to a thread (oops, looks like .NET can, and it also has lighter and more efficient threads than Linux, and also has the compiler services namespace, and type safety that allows things like Silverlight security that Linux has exactly nothing to match with, and perfect integration between object, dynamic, and functional worlds).
I understand all the .NET depends on few people and their status in Microsoft and WPF is already fading out and Muglia is gone and Silverlight is not winning big against Flash and Window Phone 7 is likely to fail and bury both Silverlight and Nokia, but the level of Linux innovation is open to discussion at best.
My point is: Linux can built on its strength, be good to those who need that strength, reach some 10% of the desktop market by enlightening users and be never ignored, but instead it is trying to grab the "average user" which is impossible on the desktop and the last decade is mostly wasted.Posted 02-26-2011 at 05:20 PM by AGer
