Vote Up
Vote Down

Argue long enough with a Linux advocate and they’ll eventually run out of excuses. They know things are broken, they know its not ready for the mainstream and they know it only has 1% marketshare.

As a last line of defense, they will recycle one of the original selling points, its free. It doesn’t cost you a penny (unless your time is worthless, of course). The assumption is that because its free there are no expectations to live up to.

Try offering someone a free lunch and then serve them turd sandwiches, see if they don’t complain simply because it was free.

#1 Posted by Chlorus on Dec 8, 2009 2:11 AM

Single worst thing about the FOSS model: end-users have no power over developers. In a closed-source system, at least you can boycott and financially damage the producers. In FOSS, your only recourse is to either prostitute yourself to them or fork the project.

#2 Posted by BinarySpill on Dec 8, 2009 3:29 AM

... In FOSS, your only recourse is to either prostitute yourself to them or fork the project.
That’s the freedom their trying give you.

#3 Posted by BinarySpill on Dec 8, 2009 3:32 AM

should also be tagged with:


#4 Posted by Chlorus on Dec 8, 2009 8:31 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised that the poor usability of most Linux apps is an attempt for old sysadmins to return to the glory days of the 70s and 80s, when the computer was unusable to the average person and required that you consult a UNIX wizard. It would give them a sense of worth again.

#5 Posted by DrLoser on Dec 8, 2009 3:25 PM

No no no no no.

“In FOSS, you can’t hear your users scream.”

#6 Posted by DrLoser on Dec 8, 2009 3:29 PM

Just to encourage cross-fertilisation, I’m going to beg permission to post that one back on LHB...

#7 Posted by garegin on Dec 22, 2013 12:14 PM

The problem becomes more pronounced when Linux is sold as a product like RHEL or SLES. You are paying for something which is the packaged work of some hobbyist coder. Reh Hat has no power to fix anything other than the code they wrote. The support they give you with the purchase means jack.

After all, if someone already knew know to fix Gnome crashing they would tell everyone else and people wouldn't have to buy support.

The result is that even when you take the bait and pay for Linux, the result is the exact same.

#8 Posted by kurkosdr on Dec 24, 2013 1:26 PM


RedHat actually does R&D and contributes code to linux, because if their RHEL doesn't fullfil the needs of their customers, said customers will go to Windows Server or somewhere else.


Problem is RedHat only contributes fixes that are relevant to the web server crowd, they have no reason to fix Gnome, PulseAudio and the like. This is why Linux has an acceptable kernel, acceptable networking but crap GUI, graphics and audio. It's also why you should always run a linux server headless.

#9 Posted by garegin on Dec 24, 2013 10:54 PM

1. their testing in pretty weak.

2. any fixes they make will be stolen by other distros, namely CentOS, therefore diging into their profits. They have been thus fighting tooth and nail to sabotage derivatives from integrating their patches quick enough.

3. The reason web servers us RHEL is the reason Mexian delivery boys use Huffy bikes. It's a steaming pile of s*** which doesn't gearswitch properly, but its economical. I'm actually surprised at the amount of effort RH puts into areas which "help the comminitah" put do not butter their bread- the LAMP. I guess they are just clinging to the historic dreams of Unix workstations. After all, the main uses for Linux on the server are pretty simplistic. Half the time its either serving some php code or being either a VM host or a SAN target. Now you see why the datacenters are opting for the Huffy.

You must be signed in to leave comments.