Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of desktop Linux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Second Quantization (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 19 December 2010 (→Linux is not windows: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

References

thats a pity, because http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/05/will-linux-ever-be-mainstream.html has valuable informations and analysis inside... but was unable to find the author's name... seems to be some theodore (but not theodore tso) 95.114.225.76 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are pretty much governed by the restrictions at WP:SPS in not using blogs as references, but if you can find that same information else where in a more reliable source it would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Up to date Criticisms

The Viability page has criticisms related to Ubuntu which is 5 or 6 releases of Ubuntu out of date. It's also written by someone with ties to microsoft. I'll look for criticisms from a more NPOV source, anyone able to help also would be appreciated. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to update these. i am always prowling around looking for updated criticisms of Ubuntu and Linux desktops in general. The main problem is that, especially in the case of Ubuntu, Canonical has taken criticisms seriously and has largely worked to eliminate the problems that were criticized. This has resulted in largely a dearth of criticisms in recent years as problems get addressed quickly. This all makes finding criticisms difficult these days. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I want technical criticisms I may as well wait for 10.10 this weekend IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be the common technical criticisms I had anticipated. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Arve Bersvenden's comments: in 2007 he completely changed his mind: http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2007/06/i-was-wrong-about-linux IRWolfie- (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove quote by A. Russell Jones and here is the reasoning: His comments are from 2003, his example and target of criticism is to the now non-existent mandrake linux. Modern distributions do make the choices for you (i.e Fedora, Ubuntu choose Gnome). I notice they have a pretty low alexa rank (~7000) too so I'm not sure how noteworthy his comments are or were. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only comment I would make is that I think historical criticisms (i.e. those that were valid at one time, but that have been addressed) have some value in the article provided that it is made clear that they are historical in nature. Because Linux and the distros are generally moving fast in addressing problems if you remove all the criticisms that have been fixed, then we will soon be able to AfD this article for "no content". I guess there are two ways to go on this article: either it can deal with the history of criticisms over time and how they have been addressed (or not yet), or it can be a list of the current outstanding issues yet to be addressed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, imho the criticism of "to many choices for the user" is still valid (even if this specific examples are a little bit outdated) ... still the required selection of distro, flavours of distros (ubuntu, kubuntu, ubuntu... ), tools and applications (video players, editors...). pre-selections of distros differ (LSB still to weak) and changing fast as version numbers increasing ... might be still a significant user experience problem for joe normal-user. Shaddam (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some good reliable sources it would be a good addition to the article, but, I think the choice for example ubuntu is pretty much made for you (i.e gnome), one has to dig to find the alternatives. The tools and apps argument seems especially puzzling to me because of the vast range of applications in all areas on windows. Perhaps a reliable source discussing LSB conformance would be a particularly relevant addition.IRWolfie- (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having out of date criticisms seems confusing to me, Desktop Linux has been around for the last about 20 years, the original quotes were added because they were perceived as being relevant at the time but are no longer, but they do not have historical criticisms, i.e pre-1999. Perhaps, as you say, there would be merit in a section on historical criticisms and how they were addressed. I'll do a little research on past criticisms and how they were addressed, i.e the old issues of: Lack of driver compatibility, too much distribution choice (Ubuntu has essentially eliminated this by being the de facto beginner distribution), confusing Windows managers. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit that was in the article at one time and also in Criticism of Linux along with refs. I agree that perhaps separating them into "current" and "historical" sections makes sense. As an analogy, if you limited Criticism of the Third Reich to current criticism, then it would look like it was a great organization today! - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
aha, Touché. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to indicate that Linux and the Third Reich have much in common...! - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article directly contradicts itself: "Linux has been criticized for a number of reasons, including lack of user-friendliness[2] and having a high learning curve,[3] being inadequate for desktop use, " with "Both critics indicated that Linux did not fail on the desktop due to being "too geeky," "too hard to use," or "too obscure". Both had praise for distributions, Strohmeyer saying "the best-known distribution, Ubuntu, has received high marks for usability from every major player in the technology press"." Can we also not use a more reputable site than techeye for a source, perhaps one that doesn't refer to Apple uses as "barking" or linux users as "open sauce loonies", (it seems to deliberately weaken the criticism from pc world by linking it with a fringe source). I also don't buy the argument of the ideology being the issue since of the large user share linux has in terms of servers and mobile devices (in android), I'll try for look for refs to support this IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just working with the refs we have from below, but if you can find additional ones that would be helpful! You can note that the refs supporting "lack of user-friendliness[2] and having a high learning curve,[3] being inadequate for desktop use" are from 2006 and 2007 and while that may have been the case back then, this is clearly not true any more in 2010, as the refs from this year state. I think this is why it is important to show when these criticisms were leveled, as things have changed quickly in the past four years. - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

contribs?

potential contributions? http://www.techeye.net/software/linuxs-chance-has-gone

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999-2/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html

http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-11-25-008-35-OP-DT-NT 141.52.232.84 (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those, I have written a new section based on the two most recent of them. - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a counter-point quote and ref to the criticism to add some balance. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Con Kolivas - Reasoning for quitting different here

His reasoning for quitting is given as that the initial development he had done became more and more like work: http://ck.kolivas.org/german_linux_magazine_interview.txt IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The Criticism of Desktop Linux is a history of comment on the perceived shortcomings of Linux distributions in desktop computing use.

Is this self-referential? Is "Criticism of Desktop Linux" the title of this article? It's confusing what it's referring to. The first line makes it sound like this is some essay or something and not an encyclopedia article. 71.155.239.222 (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles are required to start off like this, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linux is not windows

A common complaint is that linux isn't windows etc, I'll try and add this or if anyone else can also. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_desktop_Linux&oldid=403259058"