Is it just me...

[ForumMaster]

depends. Linux is cool, but for the little things that i like, windows is better supported.

 

[Robor]

Hey, you know what's not sweeter in Linux? When a xorg update breaks your X server! :|

A few weeks ago a kernel update broke my wireless. I got it working again but it's so unstable (drops constantly and quits working all together) it's not worth using. Then yesterday I applied a recommended update (xorg) and now I boot to the command prompt.

Now I get to spend who knows how long fixing this problem. It's $hit like this that will prevent Linux from *EVER* becoming a mainstream desktop OS for the masses.

Edit: Here's a thread on Ubuntu Forums about it

 

[Mindflux]

Originally posted by: cleverhandle

Not disagreeing with you, but I do think there's been tremendous improvement along these lines over the last 2 years or so. At least as far as the desktop user is concerned, the whole experience is much more "cohesive" now than it was before. I'm not comparing it to OSX or anything, but there's definitely been a lot of progress. To what extent that's an effect of greater corporate involvement, the effective reduction of the desktop space to GNOME/KDE, the work of independent groups (e.g. freedesktop.org), or just individual coders being more cooperative and thoughtful I couldn't say. All of the above to some degree, obviously...

I wasn't even speaking of gnome/kde etc. Those aren't part of the default 'userland' on most installs. I'm not even talking about XFree86 or Xorg. Just all the little utilities that go into making the default install what it is.

Check out the freebsd '/usr / src ' tree on FreeBSD to get a better idea.

(Weird wont let me type****** with a slash right before it. Stupid filters)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Mindflux
I wasn't even speaking of gnome/kde etc. Those aren't part of the default 'userland' on most installs. I'm not even talking about XFree86 or Xorg. Just all the little utilities that go into making the default install what it is.

Check out the freebsd '/usr / src ' tree on FreeBSD to get a better idea.

(Weird wont let me type****** with a slash right before it. Stupid filters)

Even the crappy GNU userland stuff is better integrated these days. Or at least feels that way to me.

 

[Nothinman]

Linux isn't an OS. It's a Kernel.

There in lay the problem.

Meaning:
Yes, the kernel has a relatively close eye kept on it. But what's comprised of the 'userland', is just a bunch of packages cobbled together.

*BSD the userland and the kernel come from the same source tree.

FTW.

Actually it's an advantage. What that means to me is that the BSD guys get to cheat, they can change userland interfaces willy-nilly and break whatever they want because they can just update their 'world' and not notice. In some ways that's good because you can clean out old cruft easier, but in general it's better to have the primary users of your interfaces be external, that way you're more careful about design and changes to them. And it means that I can easily replace parts of that core just by installing a new package since there's no real ties between them.

 

[Nothinman]

Originally posted by: Robor
Hey, you know what's not sweeter in Linux? When a xorg update breaks your X server! :|

A few weeks ago a kernel update broke my wireless. I got it working again but it's so unstable (drops constantly and quits working all together) it's not worth using. Then yesterday I applied a recommended update (xorg) and now I boot to the command prompt.

Now I get to spend who knows how long fixing this problem. It's $hit like this that will prevent Linux from *EVER* becoming a mainstream desktop OS for the masses.

Edit: Here's a thread on Ubuntu Forums about it

That's part of the risk you run by using one of the fastser moving distros. I'm a little surprised that something like this would make it out to the update server in Ubuntu, but the fact that things liket his almost never happen to Debian stable says sure something for their QA. =)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Actually it's an advantage. What that means to me is that the BSD guys get to cheat, they can change userland interfaces willy-nilly and break whatever they want because they can just update their 'world' and not notice. In some ways that's good because you can clean out old cruft easier, but in general it's better to have the primary users of your interfaces be external, that way you're more careful about design and changes to them. And it means that I can easily replace parts of that core just by installing a new package since there's no real ties between them.

Kind of like the stable APIs in the Linux kernel?

EDIT: And just a note, I haven't seen any changes to interfaces between OpenBSD userland and kernel that didn't get bounced around a number of developers. I can't speak for the other BSDs. So there is plenty of planning in changes to the overall design.

 

[Nothinman]

Kind of like the stable APIs in the Linux kernel?

The userland APIs and a ABIs are stable, it's the internal APIs that aren't.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Kind of like the stable APIs in the Linux kernel?

The userland APIs and a ABIs are stable, it's the internal APIs that aren't.

I wasn't entirely serious, I see benefits in both the BSD and Linux methods of software development.

What makes breaking third party kernel modules better than breaking third party userland?

 

[Nothinman]

I wasn't entirely serious, I see benefits in both the BSD and Linux methods of software development.

I know, but someone might see your comment and not realize the difference.

What makes breaking third party kernel modules better than breaking third party userland?

Some core Linux people believe that binary-only modules are in violation of the GPL whereas userland application's aren't and out-of-tree GPL'd modules should be working to get their stuff included so they won't have to worry about it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Some core Linux people believe that binary-only modules are in violation of the GPL whereas userland application's aren't

I agree with those people.

and out-of-tree GPL'd modules should be working to get their stuff included so they won't have to worry about it.

Third party doesn't necessarily mean binary-only. The stuff that's out of tree and open/free not only has to improve enough to get included, but they also have to continuously make sure they keep up with API changes. Doesn't that complicate things quite a bit?

I mean, I can see making big API changes between major versions of the kernel, but switching things around mid-stream has got to be a PITA for people trying to get drivers included.

 

[Nothinman]

I mean, I can see making big API changes between major versions of the kernel, but switching things around mid-stream has got to be a PITA for people trying to get drivers included.

I don't disagree, but it's not like there's major API changes with every release. Since I haven't tried to maintain anything out of tree I don't know how much it really sucks, so I can't really comment.