This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Linux article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
I noticed that there was a page "criticism of Windows XXX" for every release of windows. But none for Linux. So I created one in the interest of keeping Wikipedia fair. I am a Linux fan, and if we want to create a better operating system we need to have a better discussion as to what needs work. Hendrixski00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that the only source for this article is Linux's biggest competitor, Microsoft? Isn't that the equivalent of writing an article based on industry slander? Luksuh22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not promoting the Microsoft POV, we're just stating that there are criticisms of Linux, and here is evidence of that. It is up to the reader to decide if they believe Microsoft. Lankiveil13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
good points! We don't want to promote Microsofts POV, so we need to cite more non-MS sources. But who else has negative facts about Linux... everyone else seems to just not criticize it. Hendrixski18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are by no means "promoting" Microsoft's point of view. All the article does is inform readers that Microsoft has a point of view pertaining to Linux, and what these views specifically are. — H.7004.Vx (talk)22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually Microsoft pays money to promote their image and to make claims about competition, why should Wikipedia present their ads and paid "research" as "Microsoft opinion" for free? I think Wikipedia should use reliable sources, Microsoft is not a reliable source about their competitors, also, the fact that Microsoft has opinions about their competitors is not an Encyclopedic fact (in my humble opinion) -- AdrianTM02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this analysis. Microsoft are not a reliable source when quoted directly. If a secondary/tertiary source can be found which analyses their results then this would be acceptable IMO.-Localzuk(talk)12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD debate on this article (see tag at top for link), while being closed as a keep had some strong suggestion for merging the information into Linux. As that is an editorial decision, continued discussion to reach a consensus as to whether or not this article should be merged is encouraged here. Arkyan • (talk)21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets merged then some windows fanboy will look at the "criticism of Windows" pages (plural) and think "Oh, there's just criticism of windows, and not other OS'es, this is bias". And I don't want to hear it.
I don't want any windows users telling me how Wikipedia is biased against their crappy bloated operating system. Windows deserves that criticism, it worked very hard to garner it! And in order to shut those people up we need a "criticism of Linux" page that we can show them and say "see! it's not biased, now STFU already" and hopefully they'll just leave and buy a Mac or something. Hendrixski18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very poor argument. The issue with Windows is that the fact it is criticised is a notable subject on its own - there are many thousands of articles covering criticism of it - therefore it could be claimed that such an article is needed (however, I think it should be merged back with its Windows article and sub articles).
Saying 'see that article has one' doesn't mean that this one should have one - it just means that that one is in the wrong also.
As the proposer of the AFD I think this article should be merged into the Linux article and the information placed where it is relevant. If it is all stuck in one spot under a poorly thought out 'criticism' banner then it will lower the quality of the article. For example, criticism about its usability should be included in a section on usability, covering the history of complaints, and showing how things have changed (or not, as the case may be) etc... This would lead to a well balanced article without a broken structure.-Localzuk(talk)21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this isn't a criticism article on just the the kernel but criticism on distributions in general. Does the article look like valid criticism of say Ubuntu ? NONE of the cites in the first section "Viability for use as a desktop system" actually match the text.
"notably because of the perceived availability of only questionable alternatives to widely-used applications (especially office suites) and hardware support issues," is cited with link to "[4]" which uses Gartner and at best they say that "On the desktop, Linux is having a tougher time. Gartner claims the operating system is reaching the point where the costs of migration may exceed the cost benefits in a phase characterised by over-enthusiasm and unrealistic projections which lead to more failures than successes.". I'm going to change that sentence to match the cite.
"which is claimed particularly problematic for laptop users as they tend to use many proprietary devices." is also uncited. This is a general claim related to hardware support and it is not so much a criticism of Linux but of the hardware manufacturers not supporting Linux i.e. "The issue isn't Linux technology or UI. It's vendor support." quoting [5] .
The whole paragraph of,
"A steep learning curve of Linux beyond basic use, various incompatibilities with other operating systems, and difficulty involved with setting up hardware are also notable complaints. Further, Linux has been accused of being "not ideal" for intermediate power users. [2] [3] [4]" has three cites,
The first link is to an article which says that "desktop Linux distros, such as SUSE and Ubuntu, are ready for you today -- even in the workplace."...but then continues, "as one of our Web developers cautioned me, there's a very steep learning curve in going beyond basic Linux use.". So really can't pin the article author down to saying that "very steep learning curve in going beyond basic Linux use" other than he reports one of his web developers as saying that. The article author main issue is with "vendor support".
The link to [6] only mentions desktop in the claim ""Any statement from Microsoft about Linux is frankly self interested. If Linux gains share on the desktop, that clearly comes at the expense of Microsoft. Having said that, there clearly are [legitimate] criticisms of Linux," Haff says". Which really isn't a criticism.
The link [7] to "Green Hills calls Linux 'insecure' for defense" is effectively to a partisan view and it is related to embedded use NOT Desktop (for our article).
Which leaves the Microsoft section. Again are we talking Desktop or Server ?. It says Desktop in the article thus link to the Secunia study and Windows Server 2003 are not relevant. The link to [8] is clearly not in Windows' favour as it throws a spanner in the Microsoft claims. It can't be used here to support claims of criticism of Linux ! And for the last few cites on reliability and TCO the links say "Third-party experts and customers are weighing the total cost of ownership of Windows Server and Linux to inform their platform decisions."...thus not DESKTOP.
I don't want to effect these changes as it will gut 95% of the article and it would be easier to simply AfD. What do we do ? Ttiotsw04:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now can you see why I posted it as an AFD originally? It is going to be more than difficult to make this into a worthwhile article. However, I will work with what you have listed there and reword the article - as it is about 'Linux' as a whole and not just desktop linux.-Localzuk(talk)16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a Linux user since 1997 I'm happy that there is a criticism article as it highlights the gaps but it's going to be a hard task identifying Criticisms with Linux if the article has to be split into,
Embedded including RTOS
Supercomputer - Single image or clusters
Desktop - lightweight e.g. OLPC or Cafe
Desktop - Home
Desktop - Enterprise
Server - Virtualised or real and for different traffic classes
No one now can easily fault the Embedded (or RTOS ) market for Linux (examples). The Supercomputer market is fairly well awash with Linux solutions though you really are buying the big-iron. I imaging that Microsoft will be working on some marketing nonsense now that quite a few years later they come up with their solution so maybe we'll get some "criticisms". Desktop lightweight users have no real criticisms with Linux (presuming it is pre-installed by someone !). Desktop home users probably have an issue with games and general vendor support. Desktop enterprise again vendor support for esoteric or very specific industry apps. For servers the usual Microsoft marketing.
Now for all the above multiply that by the number of distributions and you end up with an uneven struggle with people like Gartner trying to guess a future which ends up obsolete the day before they publish their reports through to Microsoft who cherry pick the oddest of configurations and once again is obsolete the day they gets published.
I don't think the article would even be non-partisan or neutral given such a huge scope. If I was me I would reword as suggested above and then AfD it. Ttiotsw20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Microsoft should criticize Linux, is interesting in the light of some of the services that they market, that are running on Linux servers. Several years ago I talked with a Microsoft employee who did support work for Microsoft. He was based in Winnipeg, and stated to me that the service he was supporting was run on Linux servers. This service moved and screened email. Because this is hearsay, I thought it would be okay to include it on the talk page for the geeks that read talk pages. Ricgal (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I contested the proposed deletion. First of all, the article doesn't meet the criteria for proposed deletion, as it survived AFD twice (from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion:Articles that: Have previously been proposed for deletion, Have previously been undeleted, Have been discussed on AfD or MfD are not candidates for {{prod}}.') Furthermore, I believe this is a notable topic, warranting inclusion in the encyclopaedia. This has been proven by the numerous reliable sources. If you believe the article should be deleted, a full discussion at WP:AfD should take place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say? The POV pushers seem to be winning over here...
This article is as POV as can be, all the reasons that stood for the original delete still stand. Linux is a minority subject area, and as such is used by a minority of people. Including the views of an even smaller minority who criticise it is getting into fringe views - which should not be represented on WP.
Also, the sources for these discussions are way out of date, as Linux changes month by month in terms of functionality and security. Articles which were published in 2004 and 2005 are so far gone that they should simply not be acceptable. We don't bring up criticisms under the Windows article regarding prior version of that OS, so why do we with this one?
The inclusion of information by Microsoft is quite simply astounding. They are a direct competitor with the product!! The more people that use Linux, the less that use Windows.
If you get rid of the Microsoft information, that leaves a single paragraph of information that is covered on another article!!!
This simply seems to be a case of POV pushing by those who dislike Linux, and also conflicts with the original AFD. The re-created article simply restated the same old junk from Microsoft, so should have been deleted straight away, to allow it to get to the state it is in now (which is nearly identical to the state it was in before being deleted the first time) should be seen as a mistake.
You have a point about the datedness of the criticisms. But please don't try to suppress the article - that won't work as the AFD discussions show. Instead, you should try to improve the article by showing how the product development is addressing the criticisms. For example, a couple of standard criticisms seem to be that
Linux lacks the performance for major business applications like ERP
Linux lacks good security options and certification which are required for some applications
Something is being done about this but I couldn't say which versions addressed them in which year. Perhaps you could provide a version history. By their nature, new versions fix or improve upon problems in the previous versions. By listing this progress you provide useful information which will be appreciated rather than resisted.
You don't address any of my other points, such as the fact Microsoft is being used as a source, or the fact that these are fringe views, and are therefore in the realm of breaching WP:NPOV.
My point is that the article can't be improved, as the inclusion of these pieces of information would be not notable enough. I don't wish to suppress anything, and think that anything of use should be included on this site, so long as it isn't a fringe view.
Also, where are you getting to criticism about ERP? I have been using Linux since 1995, so this is a surprise to me. When I do a very brief search for 'Linux ERP' in Google, I get results saying that it was doable in 2004 (SAP and Compiere being the 2 that feature most often).
And what do you mean by security options? On certification, last I checked Mandriva had achieved EAL5 certification (a process started in 2004). Same with Redhat Enterprise Linux. These are all 'old news' in the scheme of things.
If all this information is included, the article would simply turn into an extension of the main Linux article, as the negatives would once again be outweighed heavily by more up to date positives.-Localzuk(talk)00:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is already an extension of the main Linux article. Linux is a big topic and so subarticles are appropriate. The main article currently says nothing about ERP or security that I can see. Since these are significant criticisms it would be good to have them addressed somewhere. For comparison see Objections to evolution which we have even though the theory is now generally accepted. The existence of criticisms does not validate them - we record them because they seem notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed my point again. This article is titled 'Criticisms of Linux' and therefore should describe notable criticisms of linux. The ERP comment is not notable (I couldn't find anything criticising Linux for being incapable of ERP, and the only things I could see were articles from 2004 saying there were various packages/companies which do ERP on linux, with no mention of performance issues). And then, again, on the certification issue I can't find any negative information since 2004. These are 4 year old issues, and should not be placed on any article as they are simply no longer notable in any way shape or form. And my comment regarding an extension of the Linux page, I meant that this page would end up filled with long lists of modern counter claims to all of the earlier criticisms.
This article should only be used to describe recent criticisms. And I have yet to find many of those! So much so that having a full article regarding it is against policy, and the content should be merged into where those criticisms apply. I have done a short search on Google News, looking over 20 pages of news items and I could only find one negative thing in there - that there have been critical security flaws found in a recent kernel release. Which, would be included in the Linux (kernel) page anyway.
Huh? What a pointless thing to say, especially as you are backing it up only with an essay, not policy or guidelines. So you are saying we should log every criticism of Linux from day zero, along with the many hundreds times more counter comments? In that case, I don't think there is enough space on Wikipedia to do that. When Linux was originally created there were criticisms all over the place, but all were minor views and all were not notable. We can only really say that criticisms that are recent are actually notable about the subject. Otherwise, the Microsoft Windows article could be filled with complaints about usability in Windows 3.11, or stability in 3.1, 98, and ME. Or the Mac OS page would contain large swathes of text regarding the fact that early versions of the OS had X, Y and Z wrong with them. Fine, if you wish to have a 'History of Linux' article then you can discuss earlier criticism, but if you wish to have an article which is abou criticism then you have to keep it up to date else it will simply contain information that is not notable, useful, interesting or important.-Localzuk(talk)12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally added a paragraph to the criticisms of Windows Vista detailing its slow performance for basic file functions. I will maintain this criticism regardless of whether Microsoft fully resolve the problem in future releases. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine, that is about Windows Vista - this is about 'Linux' as a whole. Your comment would apply if criticisms were being made about individual Linux releases such as Ubuntu 6.06 or Redhat 9 - of which there are plenty of criticisms.
Provide me with a criticism that is widespread, along with evidence. I have shown that on the issues you mentioned, neither of them are widespread (not even simply minority views) but both are fringe views. They are not notable enough for inclusion under WP:NPOV. To quote the part exactly:
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
That is my point. That these early issues, simply due to their age, are not relavant to Linux as a subject unless you are focussing on the history of Linux, in which case, they should be included in the History of Linux page and not here.-Localzuk(talk)12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I take it from the silence that you can't provide me with a widespread criticism, backed up with evidence? I would propose that this article be merged back into the relevant articles then, as per the multitude of comments on the AFD's past.-Localzuk(talk)21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. Almost 2 months and still no evidence. I would propose that this page be merged into the appropriate places in other Linux related articles, but undoubtedly it'd end up being re-created again.-Localzuk(talk)16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the points presented here have long been proved invalid(I am refering to the things MS says against linux). So whats the point of presenting them in a page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.143.34 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious about have an NPOV criticism page about Linux? There are a dozen articles about criticism of Microsoft and its individual products, and then you have this lame article that basically praises Linux with faint damnation. The reader of wikipedia is left to believe that Linux is a perfect piece of software and anything done by Microsoft is vastly inferior, neither of which is actually true.
This should be taken as a challenge, given that wikipedia is rooted in the open source philosophy. There are plenty of real criticisms of Linux, but who would try to edit this article, just to have them reverted by outraged fans? I don't think most Linux fans have ever had a conversation with a professional programmer or heard the real criticism that is commonly expressed when game developers or other programmers talk about Linux. For example:
1. There are so many versions and brands of Linux that complex applications are very difficult to develop that will run trouble-free anywhere and find the libraries and resources they expect.
2. Linux is the center of a political mass movement whose followers have muddied the discourse on software with polemic and misinformation -- both exageration of OSS qualities and daemonization of commercial software.
3. Just like many big corporations, the open source community has settled for safe simple boring UNIX, instead of doing something innovative and imaginative. This is very old 1970s technology, brought somewhat up to date, but mostly by adding features already found in Windows NT (a proper DDI, journaling FS, asynchronous I/O, etc).
4. Linux has become as bloated and poorly documented as the commecial operating systems it has attempted to replace.
5. An exploration of who really controls and contributes to Linux would be in order. To what extent is is really a collective action, and to what extent is it dominated by IBM, Red Hat and a small cabal around Linus? How dependant is progress with Linux on professional commercial engineers, such as at IBM?
6. How secure is Linux? I've been looking at CERT for years, and the number of reports on Linux and Windows has been about the same most of the time. What does that mean, given that Windows is more heavily attacked and monitored? I've talked to professional security researchers who believe Linux is a soft target, lucky to be mostly overlooked by hackers. DonPMitchell (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don: I would invite you to put those criticisms in as long as you can find verifiable sources to back them up they should not be reverted. This encyclopedia needs to include accurate criticism, even in the face of a large group of over-sensitive fans. It is an encyclopedia, not Fancruft. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC) (A Linux user)[reply]
I agree that Linux is a sacred cow and I think it deserves a lot more criticism than it gets. I've tried many different Linux distributions and wasted many hours of time on them but there's always something that doesn't work. I suspect many other people have had the same experience but we're not "verifiable" so we don't count. P.S. I don't work for Microsoft. Biscuittin (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one said "Linux has a perceived lack of viable versions of widely used applications" they said "Linux lacks viable versions of widely used applications". That is the claim. That is the criticism. The current weasel worded approach is disingenuous to the claim. Should read "notably because of the claimed lack of viable versions of widely used applications". Perceived is a statement of fact without a reference.121.209.145.205 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the link. It is a good article, but there really isn't a lot of actual criticism of Linux in there, perhaps a couple of points can be extracted and referenced. It is more a comparison and so may be more useful over at Comparison of Windows and Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did manage to extract some useful criticisms from the article, although they are all past-tense. The extra text also made the article look rather "text-dense" and so I have added some images of Linux desktops from Commons to dress it up a bit and make it more appealing. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The compiz fusion image is totally irrelevant - you already have a screenshot of Mepis at the top. In a criticism article the images too should show the negative aspects of Linux or there should be no images at all. Images to polish the subject are inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konsole4.2 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background: On 20 February 2009 I added two images of Linux desktops to this article with the edit summary two images added for aesthetic purposes. The reason for adding these was that the article consisted of nothing but dense text and I believe that it benefited from a couple of pictures to make it more appealing and interesting to readers. Since it was not possible to find an image to illustrate a actual point of criticism of Linux, I opted for two general Linux desktop images instead. Obviously not all editors agree that these are representative or useful to the article. Instead of edit warring over it, the correct procedure is to discuss the matter here on the talk page. The questions that should be addressed are whether any images at all improve the article and if so which ones. A decision can then be made to leave the images in, remove them or use other images, all based on a consensus of editors working on this article. In the meantime leave the images in until a decision is made.
I think having the two images enhances the appeal and and thereby the readability of the article by reducing the impression of dense text. I don't think the images add anything to the criticism of Linux, by way of illustration, but that is not a requirement for inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The compiz fusion image is not neutral for this article, i don't mind if you put a default ubuntu desktop image there, but showing the cool graphics is compromising neutrality. Isn't everything supposed to be neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konsole4.2 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly attached to that image - I didn't make either of them - they are from Commons. I don't understand what you mean by a Compiz Fusion image not being neutral - perhaps you can explain to me why it is controversial? I chose it merely because it was different than just another vanilla desktop image when I thought the article could use two images rather than one. Also please sign you posts by adding ~~~~ at the end, this inserts your user name and the date and time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not neutral because it is trying to polish Linux by showing the 3D graphic functionality and is not related to the general matter being discussed in the article. It looks like the image has been inserted just to get people plunge into Linux for the compiz effects (or at least create a positive view in reader's mind for Linux). Thanks for informing me about tildes Konsole4.2 (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually anything running on Linux except the command line is really "polish" that adds more visual appeal than function. Regardless, your substitution of another desktop image is fine, as I said I just randomly found the original image on Commons and used it because it was a color contrast to the blue Mepis desktop that I inserted. I don't use Compiz Fusion and really don't have much time for desktop "eye candy" myself. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's been 2 years since I posted my comments about the pointlessness of this article, and nothing has changed. Has anyone been able to think up reasons for this article to stay here, and not have the decent bits merged into the relevant articles that already exist?-Localzuk(talk)14:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quite short, but it is very well referenced and on-topic. Expanding it really requires finding suitable references outlining further criticisms and then adding them into the article. I think in a way the open-source nature of Linux has meant that most criticisms get quickly turned into fixes and hence the systems have improved at a pace and in a user-driven manner that would be impossible in a commercial environment. This naturally makes for a shorter article. I would be in favour of leaving it as a separate article. I do read a lot of published writing in this area and am always on the lookout for articles that could be refs for expanding this article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for responding. Did you read my comments about this above? Can you address my concerns? Such as criticism of a minority subject being a fringe subject in itself, and therefore not notable?-Localzuk(talk)12:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did read it. I think it clearly meets Wikipedia's policy on notability, it just needs more text and refs added. I am looking out for more of the type I added recently. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it is a "fringe issue". Not being a paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia has thousands of articles on what some people would consider "fringe issues". The criteria for inclusion as a separate topic in Wikipedia is notability, which is defined as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The list of references for this article contains much "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore the subject meets the Wikipedia definition of notability. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does matter. One of the key parts of the notability criteria is independance from the subject. In the article, we have an entire section dedicated to discussion by Microsoft - who are not independant of the subject! Next, you have not shown that the notability of this issue is in fact verifiably notable - ie. this issue may be discussed by a few random articles, but that is not enough to show notability.
Next, we have the fact that the issues being discussed do not meet the 'notability is not temporary'. Many of the issues being discussed are out of date - therefore were temporary.-Localzuk(talk)23:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could point out that the same things could be said of many notable articles, such as Criticism of Windows XP, or even Ford Model T but I don't think you are going to be happy with any explanations made. Let us just say that I believe this is a subject that meets Wikipedia critiria to stand on its on, although it needs additional text and refs added, and you disagree. Let's see what other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could point those things out, but then referencing other articles on here is also against policy... And the subject of Criticism of Windows XP itself is a notable subject, based on the fact that the criticism itself was and is discussed (not just the items that make up the criticism).
And yes, I have waited for 2 years for other editors to say anything. The previous AFD's indicate that the overall consensus was to merge, yet here it still is. Any attempt to merge would end up with a few vocal people stamping their feet and claiming 'censorship' (such as any time previous articles similar to this have existed). And the fact that this article was actually previously deleted for the same reasons I list but was allowed to be recreated regardless seems to indicate a lack of consistency with policy enforcement.
So, again, I ask for explanations as to why this shouldn't be merged? So far you haven't actually provided any other than pointing at other articles, or misrepresenting policy.-Localzuk(talk)11:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to dump merge this article into the Linux article. After I had saved the changes, a bot automatically reversed these changes. How are we supposed to merge articles as suggested if our actions are reversed? This is ridiculous. Anyone know how to dump merge without the system reversing the changes?
--Diddy29 (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I reversed your dump of this whole article into Linux. The matter of this merger is under discussion at Talk:Linux#Merger_proposal. You can't just usurp the whole consensus process and dump one article into the other. If you had read the discussions at above you would see that no one was proposing dumping the whole thing into Linux, but it was proposed to split it up into several of the Linux-related articles.
That an article named "Criticism of [whatever]" deals mainly with negative
issues is natural; further, that even criticisms that are not unopposed are
included is right and proper.
Still, I see several weaknesses with this particular article, two explicitly
discussed below. I note, in particular, that it is proper to present views
opposing the criticisms (at least with one sentence statements and
links/references for further reading), and in controversial topics and matters
of taste, like e.g. Linux vs. Windows, there will be an opposing view to
almost everything.
Further, Linux has been accused of being "not ideal" for intermediate power
users.
This statement is highly odd to me, because criticism is usually directed based
on beginners and intermediate users (not "intermediate power users"). I
have checked the three references: Two seem irrelevant, and only "Living ..."
seems relevant to the sentences in question. I have removed the two irrelevant
references and the misleading word "power".
Linux had been broadly criticized in the past for its lack of support for
hardware devices.
While it is technically true that Linux has been critized for
lacking hardware support, this statement is highly misleading. Looking at the
operating systems themselves, Linux is actually ahead of most others, including
Windows. The hitch is that hardware developers fail to provide necessary
drivers to Linux, because they consider the net-benefit to small (or even
negative). Windows, due to its market share, does not have this problem.
I have rephrased this section to indicate that hardware developers do not
support Linux sufficiently, rather than the other way around. (Note that, while
the end effect for a low-end user is the same, this is highly pertinent when
doing a factually correct critique or comparison.)
88.77.189.22 (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Looking at the operating systems themselves, Linux is actually ahead of most others, including Windows."
Linux stores libraries in one central location. Just as with Windows' DLL hell, some programs only run with specific versions, and it is a pain to get things working. (Of course, one could argue that this is a program criticism, not Linux.)
All the different distributions of Linux make it difficult to create a single (non-trivial) program that runs on all. There are differerent window managers, different package managers, different shells... Sometimes they are partially compatible, which only makes it worse ("Why does my script crash halfway?").
Since I'm not a Linux wizard (although these two points come from my own experience), I don't feel comfortable adding them myself. Also (no offense): all the criticism currently in the article seems to be "properly addressed". Does this mean there is no criticism of Linux left? --DanielPharos (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's called Dependency hell in general. I propose to add a section like this:
Linux suffers from dependency hell. Install packages can depend on other packages in such a way, that it is impossible to install them. Also, software that is not installed through a package manager can suddenly stop working if a library is updated to a newer versions that operates in a different, incompatible way.
That sort of claim needs to be very carefully supported by cited references, so you will want to make sure that you cite refs that actually support the text you want in insert. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'll take some time to read through all the related articles and their sources, and search the web for more (if needed). I'll write up something that matches the sources, and post it here before I post it on the main article. --DanielPharos (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of things to point out. One: the sources on the dependency hell page are now going to be sufficiently old (checking: the first two are from 2001 and 2003) that, whilst still perfectly good sources for describing what it is, are very poor ones for a claim that modern Linux distros suffer from it. So some new sources are definitely going to be needed for the latter claim. But they're going to be pretty hard to find, because effectively all modern, mainstream distros (with the exception of those that specifically target people who like managing their own dependencies, like Slackware) now use the "Smart Package Management" option from Dependency hell#Solutions, layering an automatic dependency solver on top of the package manager (apt-get on top of dpkg, urpmi/yup/zypper on top of rpm, etc.). These solve the "many deps", "long chains of deps", and "circular deps" problems, and shift the "conflicting deps" problem from the user to the distro itself (and a repository can be proven to be complete and conflict-free (assuming accurate package metadata), so presumably all modern distro repos are). -- simxp (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page reads like Linux apologetics. Particularly aggrevating is the section about "customer support". I'm sorry, but my experience with Linux support is nothing like described, and a quick search on Google will demonstrate others have experienced the same. A casual browse though Ubuntu's bugtracker, for example, will also show many questions are unanswered and unresolved, despite the implication that free support is somehow better than paid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.8.22 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any evidence that there is a POV problem here, but the article is definitely incomplete and can be expanded. As of August 2009 Linux supports more hardware than Windows does, so perhaps both articles need updating. I read your link cited above - it is just an anonymous complaint on a blog - no information or usable data is presented. To add more criticisms to this article we need reliable refs - if they can be found then text can be added as explained above. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, if you're gonna say "Linux supports more hardware than Windows", you'll need a reliable source to confirm that.
Furthermore, it seems that every point in this article is deliberately refuted in the article itself. Balance and opposing points is fine, but I walked away from reading this article feeling that it was definitely out to prove that all criticisms were invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.72.235 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys: Firstly, there's no contradiction between 'Linux supports more hardware out of the box' and 'Windows supports more hardware'. The latter is counting drivers that don't come with the OS, the former isn't. I suspect you actually agree with each other. Secondly, @41.177...: if a reliable source has published a refutation to a criticism, it *should* be made here. This is the case with all criticism articles (remember, even a "criticism of X" article is supposed to be NPOV regarding X, whatever the title claims). For example, in Criticism_of_windows_vista#Digital_rights_management, the section with MS & Bott's refutations of Gutmann is longer than the section detailing his criticisms; this is right and proper, and the same applies here. -- simxp (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, the "sources" you provided are blogs... most of which are Linux-advocating in the first place (desktoplinux.com, for example), so you'll forgive me for not considering them exactly "neutral" sources. When I provided a link about Linux criticism it was shot down because it was a blog, but a blog that's positive towards Linux is somehow acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.72.235 (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just went over the article when I saw the tag on it. What I think, is that the article cites its sources appropriately. I also think the AfD history points to an article that will always be criticized: Too critical, not critical enough.
So if I try to stand back and look at it objectively, here is what I come up with: Looking at the article from the perspective of the target audience, "the reader with little or no knowledge of the subject", I find the image use misleading. There are plenty of articles to demonstrate pretty GUI's, both Linux and non-Linux; these images here may or may not add to the reader's understanding of the subject. But as far as I can tell, this article alone is for Criticism of Linux. To that end, whether the article uses one, three or thirty images (I really don't care), once numimages exceeds zero in the article, one of those images must come from the Commons gallery here. I mean, if we're going to criticize it, let's criticize it. Not like Linux never crashes; indeed those of us skilled in the art know exactly where the weaknesses are. No need to conceal them from the reader here. The article should reflect the idea "Linux ain't perfect". Right now, the images don't give that impression.
My own opinion, as an engineer and consultant is, "All software sucks. Linux just sucks less than most". If an article sets out to point out, "Linux sucks" (as do all the "Criticism of..." articles, is what I'm sayin'), it's pretty easy to use images to demonstrate the idea to the reader "with little or no knowledge of the subject". The idea is, "There be warts here". Present the evidence, let the reader figure it out (preferably by comparing the ten articles on Criticism of Microsoft). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, a lot of folks are confusing "criticism of Linux" with "anti-Linux". It's not that I dislike the system (I run Ubuntu/Kubuntu, Mint and OpenSUSE), but it seems like this article was written by Linux affectionados to dispell criticism, not to objectively represent it. Why do I feel that way? Because the article conviently omits the most common criticisms, such as gaming or running major commercial programs like Photoshop. Yes, you can run apps with WINE (which isn't perfect) and there's a growing library of games, but both these points are oft-sited reasons as to why Linux is not widely adopted. The article incorrectly implies that hardware support and user-friendly desktops make all criticisms of Linux invalid.
Speaking of hardware support... that is a strawman; "Linux" in itself can't be said to have better support, because it differs from distro to distro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.8.217 (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you have good refs on those that list games and other apps that don't run on Linux then by all means put them in! As far as hardware support goes, most of that is a matter of drivers that are in the kernel, so it is in "Linux" more than the distro libraries in most cases. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not a good idea to list games (or other apps) that don't run on Linux: you can list more than 95% of all (PC video) games! It can't be considered criticism of Linux if game-developers decide not to support it. Only if their reasons are like "it's too hard to support Linux", those underlying reasons can/should be included. (Also, Wine doesn't count: Wine != Linux.) --DanielPharos (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The usual response to "Linux won't run X" complaints is to point out that "it will run Y, which is similar and free instead." I am not sure that gets us anywhere. Will there be a "List of Apps that Won't Run on Windows", like GFTP and Epiphany? Perhaps we could make some general statements about Linux not running some games and commercial apps using Manu Cornet as a ref: Apps and games - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no, my point was that instead of saying: "Linux won't run X", it's actually "X doesn't support Linux"! This is criticism of "X", not Linux! Therefore you shouldn't make such a list in this article. (Or even at all; Wikipedia is not a catalogue.) You could say that many games (and other apps) don't support Linux because its market-share is considered too small (or whatever reason the developers of "X" use), but listing these programs is a bad idea. Also, there already is an article with software-alternatives: List of software products --DanielPharos (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about listing all software that won't run in Linux? The point is merely to mention that commercial software, particularly gaming, is one of the *major* criticisms that PC users have against Linux. Even Linux fans themselves admit this.
Another point is that the computing world is not divided between Windows and Linux, as this article implies. There is also criticism of Linux coming from Apple users. This article should be wary of promoting false dichotomies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.174.7.183 (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I find those two links very bad. Apart from the obvious biased name (and also content) of the website, it's full of half-truths and generalized statements. The two pages you're pointing to are just a general piece of text, without sources. I would personally not consider these to be good sources. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) This discussion seems to have come to an end without establishing that this article has a "neutrality" problem. We we seem to have a consensus that it is incomplete and needs more cited criticisms added. I will try to find some and unless there are objections I think the "neutrality" tag can be removed, based on this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay lacking objections I will remove the tag. I have also reinstated text that is relevant and properly sourced to reliable third party refs that an IP editor removed. If you have a problem with this then please discuss. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, this article is about *criticism*, NOT about determining whether criticism is valid or refuting criticism. The simple fact is, for better or for worse, Linux CONTINUES to be criticized for the reasons mentioned in the article. Applying past tense implies it's not longer valid, or that such criticism no longer exists.
Another issue is the "customer support" section.
Again, I remind you, this article is about CRITICISM. Not only does this section not provide critical information, it's chock-full of errors.
What exactly do you mean by "the maturity of Linux"? Do you mean the age of Linux? The way the kernel has been coded? The statement is a peacock term.
Second, the implication is that other OSes don't have community-drive, free online support. Sites like www.annoyances.org, or the #windows channel on freenode, all provide volunteer support for Windows issues, and often replies are extremely speedy, not any less so than the article implies happens with Linux-related forums.
Thirdly, while some Linux fans would argue that "most problems have been documented and responses to problems are prompt", a quick glance on any bugtracker, from Fedora to Debian, shows otherwise. Take for example this bug, still open, that was filed in March 2008: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/204898
Just a quick note: That's not really a bug, it could easily be seen as a feature! There is no standard way to implement volume control, and a linear control (even though it makes not much sense) is as good as any. Also, you're giving one example, but that still does nothing to undermine the "most problems have been documented and responses to problems are prompt" statement ("a quick glance on any bugtracker" is of course no proof either). "Most problems" already indicates that you will be able to find at least some problems that weren't documented/fixed. Also, I could even go as far as say that having a bugtracker item counts as "documented". --DanielPharos (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me clarify. The point wasn't that bugs aren't documented (I should have worded better, I apologize), but rather that the implication that once bugs are documented, they are readily addressed and fixed. The fact that such a bug (and yes, it's a bug... you wouldn't call it a "feature" if it appeared in Windows or Mac) has still not been resolved after nearly two years is an argument against the validity of support in the Linux community.
I addressed one example, yes, but again... look at the fedora or ubuntu bug trackers and forums, and you will see many cases of problems that remain unresolved.
Furthermore, as I noted above, free, online, community-driven support is not unique to Linux, and is not a criticism of the system, therefore its place in this article is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.237.77 (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the section needs additional information then by all means added cited text. The existing text is all historical, although some of it from as recently as May 2009, but it is all cited and correctly reflects the references cited. The reason that the text should indicate past tense is not that the criticisms may not still be valid, but that the criticisms were made at some point in the past. The article needs to have both current and historical criticisms for perspective, it can't just be current criticism as the article will always be behind the present timeframe. If you want to add additional criticisms that would be great, but beware that much of what has been argued above is WP:OR and taking a few bugs reports and making generalized statements from them would be WP:SYNTHESIS. You need to find sources that say there are lots of long-term outstanding bugs that are not getting fixed. Add text if you have sources, but there is no reason to delete the whole section. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the matter is, this is an article about *criticism*. The section offers NOTHING in the way of actual criticism. It notes that support is different between Linux and other OSes, but that is NOT a criticism. The claims may or maybe not be true (and a single, online article doesn't make it any truer than a single, online bug report makes the claims false) but that is NOT the purpose of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.145.50 (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know how you can say that the section "offers NOTHING in the way of actual criticism". Some quotes from the article "Linux has been criticized for a number of reasons, from being inadequate for desktop use, support for exotic hardware, gaming and lack of native versions of widely used applications", "Linux, which runs on the same hardware as Windows, has always required much more technical expertise and a yen for tinkering than average users possess", "Linux is still too rough around the edges for the vast majority of computer users." "Desktop Linux will simply never be popular enough for most people to care about. One big reason is the difficulty of upgrading and installing software". These sound like criticisms to me. Certainly these are relatively general criticisms, but if you have sources for more specific criticisms, then by-all-means add them. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that section I agree - it isn't criticism. Some referenced text needs to be added there. Just need refs! Just a thought, but you really should open an account and help us make the article better - that is how Wikipedia works! - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of removing the "customer support" section entirely; the simple fact is, it's far too much of a subjective point. Searching for references on Google, this much is apparent: Linux, Windows and Mac all have official and community support and all of them have users both satisfied and dissatisfied with both types of support. There simply isn't enough to go on either way. To make matters more complicated, Linux support is further fragmented by the large number of distros. On that topic, there was mention (it even popped up on distrowatch) that Mandriva's official support was lousy. But I don't think it's appropriate for this article, since that is a distro-specific issue and doesn't apply to Linux generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.174.22.243 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says at the top that it is addressing criticisms of Linux as a desktop system, but in various places the criticism is more general. The section about Microsoft is about server usage. I vote the "desktop system" disclaimer at the top be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.72.79 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article is Criticism of Linux, not Criticism of Linux desktops, so it should cover servers, embedded devices, cell phones, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers too much. Seperate criticism pages should be created. The criticisms listed as applying to operating systems with the Linux kernel don't apply to android or Palm Pre's OS, linux on embedded systems. At best the article is probably best split into three: Criticism of Linux kernel, Criticism of GNU + Linux based Desktops, Criticism of GNU + Linux Server. Or alternatively (or in conjunction with, criticism pages for particular distributions.
IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably time that a split could be done along those lines. The only thing to be aware of is that on Wikipedia the use of the term "GNU/Linux" is considered POV. There is a wide and longstanding consensus that these operating systems are referred to as "Linux". - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that would be an improvement. However, just splitting this into separate articles might not be the best way. If a resulting criticism page would be very short ("too" short), just add it as a section to the article it belongs to. But you were probably already going to do that. --DanielPharos (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Microsoft section says, "Microsoft has criticised Linux on servers extensively through its Get the Facts campaign." How long did the campaign last for and how much money did MS invest in it? Unless we can substantiate these factors, using "extensively" strikes me as an example of false dichotomy; exaggerating the threat Linux poses and the rivalry between Linux and Windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.72.52 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "extensively" refers to the amount of criticism, not the amount of money and/or time spend criticising. That said, I agree: it sounds like a weasel word. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another weasel word appears here: "In September 2007, Walter S. Mossberg, writing in The Wall Street Journal said of Linux desktop systems in general at that time...". It seems a bit odd to include "at that time" in the sentence, especially since a date is given at the very beginning. I mean, duh, what else would he be talking about? Linux 15 years in the future? Besides, it gives the impression that the criticism is no longer valid, which isn't the avenue of Wikipedia. I'm gonna do a little weasel-word weeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.8.204 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i want to discuss if and how this can be an useful part of the section "linux non-readiness for desktop usage"
my original entry was not well polished (and therefore removed):
Dominic Humphries confession Linux is NOT Windows from 2006, which is often cited and translated to many languages, presents a inadaptiv, defensive relationship of the linux community to the users. The existing hackers culture is presented as more important then a user focussed culture:
The Linux community isn't trying to take over the desktop. They really don't care if it gets good enough to make it onto your [the users] desktop, so long as it stays good enough to remain on theirs. <ref>{{cite web |last=Humphries |first=Dominic |title= Linux is NOT Windows |date=2006-05-25 |url= http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm |publisher=inux.oneandoneis2.org |accessdate=2010-04-11}}</ref>
But overall, i think this reference (or page) should somehow mentioned because the linux community presents themself here in a specific geeky way, and this confessed POV is representative for the overall (majority) linux culture. the point which is the essence for criticism, is that the hack-ability of an OS is more important then the useability for the community. and these development goals are in conflict, heavily. And there is the culture of re-define usability as hack-ability (as the REAL usability), clearly in conflict with usability. 141.52.232.84 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the bit of that that would need serious backing up is that "this confessed POV is representative for the overall (majority) linux culture". Assuming that a single, random, non-notable guy's personal opinion, in the form of a 2006 internet essay, is representative of the entire Linux community is very WP:OR. (And is clearly wrong: for a start, there's no such thing as 'the Linux community'; only a huge conglomeration of communities, some of whom don't care about usability in the traditional sense, and some of whom do (witness the amount of money e.g. Novell has put into Gnome usability studies)). -- simxp (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems peculiar that Criticism of Linux page has a link to Criticism of Microsoft Windows, but not vice-versa, it appears biased. Anyone mind if I remove it? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
about problems/focuss in the development process, which in the end must result in some problems in the product. could explain some characteristics. Shaddim (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
quote: In the course of working with Linux, Gordon says that he discovered that "Linux sucks at a lot of important tasks." He noted that Apple has solved a number of the things that Linux does poorly (though he ceded that Mac OS X also does many things badly), and that Linux developers should be "stealing some stuff" from Apple. sounds very explicite to me.... also, the term "linux" is used here (as in this wiki article) in the (common) sense meaning of "the linux ecosystem of distributions" (not the kernel)Shaddim (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you can find refs it could be added here or as a separate list article, but I think you would find these days that it is a pretty short list! - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Too many choices, too many distributions Enter the world of Linux. We've got Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Mint, Slackware, Arch, Elementary OS, PCLinuxOS… we've got a lot of choices for you. Does Apple offer that many choices? No. Instead, Apple makes one Snow Leopard, and that's it. Linux and Microsoft on the other hand keep giving their users the much-overrated 'freedom of choice'. This is where the Paradox of Choice comes into play. What this means is, whenever the user/consumer is given too many choices, it leads to poor decision-making or failure to make any decision at all. The cause of this paradox is attributed to rational ignorance and more commonly analysis paralysis.
the also given wiki-link (Decision_theory#Paradox_of_choice) motivates the problem with the fragmentation and Overchoice: Observed in many cases is the paradox that more choices may lead to a poorer decision or a failure to make a decision at all.
yupp, amount of distributions is mentioned in the article. The consequences (and mechanisms) from this are not so obvious, the first ref brings in one accepted concept from the decision-theory, paradox of choice, which make the problem with the sheer distributions amount more clear for the reader, therefore I think this ref (and some concepts) should be included. Also restructuring the chapter (and title) from "distributions" to a more general "Fragmentation / paradox of choice" could be useful. While distributions are the best known domain in the linux eco-system suffering on fragmentation, it's not the only one. Shaddim (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first ref is a blog and so is unreliable. There doesn't seem to be any specific sources that mention the paradox of choice w.r.t Linux. As a side note, I also would point you towards Criticism of Desktop Linux where it may be more relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many refs (here another one [11]fragmentation,<ref name=linuxfordevices>{{cite web|url=http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Linux-Standard-Base-40-certifications-announced/|title=LSB 4.0 certifications aim to heal Linux fragmentation |first=Eric|last=Brown |date=2010-12-08 |accessdate=2011-11-16 |language=englisch |publisher=linuxfordevices.com |quote=''The LSB spec outlines interoperability between applications and the Linux operating system, "allowing application developers to target multiple versions of Linux with just one software package," says the LF. Launched in the late '90s, the LSB working group released its first major LSB 1.1 specification in 2001. [...]''}}</ref>) which specifically mention the parodox of choice (resulting from fragmentation) wrt to the linux ecosystem, 2 given above (if both are fitting the WP def of reliablity is another question, first one is at least non-anonymous, second one is a reviewed tech-page). also, while the paradox of choice is a problem for the end-users (-> desktop linux), it's also problem for developers e.g. on the missing standardization on APIs for GUI or multimedia development([12]), or the missing inter-distribution compatibility ("which distributions should we support? Which API is covered on most?" [13][14]"If someone comes and says, 'I want to write an audio application. Which API should I use?' I don't have a good answer," Lennart Poettering (Creater of PulseAudio about Linux Sound API jungle)). Shaddim (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
maybe you confuse "explicitly" with "literally"? also, when the linux desktop domain is only one example of an deeper/more general linux problem (the fragmentation), it can be mentioned here for sure (too). Shaddim (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*, another quote: "LSB aims to reduce Linux fragmentation: The LSB is intended to solve the challenges confronting ISVs and individual developers trying to stay compatible with the proliferation of endlessly changing Linux distributions, says the LF. By reducing the differences among individual Linux distributions, the LSB "significantly reduces the costs involved with porting applications to different distributions, as well as lowers the cost and effort involved in after-market support," says the organization." [15] so, you really try to say, it is "original research" to conclude that the linux platform is fragmented using this refs? what you call disrespectful "synthesized", should be better called "multiple aspects of the same underlying concept" Shaddim (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't follow you here : For users coming from a Windows, or Apple, background the possible Linux choices are overwhelming: [...] Paradox: The problem is not that there isn’t a “right” version of Linux for each and every user it is that users are likely to be overwhelmed by the options and ultimately find their final choice unsatisfactory. It’s called the “Paradox of Choice”, a term coined by writer Barry Schwartz.Shaddim (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the use of this term is only by Rudolph Muller (I've seen no other sources use it), you could add a mention in the Criticism of Desktop Linux article but you should have it as something said by Rudolph Muller. His comments appear to be about desktop linux specifically. It doesn't apply to servers, mobile etc. I would still argue it doesn't have due weight even for that but at this stage WP:DGAF applies for me. Here is the relevant section Criticism_of_Desktop_Linux#ChoiceIRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interview 05/07/11 withLennart Poettering, PulseAudio creator, on API fragmentation as weakness of the Linux platform (for developers): Linux is still too fragmented, and a developer targeting Linux will have to choose from a variety of APIs, a bazaar of somewhat matching but mostly just chaotic choices that will work on some systems but not on others. I think it would be in our greatest interest to streamline the platform top to bottom, and thus have a clear message what the Linux OS is. And of course, I believe my work in cleaning up the lower levels of our userspace stack is helping to work in that direction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddim (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NVIDIA Developer Talks Openly About Linux Support - Published on October 20, 2009 Written by Michael LarabelQ: Which part of Linux / X.Org is most troublesome? The hardest thing about distributing a proprietary driver for Linux is to build a binary that will run across as many Linux distributions as possible. The challenges with this are: 1) The lack of a stable API in the Linux kernel. This is not a large obstacle for us, though: the kernel interface layer of the NVIDIA kernel module is distributed as source code, and compiled at install time for the version and configuration of the kernel in use. This requires occasional maintenance to update for new kernel interface changes, but generally is not too much work. That said, the kernel API churn sometimes seems unfortunate: in some cases, working interfaces are broken or replaced with broken ones for no seemingly good reason. In some other cases, APIs that were previously available to us are rendered unusable. 2) The (recently, more quickly) changing ABI in the X.Org DDX. As in #1, this isn't a large obstacle for us: in recent driver branches, we can fairly easily build in support for multiple X server ABIs. 3) Being very careful about library and symbol dependencies in any of the binaries we distribute. The classic newbie mistakes here are things like: a) Compiling/linking something on a new distro against a fairly recent version of glibc, and then trying to run that binary on a different distro, with a slightly older version of glibc. Classic errors are things like: undefined reference to `regexec@@GLIBC_2.3.4' undefined reference to `__ctype_b' b) Linking against the C++ runtime library (libstdc++) but then a different distro having a different version of the libstdc++. libstdc++.so.6: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory We avoid these problems by a) explicitly linking against a very old glibc, and b) avoiding use of the C++ runtime. However, it requires careful attention. -> in short: fragmented API/ABI ecossystem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddim (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You shnotould not be inferring things from primary sources. Even specifically he say it isn't a large obstacle. Also "#1 and #2 are our own fault" and he also says "To be fair, my experiences with the problems in #3 are a bit stale". IRWolfie- (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that's your personal interpretation. fact is when asked [...] Q: Which part of Linux / X.Org is most troublesome? they answered: The hardest thing about distributing a proprietary driver for Linux is to build a binary that will run across as many Linux distributions as possible. The challenges with this are: 1) The lack of a stable API in the Linux kernel. [...]. because as professionals they had to say that this is solvable... technicians are paid for findign solutions for even the ugliest circumstances. Shaddim (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This graphic was made by User:ScotXW and added my him to the article. I removed it because the article subject is Criticism of Linux and this graphic is not a criticism of Linux so is not relevant to the article. He reverted my removal of it, so I am bringing it here for discussion. Does anyone think this belongs here? - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but like other images he's created and then spammed on articles, this image is completely irrelevant to this article's subject and does not enhance a reader's understanding in any way whatsoever. - Aoidh (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be a pattern to the creation of these images and then trying to shoehorn them in all over the encyclopedia, even when there is no fit to the article subject. - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, I'm still having a problem with the lede graphic. As I've found out recently, the article is by definition POV, but the content is not, per Content forking sec. 2.3. However, to introduce the reader to an article that is POV, is it a sin to have a POV graphic? I'm seriously proposing either Linux kernel panic-v2 File:Linux kernel panic-v2.jpg or Kernel-panic File:Kernel-panic.jpg as the lede graphic.
I disagree that the article is by definition POV. There may be criticisms of Linux outside WP and there may be rebuttals of those criticisms also outside WP. Despite the controversial nature of the topic itself, WP's job is to present both sides of this in a NPOV way. The article itself does not have to be POV. Tayste (edits)09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel to do otherwise is a cover-up. No software is perfect, and Linux has been exposed as have all the others. An image such as the current File:Linux-x86-under-qemu.png of an innocuous boot is, in this context, crapulent beyond the belief of the most naive reader. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is a POV problem with the article, but that is not the issue with the graphic here. The graphic is simply not a criticism of Linux, nor does it illustrate one so it doesn't fit here; it is essentially off-topic. Likewise there is no mention of Kernel panic as a criticism of Linux. All systems can crash, so what? Again, like the previous graphic this isn't a fit here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recently improved a cite in this article, and I noticed a problem with its structure. Unless anyone can argue "against" you need hardware in order to program software for it. And you need a kernel, OS, etc., before you can create a desktop. This is, indeed, how your criticisms creep.
My big problem is two different kernel sections, that should be one, because we have this thingy called "sub-sections". Furthermore, there are other kernel criticisms "out there", not yet here, that belong to that section, as sub-sections to it.
So, per BRD, I'm combining kernel criticisms, and re-arranging the sections as the hardware support morphs to the software interface that users see (mistaking gas pedal for engine).
@Ahunt: The Bryan Lunduke Why Linux Sucks? series of vids (documenting a series of Linux event lectures with Lunduke as a guest speaker) at the very least seem to have some *nix notability going for them:
Frankly Ahunt, I'm left wondering whether you took the time to watch any of the videos before removing the link. As they seem, at least to me, to unambiguously relate to—and expand upon—the subject of this Criticism of Linux article. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reposts of self-published material still don't make WP:ELNO unless the author is considered a "recognized authority". There seems to be enough evidence that he is considered to be, which is why I reformatted and left it there after your revert. Personally I think this would be of more value if used as a ref to expand the article, than as an external link, provided the requirements of WP:SPS can be made. - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Microsoft's high-profile objection to Linux is notable. Their "Get The Facts" campaign seems like an early use of alternative "facts" in that real facts are objectively true independent of any observers. GTF references seem selected to uphold Microsoft's case, understandably, rather than presenting an unbiased, honest, candid exposé of all salient information on both sides of the story. That would really furnish the public with the facts. Since Get The Facts functioned more as Get Our Opinion, it seems like the kind of promotional propaganda behind more recent alternative "facts". Is this a wikilink we can make? 49.195.68.154 (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
