Criticism of Linux: Difference between revisions

Template:Infobox general

The Criticism of Linux focuses on issues concerning use of operating systems which use the Linux kernel.

The traditional directory structure, which is a heritage from Linux's Unix roots in the 1970s, has been criticized for many reasons. Adam Scheinberg, in his article "If I Had My Own Distro", identified problems in the non-intuitive named directories for the users, and indicated that he would rename them all to improve user experience:

The file system is a nightmare for a normal user. This has been covered in exhaustive detail by hundreds of articles …^[1]

Hisham Muhammad, the creator of GoboLinux, started that distribution because of the limitations of the directory structure for simple and flexible user application installations:

Unfortunately, not all programs have the flexibility to be installed anywhere. Occasionally, hardcoded paths creep in, even in programs that belong in userland (which should, at least theoretically, allow themselves to be installed inside a user's home directory).^[2]

Pim van Riezen also criticized the Unix approach of predefined directories in application installations:

Why, in the name of all the creatures in Richard Stallman's beard, are we still compiling applications with all kinds of absolute path references in this enlightened 21st century? Do we actively hate our users, do we want them to suffer figuring out whether we want our mandatory configuration files installed in /etc, /usr/local/etc, /usr/local/application/etc or whatever other evil place our nerdy little brains can come up with? We should find better things to do with our lives.^[3]

Tony Mobily, editor of Free Software Magazine, identified problems in the server roots of Linux in his article 2009: software installation in GNU/Linux is still broken – and a path to fixing it:

Every GNU/Linux distribution at the moment (including Ubuntu) confuses system software with end user software, whereas they are two very different beasts which should be treated very, very differently.^[4]

Hardware developers have often been reluctant to provide Linux support for their products. This has meant that a Linux user had to carefully hand pick the hardware that made up the system to ensure functionality and compatibility. These problems have largely been addressed:^[5]

Years ago, if you wanted to install Linux on a machine, you had to make sure you hand-picked each piece of hardware or your installation would not work 100 percent … This is not so much the case now. You can grab a PC (or laptop) and most likely get one or more Linux distributions to install and work nearly 100 percent. But there are still some exceptions; for instance, hibernate/suspend remains a problem with many laptops, although it has come a long way.^[5]

At one time, Linux systems required removable media, such as floppy discs and CD-ROMs, to be manually mounted before they could be accessed. Mounting media is now automatic in nearly all distributions, with the development of the HAL daemon.^[6]

Some companies, such as EmperorLinux, have addressed the problems of laptop hardware compatibility by mating modified Linux distributions with specially selected hardware to ensure compatibility from delivery.^[7]

Another common complaint leveled against Linux is the abundance of distributions available. As of January, 2010, Distrowatch lists 306 major distributions.^[8] While Linux advocates have defended the number as an example of freedom of choice, other critics cite the large number as cause for confusion and lack of standardization in Linux operating systems. Alexander Wolfe wrote in InformationWeek:

Remember the 1980s worries about how the "forking" of Unix could hurt that operating system's chances for adoption? That was nothing compared to the mess we've got today with Linux, where upwards of 300 distributions vie for the attention of computer users seeking an alternative to Windows.^[9]

Caitlyn Martin from LinuxDevCenter.com has been critical of the number of Linux distributions:

We don't need to keep reinventing Linux, creating distributions that put critical bits in interesting and inventive if unusual places. An application written for Linux should be relatively simple to install on any Linux distribution. It ain't so. Do we really need hundreds of general purpose distributions, all with different tools, different filesystem layouts, variations on three major software package management schemes and a host of oddball ones, and so on? Do we need yet more to crop up?^[10]

The usefulness of Linux as a desktop operating system has been questioned and criticized throughout its existence, mostly with the increasing adoption of the operating system for desktop use in recent years.

It is critized for the fairly small number of available video games and native versions of widely used commercial applications (such as Adobe Photoshop^[11] and Microsoft Word).^[12][13]

Desktop Linux has also been criticized by developers for lack of standardization regarding GUI API.^[12]

At LinuxCon 2009, Linux creator Linus Torvalds said that the Linux kernel has become "bloated and huge":

We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem … Uh, I'd love to say we have a plan … I mean, sometimes it's a bit sad that we are definitely not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel that I envisioned 15 years ago … The kernel is huge and bloated, and our icache footprint is scary. I mean, there is no question about that. And whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse.^[14][15][16]

In 2004, Microsoft initiated its Get the Facts campaign, which specifically criticized Linux server usage.^[17] In particular, it claimed that the vulnerabilities of Windows are fewer in number than those of Linux distributions,^[18] that Windows is more reliable and secure than Linux,^[19][20] that the total cost of ownership of Linux is higher (due to complexity, acquisition costs, and support costs),^[21] that use of Linux places a burden of liability on businesses, and that "Linux vendors provide little, if any indemnification coverage."^[22] In addition, the corporation published various studies in an attempt to prove this – the factuality of which has been heavily disputed^[23][24] by different authors who claim that Microsoft's comparisons are flawed. Many Linux distributors now offer indemnification to customers.^[25][26][27]

Internal Microsoft reports from the Halloween documents leak have presented conflicting views. Particularly documents from 1998 and 1999 ceded that "Linux … is trusted in mission critical applications, and – due to its open source code – has a long term credibility which exceeds many other competitive OS's", "An advanced Win32 GUI user would have a short learning cycle to become productive [under Linux]", "Long term, my simple experiments do indicate that Linux has a chance at the desktop market …",^[28] and "Overall respondents felt the most compelling reason to support OSS was that it 'Offers a low total cost of ownership (TCO)'."^[29]

Con Kolivas, a former kernel developer, tried to optimize the kernel scheduler for interactive desktop use. He finally dropped the support for his patches due to the lack of appreciation for his development. In the 2007 interview Why I quit: kernel developer Con Kolivas he stated:

If there is any one big problem with kernel development and Linux it is the complete disconnection of the development process from normal users. You know, the ones who constitute 99.9% of the Linux user base. The Linux kernel mailing list is the way to communicate with the kernel developers. To put it mildly, the Linux kernel mailing list (lkml) is about as scary a communication forum as they come. Most people are absolutely terrified of mailing the list lest they get flamed for their inexperience, an inappropriate bug report, being stupid or whatever. ... I think the kernel developers at large haven't got the faintest idea just how big the problems in userspace are.^[30]

The Linux community has had mixed responses to these and other criticisms. As mentioned above, while some criticism has led to new features and better user-friendliness, the Linux community as a whole has a reputation for being resistant to criticism. Writing for PC World, Keir Thomas, noted that, "Most of the time the world of Linux tends to be anti-critical. If anybody in the community dares be critical, they get stomped upon."^[31]

• Linux
• Criticism of Desktop Linux
• Comparison of Windows and Linux
• Criticism of Microsoft Windows
• Unix-haters handbook