luke hates software: linux _still_ sucks

• From: Luke A. Kanies
  Date: 03:38 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: linux _still_ sucks
  
  Normally I like hardware (mostly) but my hard drives have been driving me
  insane.  (Don't worry, I'll get to the software hate.)  I'm preparing to
  pull a fourth drive from desktop; this one because it's making a
  high-pitched whining noise that's about to drive me insane.
  
  The point of this email, contrary to how it may appear, is not that BeOS
  is great:  It's that linux really does just suck an amazingly large
  amount.
  
  This machine runs two operating systems:  Linux and BeOS.  In more detail,
  it's running the absolutely most up-to-date, Debian "unstable" version of
  Linux, and it's running a version of BeOS that hasn't been upgraded in,
  oh, 2 or 3 years.
  
  Now, there are some problems with BeOS.  I can't use spatial keys
  (Control-Left, Control-Right) to switch workspaces, the terminal really
  just sucks, the network stack is a travesty, and missing
  plenty-o-features.  But compared to linux....
  
  I turn my stupid computer off and connect a bunch of drives so I can stage
  my data to them.  I boot into linux thinking "i'll just repartition one of
  them and copy this data over first".  Oh yeah, except that, well, linux
  can't see the damn things.  Even though essentially every ide driver that
  exists is loaded in my kernel, and most definitely the autodetect driver
  is loaded.  Even though at least one of these drives worked last week.
  Sure.
  
  So okay, I'll start with Be.  I boot into Be (which takes about 15 seconds
  and involves almost no disk grinding), and hey! I can see all the drives.
  Quick partition.  Ooooh, a _graphical_ partitioning tool.  Simple,
  straightforward.  Wow!  I don't have to enter in the number of freaking
  cylinders I want?!  It's almost like I've died and left the 1980s!
  Amazing!  If Linux is innovative, what the hell is this?  Cheating?
  
  So, I go into partitioning.  I may have to boot off this drive.  You know
  what that means?  I have to throw away some space at the beginning.
  Because, you know, lilo might or might not be able to read past the 1024st
  cylinder.  Oh yeah, of course, it's _possible_ to make lilo do it.
  Usually. In theory.
  
  So I partition it all up, and backup my OS.  What does the backup consist
  of?  I grap all of the folders and drag them onto the new drive.  Wow,
  that was tough.  I wait a bit (again, with graphical feedback, including a
  progress bar--wow, progress bars!), and it's all done.
  
  Oh, and just to reiterate my last hate:  BeOS can (of course) power off my
  monitor even if it's connected via DVI, and it's mp3 player works just
  dandy, even though it hasn't been updated in 3 years.  Oh yeah, open
  source is all about innovation, and it _naturally_ results in better
  software.  The software's just better than it's competitors were 20 years
  ago, rather than right now.  Thanks.
  
  So I'm reduced to trawling the fricking 'net looking for how to force
  devfs (you know, the thing that's supposed to autodetect all of my
  devices?) to autodetect (see, I have to force it to autodetect; got that?)
  my stupid IDE drive.  Right.
  
  And then, once I get the stupid drive working, I'll have the pleasure of
  doing the following to make a bootable drive:
  
  run 'cd <fs>; sudo tar cf - . | (cd <newspot>; sudo tar xf -) for each of
  my stupid filesystems
  
  Change lilo so that it points to the new drive and installs the new stupid
  bootloader thing (yeah, BeOS has a simple, easy bootloader, but I decided,
  heck, I'll try lilo.  And plus, BeOS has been deprecated; it didn't seem
  wise to requier it.  Big-ass mistake, obviously, especially considering
  that Be has no freaking problem with 1024 or more cylinders.
  
  Change my stupid SCSI card so it boots off a different drive.
  
  Pray that it all freaking works.
  
  Reboot twenty times trying it.
  
  Yes friends, linux sucks a lot.  It's not an atrocious server OS, but
  anyone who thingks this crap is acceptable is smoking crack.  And not the
  good kind either.
  
  How's that for some software hate?  And I'm not even done with the night
  yet.
  
  Luke
  
  
  

• From: peter (Peter da Silva)
  Date: 05:08 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  First: there ain't any such thing as "linux". There's a bunch of OSes that
  run on the Linux kernel, but you haven't bothered identifying which one you're
  using, or why you're still using LILO instead of Grub.
  
  But I'm not here to talk about that, or about Alice (Alice isn't even in this
  song), no, I'm here to say one thing and one thing only. Why don't you say it
  too, keep it up, pretty soon we'll have a movement.
  
  You can get everything you want, at http://www.freebsd.org/ .
  
  (except of course it sucks too, it's software after all, but it sounds to me
  like it'll suck a bit less than whatever Linux-based mess you're using now, or
  at least it'll suck different)
  
                          (hey, that's a great slogan)
  
                                                          (BSD: Suck Different)
  
  
  

• From: Luke A. Kanies
  Date: 14:28 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Peter da Silva wrote:
  
  > First: there ain't any such thing as "linux". There's a bunch of OSes that
  > run on the Linux kernel, but you haven't bothered identifying which one you're
  > using, or why you're still using LILO instead of Grub.
  
  I didn't mention which one because it's my fifth distro, and they've all
  had similar problems.  I've also used FreeBSD and OpenBSD.  (And Solaris,
  AIX, and HP-UX.)  I'm a Unix admin for a living.
  
  And you can play the whole "GNU/linux" vs. "linux" vs. "whatever" thing,
  but most of the problems I'm having are essentially fundamental to how the
  OSS people view the world:  It doesn't need to be easy, it just needs to
  be possible.
  
  Why am I using LILO instead of Grub?  I believe that the last time I
  tried, I gave up after 2 hours of trying to get it to work.  Oh yeah, if I
  had a single IDE drive with two partitions on it, I'm sure it would have
  been easy.  But I don't, so it wasn't.  I believe it didn't like my 2 SCSI
  and 2 IDE drives with two copies of linux and two copies of BeOS.
  
  But it was at least 1.5 years ago, so I don't remember.  Suffice it to say
  it was a better tool on the same model:  It doesn't need to be easy, it
  just needs to be possible.
  
  > But I'm not here to talk about that, or about Alice (Alice isn't even in this
  > song), no, I'm here to say one thing and one thing only. Why don't you say it
  > too, keep it up, pretty soon we'll have a movement.
  >
  > You can get everything you want, at http://www.freebsd.org/ .
  >
  > (except of course it sucks too, it's software after all, but it sounds to me
  > like it'll suck a bit less than whatever Linux-based mess you're using now, or
  > at least it'll suck different)
  
  Been there, done that, don't remember why I left.  But I can guarantee
  that replacing the boot drive won't be anywhere near as trivial as it was
  on BeOS, or as it was, for instance, on Mac OS 9 (OS X has definitely
  regressed in this area).
  
  If I get desperate, I might try it again, but that seems a bit unlikely.
  They still use XFree86, which I hate, and they won't have a better mp3
  player that doesn't run on linux.  Their NFS might not be as horrible as
  linux's, though.
  
  At this point I'm just fighting off replacing all of my x86 hardware with
  Mac hardware; at least then I don't have to deal with the disgustingly bad
  features of this platform:  20-30 seconds to get through the BIOS,
  incredibly retarded boot sequences, retarded rules about how you boot off
  a given disk or partition, retarded limitations on partitioning methods (I
  guess that's the software, though, huh?).
  
  Ugh.  I'm just upset because I never was able to recover my linux box last
  night.  It still boots just dandily into BeOS, bu not dice on linux.
  
  And I've got plenty of non-linux hate that would be just as present on
  FreeBSD, for things like Gnome, OpenLDAP, etc.
  
  Luke
  
  
  

• From: Matt McLeod
  Date: 14:42 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  Luke A. Kanies wrote:
  > If I get desperate, I might try it again, but that seems a bit unlikely.
  > They still use XFree86, which I hate, and they won't have a better mp3
  > player that doesn't run on linux.  Their NFS might not be as horrible as
  > linux's, though.
  
  Well, it does at least have some passing aquaintance with that
  whole "locking" thing.
  
  > At this point I'm just fighting off replacing all of my x86 hardware with
  > Mac hardware;
  
  What's to fight?  I got some funny looks when I became the first
  sysprog where I work to ask for a Mac, but now maybe half the group
  is seriously thinking about making the move too.
  
  > And I've got plenty of non-linux hate that would be just as present on
  > FreeBSD, for things like Gnome, OpenLDAP, etc.
  
  So don't run them.
  
  OK, so OpenLDAP may be difficult to avoid if you need LDAP, but
  Gnome is hardly compulsory.
  
  Matt
  (most of my hate right now is devoted to our DRP scripts.  Weird
   cruft written in ksh by a guy who isn't alive to maintain them any
   more in an environment where nobody knows ksh from a hole in the ground.
   Guess who's the DRP bunny this year?)
  
  
  

• From: Luke A. Kanies
  Date: 14:54 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Matt McLeod wrote:
  
  > Luke A. Kanies wrote:
  > > At this point I'm just fighting off replacing all of my x86 hardware with
  > > Mac hardware;
  >
  > What's to fight?  I got some funny looks when I became the first
  > sysprog where I work to ask for a Mac, but now maybe half the group
  > is seriously thinking about making the move too.
  
  Well, I've already got a powerbook, but the desktop is quite an expense.
  The main reason I'm putting it off, though, is that I'm a Unix consultant;
  it seems like I should be using at home something I'm likely to use at
  work.
  
  I expect to lose the fight later this year, but I'm waiting as long as
  possible.
  
  > > And I've got plenty of non-linux hate that would be just as present on
  > > FreeBSD, for things like Gnome, OpenLDAP, etc.
  >
  > So don't run them.
  
  Well, I can't use KDE, because their workspaces app is completely
  unacceptable.  Yeah, I could use Afterstep (which I mostly use at work)
  but I'd still need to _have_ most of the Gnome crap to use GUI software
  like AIM clients and such.
  
  And I'm still fighting this conflict of knowing enough about this cruft to
  make money with it.
  
  > Matt
  > (most of my hate right now is devoted to our DRP scripts.  Weird
  >  cruft written in ksh by a guy who isn't alive to maintain them any
  >  more in an environment where nobody knows ksh from a hole in the ground.
  >  Guess who's the DRP bunny this year?)
  
  Yeah, I worked at a shop that lost a guy who maintained a set of sh
  scripts that rsh'ed to multiple machines and did various and sundry
  operations all over the network, and he didn't have any version control,
  so the scripts were in no way synchronized.  Yay.  Enjoy!
  
  Luke
  
  
  

• From: Simon Cozens
  Date: 15:01 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  Luke A. Kanies:
  > Well, I've already got a powerbook, but the desktop is quite an expense.
  > The main reason I'm putting it off, though, is that I'm a Unix consultant;
  
  What's not Unix about OS X? No, don't get me started about NeXT. But there's
  enough Unix under there to be getting on with.
  
  > but I'd still need to _have_ most of the Gnome crap to use GUI software
  > like AIM clients and such.
  
  So don't use GUI software then. It all sucks, after all.
  
  
  

• From: Luke A. Kanies
  Date: 15:08 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Simon Cozens wrote:
  
  > Luke A. Kanies:
  > > Well, I've already got a powerbook, but the desktop is quite an expense.
  > > The main reason I'm putting it off, though, is that I'm a Unix consultant;
  >
  > What's not Unix about OS X? No, don't get me started about NeXT. But there's
  > enough Unix under there to be getting on with.
  
  I'd say that OS X is not-quite-entirely unrelated to essentially any other
  Unix OS.  Yeah, it's kinda Unix, but not in a way that experience with it
  is going to come anywhere near helping me do my job.  At least when I
  struggle through linux crap I can reuse that knowledge at work, but when I
  struggle through OS X crap (you know, netinfo, maintaining resource forks
  in CLI tools, that kind of thing) it will never help me at work.
  
  > > but I'd still need to _have_ most of the Gnome crap to use GUI software
  > > like AIM clients and such.
  >
  > So don't use GUI software then. It all sucks, after all.
  
  Uh, yeah, I'm not going to give up GUI software.  Just not going happen.
  It burns, but better pain than no feeling at all.  Or something like that.
  
  
  

• From: peter (Peter da Silva)
  Date: 17:17 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  > I'd say that OS X is not-quite-entirely unrelated to essentially any other
  > Unix OS.
  
  SystemStarter is not the same as /etc/rc.conf, but that stuff is
  different for every system. And Netinfo isn't YP or PAM, but that
  stuff is different for everything too. Mostly it looks just about
  every other Mach/BSD merge I've ever futzed with.
  
  > At least when I
  > struggle through linux crap I can reuse that knowledge at work, but when I
  > struggle through OS X crap (you know, netinfo, maintaining resource forks
  > in CLI tools, that kind of thing) it will never help me at work.
  
  So don't struggle with that crap, just use it. I mean, what's BeOS going
  to do for you?
  
  >     "What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the sound of a wall that
  >      people have stopped banging their heads against?"
  >                 --Larry Wall in <1992Aug26.184221.29627@xxxxxxx.xxx>
  
  No. Perl has great roaring turbines of suck that I'm tired of banging my head
  against. BTDT been turned into a thin red mist.
  
  
  

• From: Luke A. Kanies
  Date: 17:33 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Peter da Silva wrote:
  
  > > I'd say that OS X is not-quite-entirely unrelated to essentially any other
  > > Unix OS.
  >
  > SystemStarter is not the same as /etc/rc.conf, but that stuff is
  > different for every system. And Netinfo isn't YP or PAM, but that
  > stuff is different for everything too. Mostly it looks just about
  > every other Mach/BSD merge I've ever futzed with.
  
  Except that I specialize in automation.  Specifically, centralized
  automation of system installation and management.  My skills with
  Jumpstart, Kickstart, cfengine, etc., are the ones I rely on most, and
  those skills are largely useless on Mac OS X.  Conversely, equivalent
  skills developed on OS X are useless on other platforms.  So it doesn't
  really work out the same, unless I get rid of all of the Netinfo stuff
  (which I'm not even sure is possible) and stop using Aqua, which seems
  silly.
  
  > > At least when I
  > > struggle through linux crap I can reuse that knowledge at work, but when I
  > > struggle through OS X crap (you know, netinfo, maintaining resource forks
  > > in CLI tools, that kind of thing) it will never help me at work.
  >
  > So don't struggle with that crap, just use it. I mean, what's BeOS going
  > to do for you?
  
  Heck, at this point, what's any OS going to do for me?  I often don't
  know...
  
  > >     "What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the sound of a wall that
  > >      people have stopped banging their heads against?"
  > >                 --Larry Wall in <1992Aug26.184221.29627@xxxxxxx.xxx>
  >
  > No. Perl has great roaring turbines of suck that I'm tired of banging my head
  > against. BTDT been turned into a thin red mist.
  
  I've recently switched (where possible) to ruby, and although ruby's got
  some suck, it's generally pretty sweet.
  
  Luke
  
  
  

• From: Matt McLeod
  Date: 15:44 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  Luke A. Kanies wrote:
  > Well, I've already got a powerbook, but the desktop is quite an expense.
  > The main reason I'm putting it off, though, is that I'm a Unix consultant;
  > it seems like I should be using at home something I'm likely to use at
  > work.
  
  I've found that by and large there's not a lot to actually fight
  in OS X.  Sure, there's NetInfo and a variety of other things that
  are almost but not entirely unlike everything else, but they tend
  to keep the hell out of the way.  Which is pretty much the point of
  using it.
  
  Which reminds me...
  
  > Well, I can't use KDE, because their workspaces app is completely
  > unacceptable.  Yeah, I could use Afterstep (which I mostly use at work)
  > but I'd still need to _have_ most of the Gnome crap to use GUI software
  > like AIM clients and such.
  
  Last time I looked, most of that crap just needs gtk+.  Which
  is still stupidly big, but isn't quite on the scale of "most
  of Gnome".
  
  Oh, and Afterstep?  Bloated FPOS.
  
  [I wrote:]
  > > (most of my hate right now is devoted to our DRP scripts.  Weird
  > >  cruft written in ksh by a guy who isn't alive to maintain them any
  > >  more in an environment where nobody knows ksh from a hole in the ground.
  > >  Guess who's the DRP bunny this year?)
  > 
  > Yeah, I worked at a shop that lost a guy who maintained a set of sh
  > scripts that rsh'ed to multiple machines and did various and sundry
  > operations all over the network, and he didn't have any version control,
  > so the scripts were in no way synchronized.  Yay.  Enjoy!
  
  Copying the data isn't that big a deal -- I've already rewritten 
  the different-for-every-host ksh scripts that did that and turned
  them into a single perl script that works for every host.
  
  The problem now is the stuff for taking users and printer configurations
  from five hosts and merging them for use on the DRP box.  And it has to
  work right first time if used in anger, as this stuff manages HR, student
  records, and finances for a reasonably large University.
  
  (Oh, and it's all on Tru64, a mix of 4.mumble and 5.mumble, and
   the users are all in the TCB database.  Fun fun fun.)
  
  It looks like I'm re-writing all of that so we can maintain it
  properly.  I am thankful that we have version control and real
  live coding standards.
  
  Matt
  
  
  

• From: peter (Peter da Silva)
  Date: 17:20 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  > ([mumble Tru64 mumble] and the users are all in the TCB database [mumble])
  
  I am *so* sorry. Great roaring suck-turbines there.
  
  
  

• From: Matt McLeod
  Date: 17:36 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  Peter da Silva wrote:
  > > ([mumble Tru64 mumble] and the users are all in the TCB database [mumble])
  > 
  > I am *so* sorry. Great roaring suck-turbines there.
  
  Yeah, I have no idea what they were smoking when they decided to do that.
  I think someone told them it was "more secure" -- perhaps shadow passwords
  won't available at some time with TCB was?
  
  
  

• From: peter (Peter da Silva)
  Date: 17:10 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  > Well, I've already got a powerbook, but the desktop is quite an expense.
  
  1. Beige G3 from the Low End Mac swap list	$70
  2. Flashed PC Radeon 7000 from ditto		$70
  3. Jaguar CD from OWC				$60
  4. PC RAM and disk from doomed wintel box	Gratis
  5. Booting real UNIX with Mac user interface	Priceless.
  
  > The main reason I'm putting it off, though, is that I'm a Unix consultant;
  > it seems like I should be using at home something I'm likely to use at
  > work.
  
  See line item 5 above.
  
  
  

• From: Darrell Fuhriman
  Date: 19:14 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  > 5. Booting real UNIX with Mac user interface	Priceless.
  
  http://secretworldofnerds.com/atlas_nerd.jpg
  
  Darrell
  
  

• From: peter (Peter da Silva)
  Date: 17:05 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  > And you can play the whole "GNU/linux" vs. "linux" vs. "whatever" thing,
  > but most of the problems I'm having are essentially fundamental to how the
  > OSS people view the world:  It doesn't need to be easy, it just needs to
  > be possible.
  
  First it needs to be possible, then you make it easy. Both OS 9 and BeOS
  fail the "first, make it possible" test.
  
  I can deal with "it sucks, but I can work around it" better than "it sucks,
  but it looks pretty".
  
  > Been there, done that, don't remember why I left.  But I can guarantee
  > that replacing the boot drive won't be anywhere near as trivial as it was
  > on BeOS, or as it was, for instance, on Mac OS 9 (OS X has definitely
  > regressed in this area).
  
  Assuming BeOS will handle the contortions your IDE controller goes through
  when it decides you're using too large a drive (it wouldn't on mine) and if
  that's not an Apple-approved drive you've got to buy a third party formatter.
  And then whan you upgrade to OS X it turns out you need to format the drive
  again. And neither BeOS nor Mac OS is really happy with the idea of splitting
  or merging partitions without blowing away everything on the drive, though
  at least it's *usually* possible with BeOS... but if you use BeOS to redo
  your partitions you can't get an HFS[+] FS on either of the new partitions
  because BeOS won't create an HFS[+] FS and Mac OS won't recognise the
  partitions...
  
  You can always do what I did, and buy a cheap Beige G3 and use Mac OS X as
  your desktop. It's got lots of its own suck, but at least it usually looks
  pretty and you can usually work around it.
  
  > At this point I'm just fighting off replacing all of my x86 hardware with
  > Mac hardware; at least then I don't have to deal with the disgustingly bad
  > features of this platform:  20-30 seconds to get through the BIOS,
  > incredibly retarded boot sequences, retarded rules about how you boot off
  > a given disk or partition, retarded limitations on partitioning methods (I
  > guess that's the software, though, huh?).
  
  Just wait until you try and repartition a drive on your Mac, or you get
  OpenFirmware wodged so you need to pull the PRAM battery, whack the CUDA
  switch, and let it sit overnight with no power so it'll forget the bad
  settings...
  
  You can't avoid the suck, all you can do is pick the combination that causes
  the least pain for the moment.
  
  			"Suck Different[ly]"
  
  > And I've got plenty of non-linux hate that would be just as present on
  > FreeBSD, for things like Gnome, OpenLDAP, etc.
  
  I can't imagine becoming so inured to suck that I'd trade my Windowmaker
  environment for Gnome or KDE. :)
  
  And my NeXTstation has just decided to quit booting from floopy. Anyone
  got a NeXTstation boot floppy image they can send me?
  
  
  

• From: Luke A. Kanies
  Date: 17:31 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Peter da Silva wrote:
  
  > First it needs to be possible, then you make it easy. Both OS 9 and BeOS
  > fail the "first, make it possible" test.
  
  Well, I agree that they fail that test, which is why I don't use them.
  But I also think that designing and bragging about a crappy system is
  pretty asinine, but it's what both OS X and linux do.  I'm slightly
  embarrassed to be using either, but I don't have much choice.
  
  > I can deal with "it sucks, but I can work around it" better than "it sucks,
  > but it looks pretty".
  
  It just makes me compucidal, that's all.
  
  > Assuming BeOS will handle the contortions your IDE controller goes through
  > when it decides you're using too large a drive (it wouldn't on mine) and if
  > that's not an Apple-approved drive you've got to buy a third party formatter.
  > And then whan you upgrade to OS X it turns out you need to format the drive
  > again. And neither BeOS nor Mac OS is really happy with the idea of splitting
  > or merging partitions without blowing away everything on the drive, though
  > at least it's *usually* possible with BeOS... but if you use BeOS to redo
  > your partitions you can't get an HFS[+] FS on either of the new partitions
  > because BeOS won't create an HFS[+] FS and Mac OS won't recognise the
  > partitions...
  
  Heh. :)  My current box was purchased specifically to work with BeOS four
  years ago, so that's all good. :)
  
  I agree that the partition join/split thing is annoying, but at least it's
  trivial to get bootable copies in BeOS, which is one thing that OS X has
  broken all to hell:  It's no longer possible to use the Finder to get a
  valid, bootable copy of your boot disk without copying the _entire_ disk.
  No more dragging the System Folder.
  
  > You can always do what I did, and buy a cheap Beige G3 and use Mac OS X as
  > your desktop. It's got lots of its own suck, but at least it usually looks
  > pretty and you can usually work around it.
  
  Yeah, um, I don't really have a good excuse not to do that, true.
  
  > Just wait until you try and repartition a drive on your Mac, or you get
  > OpenFirmware wodged so you need to pull the PRAM battery, whack the CUDA
  > switch, and let it sit overnight with no power so it'll forget the bad
  > settings...
  
  I became a computer professional through learning so much from rebuilding
  my stupid 660av every two weeks.  I know all about it.
  
  > You can't avoid the suck, all you can do is pick the combination that causes
  > the least pain for the moment.
  
  Yeah, I'm just bummed that "least" is such a large number right now. :?
  
  > > And I've got plenty of non-linux hate that would be just as present on
  > > FreeBSD, for things like Gnome, OpenLDAP, etc.
  >
  > I can't imagine becoming so inured to suck that I'd trade my Windowmaker
  > environment for Gnome or KDE. :)
  
  No comment.
  
  Luke
  
  
  

• From: peter (Peter da Silva)
  Date: 19:43 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  > But I also think that designing and bragging about a crappy system is
  > pretty asinine, but it's what both OS X and linux do.
  
  As opposed to what?
  
  > I agree that the partition join/split thing is annoying, but at least it's
  > trivial to get bootable copies in BeOS, which is one thing that OS X has
  > broken all to hell:  It's no longer possible to use the Finder to get a
  > valid, bootable copy of your boot disk without copying the _entire_ disk.
  
  The OS X disk layout is bleeding excessive complexity from all its pores,
  yes, it's got all the gratuitously nonstandard file system of OS 9 or
  BeOS combined with the magic boot partition of the Wintel world and a
  great rotting spoonful of its own unique kinds of pain.
  
  Carbon Copy Cloner is a godsend. And even if doing the steps manually is a
  pain at least each part of the process *is* documented.
  
  Have you ever tried to copy a Windows NT boot partition?
  
  Or Xenix, the original Xenix... changing the partition tables took a kernel
  build, they were all statically compiled in. Now that's deep suck.
  
  
  

• From: Luke A. Kanies
  Date: 20:00 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Peter da Silva wrote:
  
  > > But I also think that designing and bragging about a crappy system is
  > > pretty asinine, but it's what both OS X and linux do.
  >
  > As opposed to what?
  
  Designing and bragging about an elegant system.  I mean, if you took all
  the effort spent on linux and actually, you know, guided it towards a goal
  of "new and better" rather than "copy and equivalent", you might end up
  with something.
  
  I agree that BeOS was not yet full-featured (the main things I thought
  were missing were multi-user, network transparency for the interface, and
  native filesharing, but there was lots else), but it was one of very few
  OSes to actually take the last 20 years of CS research into account.  It
  actually learned from the past and tried to beat it.
  
  Seems like linux is just doing its best to copy Unix and Winbloze, with
  some Mac stuff thrown in there for fun.  There is so little innovation
  (truly new ways of doing things) in the linux world it hurts, and most of
  the rest is needlessly complicated.  One of the greatest things about BeOS
  (and MacOS 9) is that it was simple; simple to use, simple to understand.
  Powerful, but simple.
  
  Linux completely loses that simplicity, and so does MacOS X.  Oh sure,
  Apple does a good job of hiding the complexity so most users don't have to
  see it, but that's not nearly as good as just not having the complexity.
  That's why I'm pissed that Apple replaced OS 9 (an old but simple OS) with
  a Unix base, because it just made everything so freaking much more
  complicated.  And that complication comes through in plenty of unhappy
  ways.
  
  > > I agree that the partition join/split thing is annoying, but at least it's
  > > trivial to get bootable copies in BeOS, which is one thing that OS X has
  > > broken all to hell:  It's no longer possible to use the Finder to get a
  > > valid, bootable copy of your boot disk without copying the _entire_ disk.
  >
  > The OS X disk layout is bleeding excessive complexity from all its pores,
  > yes, it's got all the gratuitously nonstandard file system of OS 9 or
  > BeOS combined with the magic boot partition of the Wintel world and a
  > great rotting spoonful of its own unique kinds of pain.
  >
  > Carbon Copy Cloner is a godsend. And even if doing the steps manually is a
  > pain at least each part of the process *is* documented.
  >
  > Have you ever tried to copy a Windows NT boot partition?
  >
  > Or Xenix, the original Xenix... changing the partition tables took a kernel
  > build, they were all statically compiled in. Now that's deep suck.
  
  Heh, I haven't ever done anything significant in Windows. :)  And I've
  never used Xenix, but that does sound like suck.
  
  I'm not trying to say there's something better, just that the current
  state sucks and it could and should have been better.
  
  Luke
  
  
  

• From: peter (Peter da Silva)
  Date: 20:11 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  > > > But I also think that designing and bragging about a crappy system is
  > > > pretty asinine, but it's what both OS X and linux do.
  
  > > As opposed to what?
  
  > Designing and bragging about an elegant system.
  
  Has anyone ever done that and lived to tell the tale?
  
  BeOS certainly doesn't count... it was born with the cancer of C++ in its
  heart.
  
  Mac OS had no OS in it at all, until OS X came along. And if I ever see a
  numeric error code from a "user friendly" so-called OS again I'll puke.
  
  Smalltalk had probably the worst GUI for actual work, ever, NOT excluding
  Athena Widgets, Symbolics, and Plan 9.
  
  QNX has an inferiority complex that makes Porky Pig look macho.
  
  Plan 9 had the second or third worst GUI, and was far too religiously a
  distributed system.
  
  > I'm not trying to say there's something better, just that the current
  > state sucks and it could and should have been better.
  
  Of course it does, and of course it could have been, but I don't believe
  it would have been in any credible timeline.
  
  
  

• From: David Champion
  Date: 17:49 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  * On 2004.01.16, in <20040116170514.6624841475@xxxxxxx.xx.xxxxxxx.xxx>,
  *	"Peter da Silva" <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
  >
  > again. And neither BeOS nor Mac OS is really happy with the idea of splitting
  > or merging partitions without blowing away everything on the drive, though
  > at least it's *usually* possible with BeOS... but if you use BeOS to redo
  
  I usually find that pdisk will repartition my Mac's disks without
  damaging unchanged partitions. Of course, since MacOS sucks
  (differently), all the partitions have to be unmounted first, which can
  mean booting off an install CD.
  
  
  > You can always do what I did, and buy a cheap Beige G3 and use Mac OS X as
  > your desktop. It's got lots of its own suck, but at least it usually looks
  > pretty and you can usually work around it.
  
  This is pretty much where I've come to. I flip over to my mac so often
  to do desktoppy things that it's not really worth trying to do a desktop
  on solaris or (gag) linux anymore. And the mac is really a better
  desktop experience than any of the PC platforms can provide me, anyway.
  Though admittedly I've never used BeOS, because it looked like it would
  irritate me (what non-irritating company would put a hole in their
  computer called a "geek port"?) and I didn't want to pay up $200 or
  whatever for more irritation. And I still liked Linux back then.
  
  I used to hates CBM for not doing something more clever with the Amiga
  when their board voted on seppuku, but now I think all those fanboys
  still trying after more than a decade to resurrect the spirit of that
  piece of crap are wasting their oxygen. In 10 years of real development,
  maybe they could have made it a modern OS (again). As it is, it's still
  not modern (again), and it's still ugly.
  
  I also used to hates Apple for subsuming my sweet, lovely NeXT when they
  borgged with OpenStep, but I just installed OpenStep into Virtual PC,
  and realized that I was romanticizing the whole thing. It's still the
  cleanest UI ever, but it never had the desktop functionality that MacOS
  X does, and I'd never have chosen it as a server, anyway. So, punt.
  After all this time, after twenty-five years of hating Apple deeply, to
  the darkest trenches of my cold and teeming heart, all my desktop hope
  lies with Steve "do you love me yet" Jobs. Fuck.
  
  If only I could have a nice window manager on MacOS, I'd be so much less
  disgruntled. I wish I new Xlib, so I could write one -- but of course it
  still wouldn't work because Apple can't get it through their skulls that
  a network-clean, open and broadly-supported client-server display model
  is really a good thing.
  
  Serverwise, I am screwed differently: Sun is still the only sane plan.
  Will someone fix this, please, preferably without employing either BSD
  or Linux?
  
  
  > And my NeXTstation has just decided to quit booting from floopy. Anyone
  > got a NeXTstation boot floppy image they can send me?
  
  Have you tried Apple Support? Not that I really think they'd have it,
  but they do have some surprising things.
  
  
  

• From: peter (Peter da Silva)
  Date: 20:00 on 16 Jan 2004
  Subject: Re: linux _still_ sucks
  
  I must say you're inspiring a veritable cornucopia of bad memories.
  
  I suppose that's appropriate for this list.
  
  > I used to hates CBM for not doing something more clever with the Amiga
  > when their board voted on seppuku, but now I think all those fanboys
  > still trying after more than a decade to resurrect the spirit of that
  > piece of crap are wasting their oxygen. In 10 years of real development,
  > maybe they could have made it a modern OS (again). As it is, it's still
  > not modern (again), and it's still ugly.
  
  Well, actually, there doesn't seem to be any part of the software they're
  calling Amiga* these days that has anything to do with the software that
  made the Amiga interesting and useful, so they seem to have gone to rather
  a lot of trouble to start over from scratch and recreate all the bad things
  and none of the good.
  
  > I also used to hates Apple for subsuming my sweet, lovely NeXT when they
  > borgged with OpenStep, but I just installed OpenStep into Virtual PC,
  > and realized that I was romanticizing the whole thing.
  
  The NeXT non-menu-bar is the second stupidest UI innovation I can think
  of offhand, after the single-button mouse.
  
  > > And my NeXTstation has just decided to quit booting from floopy. Anyone
  > > got a NeXTstation boot floppy image they can send me?
  
  > Have you tried Apple Support?
  
  If I want an intel *step boot floopy, they have a nice selection. Nothing
  useful for black hardware, though.
  
  
  

Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi