Jump to content

Linux - What would you like to see get fixed ?


u1m2
 Share

31 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I would like to see

 

1 - A common configuration/installation (hardware and software) utility that will be used by most of the major linux distros. I would like this utility to be extensive and that 3rd party applications should be configured within this utility ...similar to how norton adds it's own configuration under Control Panel in Windows. Extensive hardware monitoring under this utility would also be nice.

2 - Binary compatibility between major distros, I hate searching the web desperately to find rpms for a specific distro -it takes too much time- imho this should/could be avoided. Also, I hate to compile from source as it turns out 90% of the time I have to deal with lots of missing dependencies which kind of drives me nuts especially when I am in a hurry.

 

I know many people might like and accept what I think of as probems but Linux is not just a geek toy, I believe it has every chance to be a valid opponent to Windows and OS X if the end user experience becomes less complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see

 

1 - A common configuration/installation (hardware and software) utility that will be used by most of the major linux distros. I would like this utility to be extensive and that 3rd party applications should be configured within this utility ...similar to how norton adds it's own configuration under Control Panel in Windows. Extensive hardware monitoring under this utility would also be nice.

 

That seems to describe YaST, IMO. To a lesser extent also Mandrake Control Center.

 

2 - Binary compatibility between major distros, I hate searching the web desperately to find rpms for a specific distro -it takes too much time- imho this should/could be avoided. Also, I hate to compile from source as it turns out 90% of the time I have to deal with lots of missing dependencies which kind of drives me nuts especially when I am in a hurry.

 

I wish it could become true, but RPM distros have been following different paths for too long: mainly you have Fedora/Red Hat, SUSE and Mandriva.

On the other hand, until 3 years ago, a deb was always a deb. Then Ubuntu came, and created the first Debian fork ever...

In any case, when using a RPM distro, try to configure the best package manager available (SMART in the case of SUSE 10.2)

and you'll have pretty much everything "under one roof"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well..

 

as for me the most important thing is multimedia support..it doesn't need to be out of box but also not too hard.this kind of problem that keeps people away from linux..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems to describe YaST, IMO. To a lesser extent also Mandrake Control Center.

 

When I wrote common, I meant common as in shared, used by more than one distro, which can not be said for YAST or Mandrake Control Center. The idea behind what I said is simple, if people can do some configuration task in Mandriva no different than in Debian lets say, it would be easier for the end user not having to go through hoops when using a new distro. I think "standardization" is the word here.

 

I wish it could become true, but RPM distros have been following different paths for too long: mainly you have Fedora/Red Hat, SUSE and Mandriva.

On the other hand, until 3 years ago, a deb was always a deb. Then Ubuntu came, and created the first Debian fork ever...

In any case, when using a RPM distro, try to configure the best package manager available (SMART in the case of SUSE 10.2)

and you'll have pretty much everything "under one roof"

 

Again, I think of this as a problem. Why would we search for rpms, debs or looking for repositories when all we can do is use a simple one-stop source to download and install what we need ? I know that there are a couple repositories for SuSE, a couple more for Fedora that would get you started easily but they don't always have everything you need so it pretty much renders package managers useless if that is the case. Again, standardization is bound to help create larger repositories and help users find what they are looking for more easily. You know, not every developer goes through the strain of compiling their software for every known major distribution.

This was the Microsoft policy in refusing to open-source their software - that different versions would emerge making compatibility and standardization impossible thus causing trouble and confusion for the end user. Although I am not usually one to side with the big Codezilla, I think they have a valid point and Linux should try to follow in those footsteps for wider recognition and acceptance from the not so tech-savvy people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I wrote common, I meant common as in shared, used by more than one distro, which can not be said for YAST

 

YaST is licensed under the GPL and is probably the best control center of any OS, so why reinvent the wheel? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with your comments on Yast's capabilities, I am a SuSE user myself, what mainly bothers me is that every distro uses different configuration/setup tools which creates diversion, what I want is one tool to use be used in all (if not, most) of the major distros. I also think if all the developers focused their efforts on developing one tool rather than trying to create multiple tools on their own we would (as end users) benefit more from this : Less bugs, more features, improved stability, reliability and security perhaps ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

linux binaries will work on any distro, as long as they get a similar structure and libs

 

the configuration issue is a little bit complex, due different file storage structure and other little differences...that makes impossible to move configs from a distro to anotherone

 

anyways, several distros use anaconda-like installer +yast-like apps for configuration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There needs to be some kind of major conformity in the Linux world. There are thousands of different flavors of Linux, and each one can carry its own installation technique, and they may use Debian or Red Hat packages or you might have to use Terminal to install from source or use alien if the package doesn't fit your flavor of Linux and then there's the choice between KDE or Gnome desktops with their own menus, etc.

 

Now contrast this with Windows or OS X and it looks like Linux is being run by ten committees with each one doing their own thing without any knowledge of what the other committees are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see more hardware manufacturers develop native distro-independent Linux drivers, instead of having to wait on literally thousands of developers to release some (sometimes dodgy), from MS reverse engineered, drivers that have to be installed with text commands from the 70s. At least, it would be helpful if more manufacturers disclosed the hardware specs in a way that makes it easier for developers to create some nice stable stuff. I still believe there's plenty of potential on the Linux front - apart from the really geeky stuff - to make it more accessible and attractive to first time users by providing solid hardware support and by taking advantage of its stability (once you got it up and running...)

What I have in mind is a bit like the 'OSX effect'. Sell more hardware because 'it simply works' and possibly even looks better...

 

(I'm not a tech head, so please don't gun me if my ideas are technically too far fetched...) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I think Linux needs 2 things:

 

1. Better hardware support out-of-box...Basically, if my mom wanted to run linux, i'm sure she couldn't compile and install a kernel module, in this same idea, it would be cool if the kernel auto-compiled for your hardware on all distros.

 

2. Less FUD being spread around...Everyone who's not tech savvy thinks Linux is antiquated, or illegal (cuz it's free) or all command-line or really hard to install. I'd love to, in 2-3 years, walk into my local public library and see the computers running linux...that would be awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Less FUD being spread around...Everyone who's not tech savvy thinks Linux is antiquated, or illegal (cuz it's free) or all command-line or really hard to install. I'd love to, in 2-3 years, walk into my local public library and see the computers running linux...that would be awesome.

I don't think it has much to do with tech savvy per se. It's more about code savvy. I know a lot of people who are tech savvy in the sense that they know what needs to be done to get certain things to work. It doesn't mean though that they would be able to interpret the required lines of code (not to mention figuring them out themselves) to be inserted in xorg.conf or whichever file and the correct commands in terminal to make things work properly. I reckon that's one of the major problems with the Linux development community as opposed to the users (tech savvy or not). There's still a large rift in terms of 'I know all the nitty-gritty that you will never learn because it takes too long to explain and you don't need it anyway' or 'shut up, I'm busy' or 'you must have forgotten a blank or a hyphen in file xyz123.conf on the line right after x11 invokes a memory reset in address D2 FA 25 A5 etc.... :) '

 

I reckon most people who have ever installed one of the more user-friendly distros know that the installation can be fairly straightforward. Having the right instructions even post-install hardware installation can be a doddle IF the instructions are laid out in a way so that somebody who has never installed this particular piece of hardware before without knowing how to read between the lines and basically the developer's mind. This is unfortunately often not true. All it takes is browse around the countless Linux user forums where thousands of tech savvy (code unsavvy) users are desperately seeking for an understandable solution to their often fairly trivial problems - ie. graphics options not offering the correct resolution or sound not working. The reality is that a lot of people who ask a simple question get a bunch of lines of arcane code in return. "If the super-easy urpmi installation was so straightforward I wouldn't be here in a first place" comes to my mind in those situations.

 

The Linux community has to accept that knowing syntax in an OS has absolutely no added value to a user. Knowing the semantics should be enough to get everything to run. Everything else should either be automated - hey this is 2007 - or clearly documented in enough details to allow to be easily reproduced without having to first pass a degree in IT science.

It's certainly safe to assume that without knowing any technical semantics you will inevitably run into problems in trying to get things to work which don't. The fact is though that it's also safe to assume we can exclude that group of people for now - ie. somebody's grannie who just knows how to click on things and where the power button is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see 3 things changed:

 

1. A common super user command, some distros such as Ubuntu use sudo and some use su -root which makes it all very confusing when you change distros as often as I do.

2. Some distros like Mandriva 2007 Spring seem to not like a standard user running the super user command and I can't find a way to change it and that means Linux is starting to turn the way of UAC in Vista.

3. Better ATi support, my X1300 is an odd issue because while I know the ATi drivers work generally my card seems to crash the X11 engine because of it's specificness.

 

These issues aren't to major for me though as Fedora 7 doesn't have the UAC-style behavior and it can support my card's resolution ableit without 3D acceleration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I think of this as a problem. Why would we search for rpms, debs or looking for repositories when all we can do is use a simple one-stop source to download and install what we need ? I know that there are a couple repositories for SuSE, a couple more for Fedora that would get you started easily but they don't always have everything you need so it pretty much renders package managers useless if that is the case. Again, standardization is bound to help create larger repositories and help users find what they are looking for more easily. You know, not every developer goes through the strain of compiling their software for every known major distribution.

 

Ubuntu has everything in repositories. apt-get install whateveryouwant. Other distros have emerge, yum etc that work

the same way as apt. in 2 years of using Ubuntu, I never ever downloaded anything from other sources then repositories which are enabled by default. Simply, there is no need. In my opinion, package management on Linux like apt/aptitude is better than OS X package management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that an embargo on formats should be started. A file format such as .lpf (Linux Package File) could be used to standardise it over the board.

 

i agree.... i'm making a linux distro with my friends in school next year as a club... and i'll try to fit something like this in there.. and have source code out for all the major distros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree.... i'm making a linux distro with my friends in school next year as a club... and i'll try to fit something like this in there.. and have source code out for all the major distros

nice. Goodluck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...