![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Criticism_of_Linux was copied or moved into Criticism of desktop Linux with [ [1] [2] [3] this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of desktop Linux article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
thats a pity, because http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/05/will-linux-ever-be-mainstream.html has valuable informations and analysis inside... but was unable to find the author's name... seems to be some theodore (but not theodore tso) 95.114.225.76 ( talk) 22:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The Viability page has criticisms related to Ubuntu which is 5 or 6 releases of Ubuntu out of date. It's also written by someone with ties to microsoft. I'll look for criticisms from a more NPOV source, anyone able to help also would be appreciated. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed Arve Bersvenden's comments: in 2007 he completely changed his mind: http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2007/06/i-was-wrong-about-linux IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to remove quote by A. Russell Jones and here is the reasoning: His comments are from 2003, his example and target of criticism is to the now non-existent mandrake linux. Modern distributions do make the choices for you (i.e Fedora, Ubuntu choose Gnome). I notice they have a pretty low alexa rank (~7000) too so I'm not sure how noteworthy his comments are or were. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Having out of date criticisms seems confusing to me, Desktop Linux has been around for the last about 20 years, the original quotes were added because they were perceived as being relevant at the time but are no longer, but they do not have historical criticisms, i.e pre-1999. Perhaps, as you say, there would be merit in a section on historical criticisms and how they were addressed. I'll do a little research on past criticisms and how they were addressed, i.e the old issues of: Lack of driver compatibility, too much distribution choice (Ubuntu has essentially eliminated this by being the de facto beginner distribution), confusing Windows managers. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The article directly contradicts itself: "Linux has been criticized for a number of reasons, including lack of user-friendliness[2] and having a high learning curve,[3] being inadequate for desktop use, " with "Both critics indicated that Linux did not fail on the desktop due to being "too geeky," "too hard to use," or "too obscure". Both had praise for distributions, Strohmeyer saying "the best-known distribution, Ubuntu, has received high marks for usability from every major player in the technology press"." Can we also not use a more reputable site than techeye for a source, perhaps one that doesn't refer to Apple uses as "barking" or linux users as "open sauce loonies", (it seems to deliberately weaken the criticism from pc world by linking it with a fringe source). I also don't buy the argument of the ideology being the issue since of the large user share linux has in terms of servers and mobile devices (in android), I'll try for look for refs to support this IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
potential contributions? http://www.techeye.net/software/linuxs-chance-has-gone
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999-2/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-11-25-008-35-OP-DT-NT 141.52.232.84 ( talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
His reasoning for quitting is given as that the initial development he had done became more and more like work: http://ck.kolivas.org/german_linux_magazine_interview.txt IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The Criticism of Desktop Linux is a history of comment on the perceived shortcomings of Linux distributions in desktop computing use.
Is this self-referential? Is "Criticism of Desktop Linux" the title of this article? It's confusing what it's referring to. The first line makes it sound like this is some essay or something and not an encyclopedia article. 71.155.239.222 ( talk) 02:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
A common complaint is that linux isn't windows etc, I'll try and add this or if anyone else can also. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I wish to expand the driver support section, and add citations to the already existing material there. Please review this page for reliability. While it suggests a solution for driver support, it still looks very opinionated to me. Please review it and tell me if you think this is can viewed as a reliable source. I will obviously not use it if it's not. On top of that, it almost looks like a blog post to me, and I know blogs are not considered reliable sources. Sentient Planet ( talk) 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of quotes. anyone mind if I paraphrase them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRWolfie- ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought I'd bring this in here to decide whether it should be scrapped or not. The quote mentions nothing about his desktop user-focussed approach being the reason for quitting, userspace problems here is problems in the GNU operating system userspace. See http://ck.kolivas.org/german_linux_magazine_interview.txt section "Why do you quit kernel developement"[sic]. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved it, see Criticism_of_Linux#Con_Kolivas_criticism. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ubuntu 11.04.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ubuntu 11.04.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
Most of the sources in the article are old and most likely out of date in almost all respects. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I found a link to the report mentioned in footnote 11, "Improved Portability of Shared Libraries," on the Wayback machine. The footnote says it is link rot. Can the Wayback machine URL be used to point the reader to the article text? It is at http://web.archive.org/web/20070926130800/http://www.princeton.edu/~jdonald/research/shared_libraries/cs518_report.pdf . Thanks Furchild ( talk) 05:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
One thing I noticed about this article is that some criticisms are matched with a counter argument. I believe that the only way to keep the article unbiased is to include a refutation for each criticism also doing such has the advantage of keeping the article more consistent. I want the though of other Wikipedia members as this would entail lots of changes to the article. Sonic12228 ( talk) 00:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing nothing happened. Ajax-x86 ( talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of desktop 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of desktop 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I moved this to the article Open-source video game:
In a 2004 article, Adam Geitgey questioned the compatibility of the open-source culture with respect to the game development process. He suggested that perceived open-source development advantages don't work for games because users move on to new games relatively quickly and so don't give back to the project. Geitgey further noted that music and art development is not built up from the work of others in the same way that coding would be. He argued that high quality art content is required, which is typically produced commercially by paid artists. While Linux operates on the open-source philosophy, this may not benefit game development.
Seraphim System ( talk) 10:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Can Tashnikov really be called an established expert? His article might be often shared in social media, but I do not see how he could be "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", as it is required here. Does he have any publications in mainstream CS journals, or is he a some sort of notable software developer? -- 213.216.211.142 ( talk) 20:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Criticism_of_Linux was copied or moved into Criticism of desktop Linux with [ [1] [2] [3] this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of desktop Linux article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
thats a pity, because http://insanecoding.blogspot.com/2009/05/will-linux-ever-be-mainstream.html has valuable informations and analysis inside... but was unable to find the author's name... seems to be some theodore (but not theodore tso) 95.114.225.76 ( talk) 22:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The Viability page has criticisms related to Ubuntu which is 5 or 6 releases of Ubuntu out of date. It's also written by someone with ties to microsoft. I'll look for criticisms from a more NPOV source, anyone able to help also would be appreciated. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed Arve Bersvenden's comments: in 2007 he completely changed his mind: http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2007/06/i-was-wrong-about-linux IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to remove quote by A. Russell Jones and here is the reasoning: His comments are from 2003, his example and target of criticism is to the now non-existent mandrake linux. Modern distributions do make the choices for you (i.e Fedora, Ubuntu choose Gnome). I notice they have a pretty low alexa rank (~7000) too so I'm not sure how noteworthy his comments are or were. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Having out of date criticisms seems confusing to me, Desktop Linux has been around for the last about 20 years, the original quotes were added because they were perceived as being relevant at the time but are no longer, but they do not have historical criticisms, i.e pre-1999. Perhaps, as you say, there would be merit in a section on historical criticisms and how they were addressed. I'll do a little research on past criticisms and how they were addressed, i.e the old issues of: Lack of driver compatibility, too much distribution choice (Ubuntu has essentially eliminated this by being the de facto beginner distribution), confusing Windows managers. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The article directly contradicts itself: "Linux has been criticized for a number of reasons, including lack of user-friendliness[2] and having a high learning curve,[3] being inadequate for desktop use, " with "Both critics indicated that Linux did not fail on the desktop due to being "too geeky," "too hard to use," or "too obscure". Both had praise for distributions, Strohmeyer saying "the best-known distribution, Ubuntu, has received high marks for usability from every major player in the technology press"." Can we also not use a more reputable site than techeye for a source, perhaps one that doesn't refer to Apple uses as "barking" or linux users as "open sauce loonies", (it seems to deliberately weaken the criticism from pc world by linking it with a fringe source). I also don't buy the argument of the ideology being the issue since of the large user share linux has in terms of servers and mobile devices (in android), I'll try for look for refs to support this IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
potential contributions? http://www.techeye.net/software/linuxs-chance-has-gone
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999-2/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-11-25-008-35-OP-DT-NT 141.52.232.84 ( talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
His reasoning for quitting is given as that the initial development he had done became more and more like work: http://ck.kolivas.org/german_linux_magazine_interview.txt IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The Criticism of Desktop Linux is a history of comment on the perceived shortcomings of Linux distributions in desktop computing use.
Is this self-referential? Is "Criticism of Desktop Linux" the title of this article? It's confusing what it's referring to. The first line makes it sound like this is some essay or something and not an encyclopedia article. 71.155.239.222 ( talk) 02:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
A common complaint is that linux isn't windows etc, I'll try and add this or if anyone else can also. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I wish to expand the driver support section, and add citations to the already existing material there. Please review this page for reliability. While it suggests a solution for driver support, it still looks very opinionated to me. Please review it and tell me if you think this is can viewed as a reliable source. I will obviously not use it if it's not. On top of that, it almost looks like a blog post to me, and I know blogs are not considered reliable sources. Sentient Planet ( talk) 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of quotes. anyone mind if I paraphrase them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRWolfie- ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought I'd bring this in here to decide whether it should be scrapped or not. The quote mentions nothing about his desktop user-focussed approach being the reason for quitting, userspace problems here is problems in the GNU operating system userspace. See http://ck.kolivas.org/german_linux_magazine_interview.txt section "Why do you quit kernel developement"[sic]. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved it, see Criticism_of_Linux#Con_Kolivas_criticism. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ubuntu 11.04.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ubuntu 11.04.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
Most of the sources in the article are old and most likely out of date in almost all respects. IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I found a link to the report mentioned in footnote 11, "Improved Portability of Shared Libraries," on the Wayback machine. The footnote says it is link rot. Can the Wayback machine URL be used to point the reader to the article text? It is at http://web.archive.org/web/20070926130800/http://www.princeton.edu/~jdonald/research/shared_libraries/cs518_report.pdf . Thanks Furchild ( talk) 05:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
One thing I noticed about this article is that some criticisms are matched with a counter argument. I believe that the only way to keep the article unbiased is to include a refutation for each criticism also doing such has the advantage of keeping the article more consistent. I want the though of other Wikipedia members as this would entail lots of changes to the article. Sonic12228 ( talk) 00:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing nothing happened. Ajax-x86 ( talk) 19:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of desktop 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of desktop 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I moved this to the article Open-source video game:
In a 2004 article, Adam Geitgey questioned the compatibility of the open-source culture with respect to the game development process. He suggested that perceived open-source development advantages don't work for games because users move on to new games relatively quickly and so don't give back to the project. Geitgey further noted that music and art development is not built up from the work of others in the same way that coding would be. He argued that high quality art content is required, which is typically produced commercially by paid artists. While Linux operates on the open-source philosophy, this may not benefit game development.
Seraphim System ( talk) 10:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Can Tashnikov really be called an established expert? His article might be often shared in social media, but I do not see how he could be "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", as it is required here. Does he have any publications in mainstream CS journals, or is he a some sort of notable software developer? -- 213.216.211.142 ( talk) 20:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)