Linux
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Why is linux so cumbersome to use?
I installed Mint yesterday and have been fighting with it ever since to do what I want it to do. Installing things is a pain if not from the software center. The things that I did install I don't even know how to run since there's no icon for them anywhere aside from the explorer and nothing I click makes it run. Even if I did manage to get that part working, a bunch of the things I want to install apparently aren't even available for Linux.
I haven't riced anything yet, but most of the icons, interfaces etc. are just cheap and unprofessional. On the other hand, I can't see why anyone would spend weeks of making things look good when the OS itself is so finicky compared to windows. It doesn't "just werk" at all, 5 minutes into mint and I had to start looking up terminal commands and how to do xyz. Maybe it's because I'm just used to windows and this is new, but I doubt that I'll ever truly know my way around. Everything is all over the place with all these arbitrary directories. For example, programs aren't even centralized: different aspects of them are stored in different areas.
Putting all those aside, the performance and practical use of linux seems much more limited. I have a decent computer (290x/4790k) but simple things like scrolling a webpage, moving a windows etc. frequently have lag issues. Since Adobe dropped its support of Linux, I can't use flash to watch youtube videos without being very vulnerable, and the alternative limits me to 720p.
Will I get my shit together eventually? Am I just too retarded to use linux effectively? If my points are valid, why do you still use linux?
Cumbersome for retards.
>>55045251
I'm not quite sure what you find so difficult. Firstly, things are easy to install, especially for mint. They often come in a tarballs if they're not in your distro's repository and most of these only need extracting to run whatever is inside. .deb s can also be used; install gdebi for this.
As for the performance issues, I don't see how your performance can be worse than it is on windows. If you think everything looks 'cheap and unprofessional', then change the look. You don't need to spend long to make it look how you want as there are already very popular icon packs, cinnamon themes (assuming you are using the cinnamon DE) and GTK themes that have already been made.
>>55045251
cont. from 5710 post:
You say that programs are stored all over the place, but that's just how *nix systems work. Binaries are kept in one place, libraries in another etc. . It's actually quite logical once you get used to it and can make things a lot easier to work with.
>flash to watch youtube videos
What year is it? 2009?
I tried mint and didnt like it either
Fuck off this is bad b8
Some points valid but for most of them see below
>Maybe it's because I'm just used to windows and this is new
This. Very much this.
I am/was struggling with some of the same issues as you are but most of it comes down to understanding how Linux works and in what areas it differs from Windows.
Mint is a good distro to start with though. Don't let the Archtards shun you. We all start somewhere.
> The things that I did install I don't even know how to run since there's no icon for them anywhere aside from the explorer and nothing I click makes it run.
Check if the stuff you installed is even meant to have a GUI. A good bunch of Linux programs don't and you will need to run them from terminal.
>>55045733
Programs get installed everywhere from /opt to /usr to /home. There is order to this hellosh nightmare.
Adobe still releases security updates for Linux flash.
You can use pipelight to wrap the Windows version of flash or just use Google Chrome because it has its own version of flash.
Turn off smooth scrolling.
Probably just too retarded, if you need apps that aren't available for Linux then don't use Linux.
Obvious troll, but i'll bite:
you can say exactly this about windows or OSX coming from linux.
Windows does some weird fucking shit like the registry? That makes no sense to me. Program Files x86 and program files? wut? Why on earth do I have to 'install' anything on windows? why can't I just run the binary? Whats with all these install scripts yo?
And wtf why do I have to search the web for normal apps, dodging spyware, adware, trials/demos and total garbage, just to find like a text editor that doesn't blow chunks? Isn't there like a official vetted repo of software with windows?
I dunno man linux has it's quirks but just like windows and OSX it makes some sense once you understand/accept what's going on.
>>55045794
The binaries for the programs that are installed for you (such as installing software with the apt tool) will be in the /usr/bin directory. The software that you're installing yourself YOU should put into your /opt/ directory (as in option packages). You don't have to put them here, it's just good practice so you know where all the programs you have added are. I wouldn't recommend you place them in the /home/ directory.
>>55045794
except /var which people constantly put stupid fucking shit in like /var/www and configuration files and basically a whole lot of non 'variable' stuff.
>>55045889
Not exactly the system's fault though is it? Just the people that do not know how to use it.
>>55045763
>>55045844
>b8
Unfortunately not.
I guess I'll use it for a few weeks, maybe I'll git gud someday. Probably won't change much since I'm retarded (as everyone was so kind to point out)
It's laggy because you need a more recent linux version for good performance on a 290x. Try Ubuntu 16.04 or Linux mint 18 beta
>>55046323
/g/ is filled with losers. Real techies are long gone from this circlejerk place
>mint
>debian
lol
>The things that I did install I don't even know how to run since there's no icon for them anywhere aside from the explorer and nothing I click makes it run.
While I disagree with your general sentiment, this has been a peeve of mine with Linux from the start. Why do I have to hunt down /usr/bin files with unrelated names for every executable I install? Why doesn't any package manager keep track of what executables are included in the installation of, I dunno, btrfs-progs for example? Messy and stupid.
>>55045251
>I have a decent computer (290x/4790k) but simple things like scrolling a webpage, moving a windows etc. frequently have lag issues.
Had the same problem with an r9 290, funny that Nvidia doesn't have this problem. Get on what this anon said, >>55046383 latest version of ubuntu.
>>55046471
ctrl+f "debian"
you're the only person mentioning debian in this thread
what?
>>55045251
Many things in linux are confusing or difficult because they're built under a completely different philosophy. For instance, you mentioned
>Everything is all over the place with all these arbitrary directories. For example, programs aren't even centralized: different aspects of them are stored in different areas.
In Windows:
>Program Files folder contains some binaries, some libraries, some configuration, and some other stuff.
>AppData folders contain more configuration, caches, and other data.
>Registry contains more configuration.
>WinSxS folder contains every version of every library for every program you've ever installed (check out the filesize on this folder, I've seen them get over 20 gigabytes on older installations).
>Occasionally stuff stored in random areas of the filesystem or in user profile folders.
In Linux:
>Binaries stored in /usr/bin (this varies from distro to distro, many user other binary folders for system binaries and for 64bit binaries)
>Libraries are stored in /usr/lib (same as above), note only one version of each library is stored here unlike in WinSxS.
>Configuration is stored in ~/.config for user stuff or /etc for system stuff
In Windows, there are no clear guidelines, instead it's left up to developers and users who download and install packages from the website. In Linux, the guidelines are more or dictated by each distribution and they're managed by the package managers.
In Windows, many library versions are stored so that upgrading a library version for some software doesn't mean that it breaks another piece of software that relies on the same library. In Linux, software is expected to work as one big ecosystem. If some software relies on an outdated library then that is considered a bug and that software needs a bug report.
(cont.)
>>55047135
In Windows, users are expected to download software directly from a website. Developers are expected to add auto-updating or update-notification features into their software, and users are expected to manually update software themselves. It's very a much a "if it isn't broken, why update it" approach to software. In Linux, this varies from distro to distro but in general software is managed through a package manager. If a user wants to install a piece of software they can do it directly through a package manager and if they want to upgrade all of their software at once they can do so easily (again through the package manager). This is especially useful since Linux software is like an ecosystem and installing a piece of software may mean installing dependencies or since upgrading one piece of software may mean upgrading a library and hence needing to upgrade other pieces of software.
In Windows, users are expected to access programs through an icon on the Windows Start Menu or the Desktop. In Linux, there are many ways to access a program. The basic way is through the command line, this is done by setting a path variable that points to the binary folders on the system. This way when you type a string into the command line it will search through each of those binary folders for your program. While many programs are only meant to be accessed through the command line, more typical usage still relies on icons in a start menu like interface. However as there are many such start-menu-like menus that each work somewhat differently then occasionally some piece of software won't appear in the menu you use. This is a bug and you should notify the author of the software, it's possible that they use some other desktop managers and aren't even aware of this problem. Desktop icons are somewhat less commonly used, some desktop managers don't even implement the feature.
>>55045251
>mint
There's your problem.
Tbh it's mostly a matter of habit. Loonix is fundamentally different from wangblows. The reason loonix seems 'complicated' and like it doesn't work like it should is because you've been in contact with wangblows all your life but not linux.
Just don't fall for the mint and buntu memes. Install Arch, it's true it takes more effort and time to get it to a working state, but at the end of it everything does indeed just work and you sort of get an idea of how it all came together - thanks to the informative wiki and forums which actually explain shit to you instead of just telling to copy-paste commands into a terminal. Maintain that install for a few months or so, then you can move on to other distros if you prefer (but probably you won't).
>>55045633
/thread
OP here. Installed Ubuntu to compare and I can say that it does a much better job at just werking™. I know /g/ hates it but I think I'll stick with it until I become more familiar with the basics. I'll probably install Arch like >>55047501 says after that...not sure.
>>55047595
>a retard wants to install arch
Stick with babby's first linux, you need to wean yourself off microsoft for at least an entire year.
>>55047595
interesting that you had a different experience with ubuntu considering mint is just a ubuntu reskin.
>>55045251
No one has the time or resources to make linux just werk out of the box as a good desktop OS. It's basically a tinker toy and there's no reason to prefer it for general use.
Of course instead of linux users/developers just admitting that they are behind the curb and inferior to windows, and it's ok, they'll blame you. They do not understand that computers were created to reduce the amount of work humans need to do, not increase it.
The worst are the ones that want linux to remain difficult to use to filter idiots from using linux, then they complain that linux is getting crushed in market share for desktop OS and they wonder why more people don't switch from windows.
TLDR: No one in linux cares that linux is a loser and no one cares about beating windows.
Of course they'll correctly retort that windows is horrible, which only begs the question, how is linux even worse?
>>55047617
What is the point of using Arch over Debian?
If Arch is so good why do no servers use it?
Debian
>binary distro
>stable, testing, and unstable (basically arch)
>lets you modify .deb files and change dependencies and other stuff
Arch
>binary distro
>only gives you bleeding edge, no stable or anything
>no changing of package files
Why do arch fags even try?
And don't use the "I know how my system works" excuse. Copy pasting from arch wiki is not knowing how your system works. If you wanted to know that you would obviously use Gentoo, Alpine, LFS, Exherbo, or CRUX.
>>55045251
>>but most of the icons, interfaces etc. are just >>cheap and unprofessional.
What about my icons? Look cool to me.
>>55045733
>Binaries are kept in one place, libraries in another etc.
Different anon, but in my experience the traditional explanation of the hierarchy structure (how is explained by e.g. red hat or canonical) is little more than an ideal with many nuances and violations to be found.
Even before splitting up files based on their own type, the type of program they are associated with has to be taken into account.
OS files get stored in places like /bin, /sbin, or /lib, and that's not so bad, but then there's application files. These get put inside up to at least 3 different directories based on factors like how the files were installed, where you feel like putting the files if you installed them yourself, or where the distro maintainer feels like putting them if the OS has the program included already (for example, one of my servers had two python directories made in /usr/local/lib on installation). In addition, you have to bear in mind that configuration and data files completely ignore this setup with both of them getting their own directory coming off of root (/etc & /srv or /tmp in some cases or /var in others).
On top of all that you have all the ways in which the established conventions are just straight up ignored, not only by application programmers, but even by the distro maintaners.
Almost no package managers install to /opt despite nearly every package stored in those repositories are by their very nature "optional".
some programs write non variable files to /var
/usr is almost never mounted as read-only
/etc/alternatives has a bunch of sym links to almost every bin directory in the filesystem, meaning that any application that is aware of this expects the etc directory to have files that aren't related to system configuration
Even with a few years of experience with managing my home servers I still get confused by the hierarchy sometimes, and I haven't even touched Xorg or had to poke around with desktop environments or the pieces thereof.
>>55045251
>Installing things is a pain if not from the software center.
In time, if you keep learning, it will feel the other way around.
>>55049091
Debian has no PPA while Arch has the AUR. Fair comparison would be Ubuntu and Arch.
Now the PPAs are not nearly as up to date as AUR. You can view pkgbuilds as well. So Arch is a better choice.
>Gentoo
Massive timesink. But great customizability.
>Alpine
Why not wangblows or Remix OS then?
>LFS
Dead project
>Exherbo
>CRUX
If Arch and Gentoo are 50% and 79% hobby tier, Exherbo and CRUX are 100% on the hobby side
>Copy pasting won't teach
It did for me. Arch and any other minimalistic distro has to be built from the ground up. So yeah, it did help. Before coming to /g/ I was using Mint. Installing Arch actually made me comfortable with bash and command line tools.
Arch is actually better at this moment. See >>55040514
Why do freetards get defensive whenever Linux is criticized with valid points and factual problems about the way it works?
Linux will never get better if you remain in denial about its shittiness.
Have any of you guys dealt with unresolved dependencies lately? Kernel module conflicts? Installing drivers for anything that's not supported by your distro or a package in its repo? Had to install a driver packaged as an RPM on a Debian-based distro or the other way around? Had to compile a driver or an application and it didn't work and looking it up on google only returns the same solution that no longer works?
This is barely scratching the surface of the immeasurable amount of bullshit you have to deal with if you want to _really_ use Linux, and not just install it as a Facebook browser.
Linux has amazing potential, but everyone is so up their own ass about doing their special snowflake thing with it. It will never be good unless efforts are centralized to make it properly featured and convenient.
>>55049771
Linux will definitely never get better if people keep saying it's not good. The main problem is software and hardware support from manufacturers and software houses. It needs the Facebook normies to gain market share, so it will be taken seriously. That will fix most if not all of its problems.
The thing about desktop icons...
I'll be honest, I've been using Linux mint for a year now and I still don't know how to do that. I know I can open some stuff by opening the start menu and looking for the program, but some programs I don't find there so I always open a terminal window and type in the program name.
I generally have as many terminal windows open as programs. Not to look leet and haxor but because I don't know any better
>>55045251
The thing is, you have to unlearn windows. Once you've had more time on a *nix machine, everything will become easier and faster. Eventually, you will be happily contented to use the terminal for things with a graphical counterpart, and you'll get a cozy feeling like pancakes on a Sunday morning.
Just need to get used to it.
Crack open a manual, and let Linux get you settled in.
>>55048753
I'm not sure myself...it's faster, smoother, and using it seems to be easier. Of course it might also be that I've learned how to get around a bit since installing mint so my first impression of ubuntu could mostly be better just because I know where to look and what to do better. A lot of my general gripes like icons, how things are organized etc. are still there of course, but it's not as frustrating to get used to, if that makes any sense
