Talk:Criticism of Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

I noticed that there was a page "criticism of Windows XXX" for every release of windows. But none for Linux. So I created one in the interest of keeping Wikipedia fair. I am a Linux fan, and if we want to create a better operating system we need to have a better discussion as to what needs work. Hendrixski 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Give Verifiable Sources

Why is it that the only source for this article is Linux's biggest competitor, Microsoft? Isn't that the equivalent of writing an article based on industry slander? Luksuh 22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not promoting the Microsoft POV, we're just stating that there are criticisms of Linux, and here is evidence of that. It is up to the reader to decide if they believe Microsoft. Lankiveil 13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
good points! We don't want to promote Microsofts POV, so we need to cite more non-MS sources. But who else has negative facts about Linux... everyone else seems to just not criticize it. Hendrixski 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
We are by no means "promoting" Microsoft's point of view. All the article does is inform readers that Microsoft has a point of view pertaining to Linux, and what these views specifically are. — H.7004.Vx (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Usually Microsoft pays money to promote their image and to make claims about competition, why should Wikipedia present their ads and paid "research" as "Microsoft opinion" for free? I think Wikipedia should use reliable sources, Microsoft is not a reliable source about their competitors, also, the fact that Microsoft has opinions about their competitors is not an Encyclopedic fact (in my humble opinion) -- AdrianTM 02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this analysis. Microsoft are not a reliable source when quoted directly. If a secondary/tertiary source can be found which analyses their results then this would be acceptable IMO.-Localzuk(talk) 12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep or Merge

The AfD debate on this article (see tag at top for link), while being closed as a keep had some strong suggestion for merging the information into Linux. As that is an editorial decision, continued discussion to reach a consensus as to whether or not this article should be merged is encouraged here. Arkyan • (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If it gets merged then some windows fanboy will look at the "criticism of Windows" pages (plural) and think "Oh, there's just criticism of windows, and not other OS'es, this is bias". And I don't want to hear it.
I don't want any windows users telling me how Wikipedia is biased against their crappy bloated operating system. Windows deserves that criticism, it worked very hard to garner it! And in order to shut those people up we need a "criticism of Linux" page that we can show them and say "see! it's not biased, now STFU already" and hopefully they'll just leave and buy a Mac or something. Hendrixski 18:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a very poor argument. The issue with Windows is that the fact it is criticised is a notable subject on its own - there are many thousands of articles covering criticism of it - therefore it could be claimed that such an article is needed (however, I think it should be merged back with its Windows article and sub articles).
Saying 'see that article has one' doesn't mean that this one should have one - it just means that that one is in the wrong also.
As the proposer of the AFD I think this article should be merged into the Linux article and the information placed where it is relevant. If it is all stuck in one spot under a poorly thought out 'criticism' banner then it will lower the quality of the article. For example, criticism about its usability should be included in a section on usability, covering the history of complaints, and showing how things have changed (or not, as the case may be) etc... This would lead to a well balanced article without a broken structure.-Localzuk(talk) 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux the kernel or distributions in general ?.

Obviously this isn't a criticism article on just the the kernel but criticism on distributions in general. Does the article look like valid criticism of say Ubuntu ? NONE of the cites in the first section "Viability for use as a desktop system" actually match the text.

  1. "notably because of the perceived availability of only questionable alternatives to widely-used applications (especially office suites) and hardware support issues," is cited with link to "[1]" which uses Gartner and at best they say that "On the desktop, Linux is having a tougher time. Gartner claims the operating system is reaching the point where the costs of migration may exceed the cost benefits in a phase characterised by over-enthusiasm and unrealistic projections which lead to more failures than successes.". I'm going to change that sentence to match the cite.
  2. "which is claimed particularly problematic for laptop users as they tend to use many proprietary devices." is also uncited. This is a general claim related to hardware support and it is not so much a criticism of Linux but of the hardware manufacturers not supporting Linux i.e. "The issue isn't Linux technology or UI. It's vendor support." quoting [2] .
  3. The whole paragraph of,

"A steep learning curve of Linux beyond basic use, various incompatibilities with other operating systems, and difficulty involved with setting up hardware are also notable complaints. Further, Linux has been accused of being "not ideal" for intermediate power users. [2] [3] [4]" has three cites,

  1. The first link is to an article which says that "desktop Linux distros, such as SUSE and Ubuntu, are ready for you today -- even in the workplace."...but then continues, "as one of our Web developers cautioned me, there's a very steep learning curve in going beyond basic Linux use.". So really can't pin the article author down to saying that "very steep learning curve in going beyond basic Linux use" other than he reports one of his web developers as saying that. The article author main issue is with "vendor support".
  2. The link to [3] only mentions desktop in the claim ""Any statement from Microsoft about Linux is frankly self interested. If Linux gains share on the desktop, that clearly comes at the expense of Microsoft. Having said that, there clearly are [legitimate] criticisms of Linux," Haff says". Which really isn't a criticism.
  3. The link [4] to "Green Hills calls Linux 'insecure' for defense" is effectively to a partisan view and it is related to embedded use NOT Desktop (for our article).

Which leaves the Microsoft section. Again are we talking Desktop or Server ?. It says Desktop in the article thus link to the Secunia study and Windows Server 2003 are not relevant. The link to [5] is clearly not in Windows' favour as it throws a spanner in the Microsoft claims. It can't be used here to support claims of criticism of Linux ! And for the last few cites on reliability and TCO the links say "Third-party experts and customers are weighing the total cost of ownership of Windows Server and Linux to inform their platform decisions."...thus not DESKTOP.

I don't want to effect these changes as it will gut 95% of the article and it would be easier to simply AfD. What do we do ? Ttiotsw 04:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Now can you see why I posted it as an AFD originally? It is going to be more than difficult to make this into a worthwhile article. However, I will work with what you have listed there and reword the article - as it is about 'Linux' as a whole and not just desktop linux.-Localzuk(talk) 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As a Linux user since 1997 I'm happy that there is a criticism article as it highlights the gaps but it's going to be a hard task identifying Criticisms with Linux if the article has to be split into,
  • Embedded including RTOS
  • Supercomputer - Single image or clusters
  • Desktop - lightweight e.g. OLPC or Cafe
  • Desktop - Home
  • Desktop - Enterprise
  • Server - Virtualised or real and for different traffic classes
No one now can easily fault the Embedded (or RTOS ) market for Linux (examples). The Supercomputer market is fairly well awash with Linux solutions though you really are buying the big-iron. I imaging that Microsoft will be working on some marketing nonsense now that quite a few years later they come up with their solution so maybe we'll get some "criticisms". Desktop lightweight users have no real criticisms with Linux (presuming it is pre-installed by someone !). Desktop home users probably have an issue with games and general vendor support. Desktop enterprise again vendor support for esoteric or very specific industry apps. For servers the usual Microsoft marketing.
Now for all the above multiply that by the number of distributions and you end up with an uneven struggle with people like Gartner trying to guess a future which ends up obsolete the day before they publish their reports through to Microsoft who cherry pick the oddest of configurations and once again is obsolete the day they gets published.
I don't think the article would even be non-partisan or neutral given such a huge scope. If I was me I would reword as suggested above and then AfD it. Ttiotsw 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism by Microsoft

Isn't this just marketing against a competitor, why Wikipedia should be a repository of ads and marketing? -- AdrianTM 04:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

removed that according to: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- AdrianTM 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROD

I contested the proposed deletion. First of all, the article doesn't meet the criteria for proposed deletion, as it survived AFD twice (from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion:Articles that: Have previously been proposed for deletion, Have previously been undeleted, Have been discussed on AfD or MfD are not candidates for {{prod}}.') Furthermore, I believe this is a notable topic, warranting inclusion in the encyclopaedia. This has been proven by the numerous reliable sources. If you believe the article should be deleted, a full discussion at WP:AfD should take place. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I don't know what the right procedure is for deleting articles, I will write at WP:AfD -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, this article should have been deleted since 2005 [6] -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Well, what can I say? The POV pushers seem to be winning over here...

This article is as POV as can be, all the reasons that stood for the original delete still stand. Linux is a minority subject area, and as such is used by a minority of people. Including the views of an even smaller minority who criticise it is getting into fringe views - which should not be represented on WP.

Also, the sources for these discussions are way out of date, as Linux changes month by month in terms of functionality and security. Articles which were published in 2004 and 2005 are so far gone that they should simply not be acceptable. We don't bring up criticisms under the Windows article regarding prior version of that OS, so why do we with this one?

The inclusion of information by Microsoft is quite simply astounding. They are a direct competitor with the product!! The more people that use Linux, the less that use Windows.

If you get rid of the Microsoft information, that leaves a single paragraph of information that is covered on another article!!!

This simply seems to be a case of POV pushing by those who dislike Linux, and also conflicts with the original AFD. The re-created article simply restated the same old junk from Microsoft, so should have been deleted straight away, to allow it to get to the state it is in now (which is nearly identical to the state it was in before being deleted the first time) should be seen as a mistake.

I propose that the pertinent information be merged into the relevant articles and then this be redirected to Linux, like before.-Localzuk(talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You have a point about the datedness of the criticisms. But please don't try to suppress the article - that won't work as the AFD discussions show. Instead, you should try to improve the article by showing how the product development is addressing the criticisms. For example, a couple of standard criticisms seem to be that
  1. Linux lacks the performance for major business applications like ERP
  2. Linux lacks good security options and certification which are required for some applications

Something is being done about this but I couldn't say which versions addressed them in which year. Perhaps you could provide a version history. By their nature, new versions fix or improve upon problems in the previous versions. By listing this progress you provide useful information which will be appreciated rather than resisted.

Colonel Warden (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't address any of my other points, such as the fact Microsoft is being used as a source, or the fact that these are fringe views, and are therefore in the realm of breaching WP:NPOV.
My point is that the article can't be improved, as the inclusion of these pieces of information would be not notable enough. I don't wish to suppress anything, and think that anything of use should be included on this site, so long as it isn't a fringe view.
Also, where are you getting to criticism about ERP? I have been using Linux since 1995, so this is a surprise to me. When I do a very brief search for 'Linux ERP' in Google, I get results saying that it was doable in 2004 (SAP and Compiere being the 2 that feature most often).
And what do you mean by security options? On certification, last I checked Mandriva had achieved EAL5 certification (a process started in 2004). Same with Redhat Enterprise Linux. These are all 'old news' in the scheme of things.
If all this information is included, the article would simply turn into an extension of the main Linux article, as the negatives would once again be outweighed heavily by more up to date positives.-Localzuk(talk) 00:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is already an extension of the main Linux article. Linux is a big topic and so subarticles are appropriate. The main article currently says nothing about ERP or security that I can see. Since these are significant criticisms it would be good to have them addressed somewhere. For comparison see Objections to evolution which we have even though the theory is now generally accepted. The existence of criticisms does not validate them - we record them because they seem notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You have missed my point again. This article is titled 'Criticisms of Linux' and therefore should describe notable criticisms of linux. The ERP comment is not notable (I couldn't find anything criticising Linux for being incapable of ERP, and the only things I could see were articles from 2004 saying there were various packages/companies which do ERP on linux, with no mention of performance issues). And then, again, on the certification issue I can't find any negative information since 2004. These are 4 year old issues, and should not be placed on any article as they are simply no longer notable in any way shape or form. And my comment regarding an extension of the Linux page, I meant that this page would end up filled with long lists of modern counter claims to all of the earlier criticisms.
This article should only be used to describe recent criticisms. And I have yet to find many of those! So much so that having a full article regarding it is against policy, and the content should be merged into where those criticisms apply. I have done a short search on Google News, looking over 20 pages of news items and I could only find one negative thing in there - that there have been critical security flaws found in a recent kernel release. Which, would be included in the Linux (kernel) page anyway.
No, Wikipedia does not focus upon recent aspects of topics. Please see WP:RECENTISM. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What a pointless thing to say, especially as you are backing it up only with an essay, not policy or guidelines. So you are saying we should log every criticism of Linux from day zero, along with the many hundreds times more counter comments? In that case, I don't think there is enough space on Wikipedia to do that. When Linux was originally created there were criticisms all over the place, but all were minor views and all were not notable. We can only really say that criticisms that are recent are actually notable about the subject. Otherwise, the Microsoft Windows article could be filled with complaints about usability in Windows 3.11, or stability in 3.1, 98, and ME. Or the Mac OS page would contain large swathes of text regarding the fact that early versions of the OS had X, Y and Z wrong with them. Fine, if you wish to have a 'History of Linux' article then you can discuss earlier criticism, but if you wish to have an article which is abou criticism then you have to keep it up to date else it will simply contain information that is not notable, useful, interesting or important.-Localzuk(talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally added a paragraph to the criticisms of Windows Vista detailing its slow performance for basic file functions. I will maintain this criticism regardless of whether Microsoft fully resolve the problem in future releases. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, fine, that is about Windows Vista - this is about 'Linux' as a whole. Your comment would apply if criticisms were being made about individual Linux releases such as Ubuntu 6.06 or Redhat 9 - of which there are plenty of criticisms.
Linux is too wide a ranging subject to list every criticism of all the distro's and all the releases in one place.-Localzuk(talk) 13:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you not see what I mean about these being fringe views now?-Localzuk(talk) 11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Provide me with a criticism that is widespread, along with evidence. I have shown that on the issues you mentioned, neither of them are widespread (not even simply minority views) but both are fringe views. They are not notable enough for inclusion under WP:NPOV. To quote the part exactly:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

   * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
   * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
   * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
That is my point. That these early issues, simply due to their age, are not relavant to Linux as a subject unless you are focussing on the history of Linux, in which case, they should be included in the History of Linux page and not here.-Localzuk(talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
So, I take it from the silence that you can't provide me with a widespread criticism, backed up with evidence? I would propose that this article be merged back into the relevant articles then, as per the multitude of comments on the AFD's past.-Localzuk(talk) 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Amazing. Almost 2 months and still no evidence. I would propose that this page be merged into the appropriate places in other Linux related articles, but undoubtedly it'd end up being re-created again.-Localzuk(talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Not Needed ?

All the points presented here have long been proved invalid(I am refering to the things MS says against linux). So whats the point of presenting them in a page ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.143.34 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussions archived at the head of this page. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)