Linux Needs GC Lingua Franca(s) to Win

[Marcus Yam]

Keith Curtis joins us once again for a discussion on Linux. A year ago, he spoke of How Linux Could Achieve Faster World Domination. Now he's back with a more focused view on just what Linux needs to pull ahead.

Linux Needs GC Lingua Franca(s) to Win : Read more

 

[memadmax]

The only thing linux needs is acceptance as an option for an OS on the prebuilt granny computers: DELL/HP/Etc Etc.. Once you have it as an option as standard equipment with those companies... its on.

Oh, and I suppose another problem is there is too many damn flavors of linux out there. If one can rise above the rest like Ubuntu is starting too, the chances of linux going mainstream go up

 

[jhansonxi]

I wonder what he thinks of the D programming language.

 

[goldenthunder]

Totally agree. The Linux environment has to converge in some way, a common set of libraries would be a good choice.
It doesn't have to be a specific language if the library can be used in it (Code in Python, library in C/C++).

Duplication of core features...imagine you had a set of libraries for everything you want (like VB programers tell us), coding would be much faster and easier.

 

[kcorp2003]

personally i'm creating my own programming language just for fun. its a lot of hard work. gets crazy at times. which makes me appreciate all other languages out there.

 

[ivan_chess]

[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]The only thing linux needs is acceptance as an option for an OS on the prebuilt granny computers: DELL/HP/Etc Etc.. Once you have it as an option as standard equipment with those companies... its on.Oh, and I suppose another problem is there is too many damn flavors of linux out there. If one can rise above the rest like Ubuntu is starting too, the chances of linux going mainstream go up[/citation]

If you want it on "granny" computers you will have to do away with terminal because the target audience is too comfortable with GUIs. To be frank, the terminal is what makes linux great but also what scares the average joe away.

 

[pelov]

[citation][nom]ivan_chess[/nom]If you want it on "granny" computers you will have to do away with terminal because the target audience is too comfortable with GUIs. To be frank, the terminal is what makes linux great but also what scares the average joe away.[/citation]

you mean a unix-based OS without a terminal? They have that and it's apple. As far as linux goes, you can always hide the terminal. i mean it is linux... you can do whatever the hell you want.

 

[ivan_chess]

[citation][nom]pelov[/nom]you mean a unix-based OS without a terminal? They have that and it's apple. As far as linux goes, you can always hide the terminal. i mean it is linux... you can do whatever the hell you want.[/citation]

True, but there are just too many things that are easier to do in terminal or don't have a GUI component. Just installing packages is usually done with something like apt-get or yum. The first thing the community (or what the average joe will call tech support) tells you to do to fix anything is open a terminal window. Linux just isn't as computer illiterate friendly as it could be.

 

[Guest]

ivan_chess: Apparently you haven't used Linux in the past few years. You can download Ubuntu, install it through the Ubiquity GUI, then do all of your web browsing, photo viewing, etc... without touching the terminal. In the event something doesn't work correctly, the tech person fixing it may resort to using the command line, however, the same thing applies to Windows, so this isn't really Linux-specific. I do Linux development, and if I use the command-line, it's purely by choice, as there are GUIs for everything.

The terminal argument is every bit as outdated as the "OMGz, you must get Nvidia if you run Linux, because their drivers R L337", even though in 2010, AMD's Linux drivers piss all over Nvidia, and AMD supports the open driver, whereas Nvidia is opposed to the open source Nouveau driver.

 

[Guest]

What does GC stand for?

 

[STravis]

[citation][nom]pelov[/nom]you mean a unix-based OS without a terminal? They have that and it's apple. As far as linux goes, you can always hide the terminal. i mean it is linux... you can do whatever the hell you want.[/citation]
OS X has a terminal - I use it all the time...

 

[Thunderfox]

[citation][nom]asplosion[/nom]What does GC stand for?[/citation]

Garbage Collection. They really should have stated it in the article. I am familiar with the concept but not with the internal politics of Linux development, so I read most of it not knowing what the hell they were talking about until they mentioned C#.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]ivan_chess[/nom]True, but there are just too many things that are easier to do in terminal or don't have a GUI component. Just installing packages is usually done with something like apt-get or yum. The first thing the community (or what the average joe will call tech support) tells you to do to fix anything is open a terminal window. Linux just isn't as computer illiterate friendly as it could be.[/citation]
Funny but that's often what tech support wants you to do on Windows. Having Internet problems? Well you'll often get told to run a trace route to see if the problem is at a specific hop. Some thing just don't receive a GUI because there is no reason to add one. A GUI should be used when needed, not just for the sake of having one. Too much software has a GUI that is so poorly laid out that it would be quicker to learn a few commands and bash (pun intended) them into the command line.

 

[agnickolov]

[citation][nom]pelov[/nom]you mean a unix-based OS without a terminal? They have that and it's apple. As far as linux goes, you can always hide the terminal. i mean it is linux... you can do whatever the hell you want.[/citation]
Not true. You can open a terminal in Mac OS X. That's how I do my work there after all... (Though I usually just use an SSH connection to be frank, I definitely prefer Windows.) I'm a software developer if that wasn't clear ...

 

[agnickolov]

AS far as commenting on the article, I certainly try to steer clear of integrating open source code within my code. Working on proprietary codebases and all...
What struck me is the author never defined what GC means even though it's the central theme to the article. For those that haven't yet figured it (and it took me a long time to figure it out myself even though I'm a software developer), it means Garbage Collection - automatically reclaiming memory that the program no longer uses.
Finally, I was under the impression that such GC lingua franca already exists -- it's called Java...

 

[CyberAngel]

Eiffel language was the best, but "not invented here" syndrome all but killed it.
All the goodies of C++ none of the bad sides. Perfect GC
Environment to operate with incremental compiler was amazing back then when computers were slow.
The transparent design/programming is still...

 

[dbranko]

At least one userbase built on linux kernel has GC and clear default set of libraries. It's just that advantages of this did not occur to "community", but to another for-profit-company: Google. And they don't even call it linux.
---
While at that. GC isn't good for everything, because at least implementations that I know of have to "stop the world" for at least some time during GC, which results in annoying pause while, for example, playing your game. As for leaks, tools like valgrind make it trivial to detect most of them.

 

[Tjik]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Linus will never be mainstream and the main reason, amongst many, is too many kernels.[/citation]
Linus won't become mainstream. He prefers to spend time with his family and isn't by choice a public figure.

Linux has actually the opposite advantage: it's released as one main version. Not many as you seem to suggest. Linux releases follow a set schedule. That Linux is easily modified makes it just as suitable for standard as obscure hardware/implementations. I think you've misunderstood something fundamental about the nature of the Linux kernel. From kernel source you can compile it support practically all known platforms; hence you don't need to maintain different kernel sources.

Microsoft on the other hand actually has a situation of not compatible kernels developed separately, even though they share some elements. That has also been pointed out as a hinder for how well Microsoft will adopt to the fast moving markets of smart-phones and tablets.

The reason the Linux kernel itself is coded in C is simple: C doesn't forgive errors. Therefore Linus sees no benefit in coding in a higher level language that eventually would add more garbage, poor quality, code.

 

[haplo602]

after 5 paragraphs I gave up. what the hell is the guy talking about ? a good way to start an article is to describe the base you are building upon.

this seems to be written by a geek that never sees the light of day and has problems forming coherent senteces.

I guess those 11 years at MS did leave a scar on his soul.

 

[descendency]

I'm a software engineer. I received my degree from a top state university. I've used "Linux" (Ubuntu and Redhat mostly), Macs, and Windows. I develop applications on Windows because of what I am about to say. I just want to make it clear, I'm not anti-linux or trying to bash it. There are tons of reasons to love it. However, as an average user there is a lot of reasons why you will be turned off before you even really start to learn it.

Linux isn't a generation away, it's a revolution away.

Most of the OSs that are put on top of the kernel are ugly, hard to navigate, and full of other usability nightmares. The learning curve going from a Windows or Mac environment is seriously steep. Sure, you can Google "how to do _________ in (insert distro name here)" and there is probably an idiot proof video on youtube, but you will be surprised how few home users can even do that.

That isn't a function of what tools are used to develop applications. Linux software has too many engineers working on it and too few designers.

It's really that simple and until people on the software side of this understand that, it will never get any closer to Windows or Macintosh OS (as a desktop OS - because cellphones and other devices are flocking to Linux based OSs)

 

[godmodder]

Seriously, I don't think the need for garbage collection is the biggest problem Linux has these days.

 

[razor512]

[citation][nom]ivan_chess[/nom]True, but there are just too many things that are easier to do in terminal or don't have a GUI component. Just installing packages is usually done with something like apt-get or yum. The first thing the community (or what the average joe will call tech support) tells you to do to fix anything is open a terminal window. Linux just isn't as computer illiterate friendly as it could be.[/citation]


Thats one of the main problems that I have noticed also, I have gotten a few people to try linux, especially when they kept messing up their windows install.

I set up a windows and ubuntu dual boot and none of them could use ubuntu for a length of time. They easily got frustrated when they came to a point when something required command line.

(for all those saying that you don't need to use command line if you don't want to, do not understand that not every bit of code will come in a nice easy to install .deb

you are very likely to get a tar.gz that takes a ton of work in command line to install

Another annoyance is that many command line processes such as installing a program, will require you to do the same things, this is how a tutorial can tell you step by step how to install a tar.gz or other format, you can even copy and paste the commands in and just change the names

If they want more people to use linux then it needs to get rid of the useless work.
For example, if a user fines a awesome new app and it is not a .deb,

when the user double clicks on the tar file or the rpm file or what ever other annoying format is used, it will not provide them with the option to install or run the program.
What the OS needs to do is pop up something like, I see that you are trying to use this tar.gz file, would you like me to install it for you?

linux needs more automation.

Windows and mac are so popular because they do a good job of keeping the users from ever having to touch the command line.
While I have no problem using command line, I would prefer to not have to use it as it requires more button presses and time compared to a GUI where you just click.

For example, there some programs that do not have a GUI and you have to use command line, and you will often see tutorials and forum posts about people trying to get the software to work. it will require multiple commands to be entered.

Then once in a while, someone will make a GUI front end which basically does the command like for you. and then the complaints stop because the user can achieve the same work with far less work.

For example, If I am testing the security of my WPA2 network, to see how short can go with the passwords that I get from GRC, before the password becomes too weak. I can get the app needed to do this and I can type in over 20 commands in order to start the process, or I can install the gui front end and simply select my network from a list, then click on the security type then click start and it does the rest, it turns a 20+ step process into a 3 step process

Windows is popular because probably 99.999% of all programs have a GUI and either run with out even installing from a easy to use exe file or can be installed by simply clicking next a few times.

 

[killerclick]

When I first show Ubuntu or Mint to somebody they're always impressed at how quickly it installs and how everything works. After a while they start running into annoyances and problems and it's not long before they go back to Windows (even XP).

Also if you're a gamer you can pretty much forget Linux. Same for web developers - they need to test sites in IE and Safari and some people need Photoshop and Flash.

I don't see why Linux is trying to get mass acceptance anyway, not like people are going to start paying for it. Linux already runs on over 90% Top 500 supercomputers, it runs majority of web servers and there's also Android. Why do we need or want to get grannies to use it is beyond me.

 

[Guest]

From a user perspective I think they need one window manager where everything is always in the same place, one central repository for dependencies, and maintain them for at least 10 years. They also need to update less often, and release updates sort of like MS does in a service pack. Simply asking someone what version of Windows they are running gives a lot of info quickly. Why would a business install an OS that had less than about a 7 year support term? They want someone who thinks a computer is magic to use it for 10 years without it ever crashing. It needs a central authority for updates, yet maintain the ability to customize for those that want to. I think using osx on a PC sort of gives you that, along with the cheap price. Android might be able to pull it off if they keep control of it.

 

[bernardv]

So, Mr. Curtis thinks we need to reinvent JVM? E.g. OpenJDK is available for al major distributions. Or am I just stupid and I don't get the depth this article?