Linux and Reliability(deepankar.posterous.com)
deepankar.posterous.com
Linux and Reliability
http://deepankar.posterous.com/linux-and-reliability
33 comments
As another issue, my mother-in-law's SuSE 9.1 machine has stopped playing videos, and she can no longer provide feedback on eBay. The latter is important, so I started the process up upgrading the installation of Flash.
Enter Dependency Hell.
It's still not working, and now several other things are broken. It looks like I'll have to provide a complete re-install, but it's unclear that I can find a version of Linux that still works on the hardware.
I hate system administration, and more and more I'm forced to tinker with machines.
Rhetorical Question: Why can't they "Just Work" ?
I'm seriously considering moving to a Mac and trying to get everything I want working there. Joy. Another month of tinkering instead of producing.
Enter Dependency Hell.
It's still not working, and now several other things are broken. It looks like I'll have to provide a complete re-install, but it's unclear that I can find a version of Linux that still works on the hardware.
I hate system administration, and more and more I'm forced to tinker with machines.
Rhetorical Question: Why can't they "Just Work" ?
I'm seriously considering moving to a Mac and trying to get everything I want working there. Joy. Another month of tinkering instead of producing.
Every couple of years I try linux for a week, then promptly switch back to the mac.
I had a G5 imac that I used for over 5 years without every having to reinstall the OS. I finally had to go through the pain of a fresh install when I bought a new imac this past year, but once every 5 or 6 years is fine. I'm still using my first gen macbook pro. I really want to use linux, but I value my time enormously now that I have 2 kids, this means I use macs.
I had a G5 imac that I used for over 5 years without every having to reinstall the OS. I finally had to go through the pain of a fresh install when I bought a new imac this past year, but once every 5 or 6 years is fine. I'm still using my first gen macbook pro. I really want to use linux, but I value my time enormously now that I have 2 kids, this means I use macs.
Just install a different browser. Chrome has Flash built-in, so no dependencies there. If you want Chromium, it's just a question of finding the right repository hosting pre-built packages.
Also, it sounds like there is a discrepancy between how you initially installed Flash, vs. how you're trying to do it now. If you have the Flash repository, it should be a simple update. "Should be," but since it's not, it sounds like you're using a different method now.
If you keep /home on its own partition, re-installing the distro should be trivial (although definitely overkill).
In terms of why the browser can't leave feedback anymore, nor play videos, those are bizarre breakages which makes me think you can't be sure it's not the hardware (perhaps run "dmesg" just to see if there's anything interesting, always do Memtest86+ to make sure you have good RAM).
Also, it sounds like there is a discrepancy between how you initially installed Flash, vs. how you're trying to do it now. If you have the Flash repository, it should be a simple update. "Should be," but since it's not, it sounds like you're using a different method now.
If you keep /home on its own partition, re-installing the distro should be trivial (although definitely overkill).
In terms of why the browser can't leave feedback anymore, nor play videos, those are bizarre breakages which makes me think you can't be sure it's not the hardware (perhaps run "dmesg" just to see if there's anything interesting, always do Memtest86+ to make sure you have good RAM).
With regards the install, it said "Click here to upgrade" and I did that. Nothing happened.
With regards a different browser, that may yet be what I do.
With regards a reinstall, it's older hardware, so there's every chance a newer version won't run - I've had that happen before.
And I have tested the hardware quite thoroughly - it's fine. Flash breaking is something I'm seeing on several platforms, including my Windows laptop, where Chrome regularly says "Oh look! Flash Crash!" (or something).
I love programming, I just hate computers. I wish I could go back to embedded work. I enjoyed fitting TCP stacks onto new chips with 100 bytes of RAM.
With regards a different browser, that may yet be what I do.
With regards a reinstall, it's older hardware, so there's every chance a newer version won't run - I've had that happen before.
And I have tested the hardware quite thoroughly - it's fine. Flash breaking is something I'm seeing on several platforms, including my Windows laptop, where Chrome regularly says "Oh look! Flash Crash!" (or something).
I love programming, I just hate computers. I wish I could go back to embedded work. I enjoyed fitting TCP stacks onto new chips with 100 bytes of RAM.
Bummer. A distro should never break on update. I wish I was more familiar with Suse. Oh well, I blame Flash :)
Is your mother-in-law really using a 7 year old version of Linux?
I would assume that's a typo, but then again your description of updating doesn't sound like any recent Linux experience I've had. And you do mention the hardware is too old for a modern distro.
If she was using that version, and the only thing that broke after all this time is Flash then that's pretty good going.
I would assume that's a typo, but then again your description of updating doesn't sound like any recent Linux experience I've had. And you do mention the hardware is too old for a modern distro.
If she was using that version, and the only thing that broke after all this time is Flash then that's pretty good going.
Totally agree with you. I also believe that operating systems should embrace the chrome way of just updating silently by default. Power users can disable this.
The unfortunate thing with this design is that it's quite often possible to break things by updating silently, too. My Cr-48 became almost unusably slow after the most recent update, and I seem to remember a bunch of Windows Phone 7 devices getting bricked in the same manner.
You have to have extraordinary quality control and testing on silent updates like that, and quite frankly, if OSes with a very limited number of variations on hardware can't get it right, how can we expect PC distributions to?
You have to have extraordinary quality control and testing on silent updates like that, and quite frankly, if OSes with a very limited number of variations on hardware can't get it right, how can we expect PC distributions to?
This is only OK when it comes from a wise and benevolent company (e.g. Google). I would not want to encourage this sort of behavior in all software (think Skype, Acrobat, etc... ugh!)
Wise and benevolent? I wouldn't encourage this behaviour from any company. It's risky and has a high chance of completely alienating your users if you don't get it exactly right, and and something breaks.
ubuntu can do automatic updates
This guy has a point. Ubuntu's constant meddling with the Desktop and adoption of immature software as default is why I left it for Linux Mint. LM 10 has "just worked" for me so far, and LM Debian Edition also look spromising. By contrast, Ubuntu breaks a few important things every time they release a new version.
I don't plan to consider returning until Ubuntu Desktop Edition "stabilizes" a bit. But that doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon, what with the impending switch to Unity, and the rumored switch to Wayland, and ever tighter integration with Canonical's proprietary offerings...
GNU/Linux is already rock solid at the base system level, but some distros just ruin the Desktop experience.
I don't plan to consider returning until Ubuntu Desktop Edition "stabilizes" a bit. But that doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon, what with the impending switch to Unity, and the rumored switch to Wayland, and ever tighter integration with Canonical's proprietary offerings...
GNU/Linux is already rock solid at the base system level, but some distros just ruin the Desktop experience.
They have an interesting problem on their hands. Their current user base is nerds who have a bunch of power user use cases, but they want to attract non-nerds. How do they do the latter while keeping the former happy? It's like republicans trying to sound reasonable while also making their base happy. It's like tight rope walking on a strand of floss.
I have used Ubuntu Desktop (Lucid & Maverick) everyday for years now and certainly don't have any stability issues, I don't see how changing to Mint (based heavily on Ubuntu) would affect stability.
I also have to ask what is this immature software as default you talk about?
I also have to ask what is this immature software as default you talk about?
It's usually not the base system that causes issues. Most instabilities I've come across have to do with distro-specific UI customizations and proprietary add-ons such as Flash.
For example, Ubuntu Natty Desktop Edition will come with Unity as the default UI, which is a relatively immature platform that Canonical is trying to push hard. Linux Mint will probably stick with GNOME and KDE though.
Of course it's always possible to switch to something that is more stable, but that's not exactly "It works out of the box."
For example, Ubuntu Natty Desktop Edition will come with Unity as the default UI, which is a relatively immature platform that Canonical is trying to push hard. Linux Mint will probably stick with GNOME and KDE though.
Of course it's always possible to switch to something that is more stable, but that's not exactly "It works out of the box."
Ubuntu is unstable precisely because it's a close fork from Debian unstable ;)
If you want an environment with long term stability, you might want to move to Debian Stable, which exists for this very purpose, and these days is typically as easy to install as Ubuntu.
If you want an environment with long term stability, you might want to move to Debian Stable, which exists for this very purpose, and these days is typically as easy to install as Ubuntu.
Linux Mint is awesome, though I use the KDE version instead of GNOME, it's a very polished distro.
There is very little reason to dread this move. I am not sure I like Unity yet, but I applaud Ubuntu for thinking outside the box. If you install Ubuntu 11.04 and want the old user interface, you can pretty much get it. Just install and then at the login screen, choose the classic desktop. Then, run the command metacity --replace. On one Narwhal test machine, I created a startup application to run this command on each boot. This gives you a desktop almost exactly like the old desktop. So, you can have the old or the new. Choice is nice and everyone is served.
This seems to be what the IPad and Chrome OS are doing.
Here's where linux fails on this front. Often it doesn't just work out of the box. I have to figure out how to install proprietary drivers, then I had to figure out how to configure it to get basic visual features like the drop shadow around the top most window. There is still an obnoxious flicker when I use desktop switching, the sound stops working after I do an update, etc. This all happened to me on the last two versions of ubuntu on a dell optiplex. So I went back to my mac.
Here's where linux fails on this front. Often it doesn't just work out of the box. I have to figure out how to install proprietary drivers, then I had to figure out how to configure it to get basic visual features like the drop shadow around the top most window. There is still an obnoxious flicker when I use desktop switching, the sound stops working after I do an update, etc. This all happened to me on the last two versions of ubuntu on a dell optiplex. So I went back to my mac.
>This seems to be what the IPad and Chrome OS are doing.
I agree. However it's MUCH easier to just work if there is only one hardware platform to develop for. This has been responsible for a huge share of Apple's reputation for "just working" and reliability since the beginning.
I agree. However it's MUCH easier to just work if there is only one hardware platform to develop for. This has been responsible for a huge share of Apple's reputation for "just working" and reliability since the beginning.
Looks like redhat/novell/ubuntu should invest in multimedia codecs, sound architecture, wireless drivers and graphics driver support over all else.
A lot of it comes from hardware manufacturers and other providers. MP3 support on Linux was terrible for a long time because of all the patent mess.
Talk to companies like Broadcom or AMD / NVIDIA about making their components work much better with Linux, first. A lot of the issue is on their end, with not providing interfaces and drivers for distros to include.
Canonical, Novell, and everyone else try their best to include what they can for their distros but it's hard when the companies making these computers don't help much.
Talk to companies like Broadcom or AMD / NVIDIA about making their components work much better with Linux, first. A lot of the issue is on their end, with not providing interfaces and drivers for distros to include.
Canonical, Novell, and everyone else try their best to include what they can for their distros but it's hard when the companies making these computers don't help much.
AFAIK, Canonical tries to bundle Ubuntu with only free (read: open-source) software, to promote the idea that a totally open-source system can be a viable alternative to Windows / Mac. We all know that's a load of bollocks, though, as inertia keeps us using Flash Player and MP3 instead of HTML5 and OGG, for instance.
Boxee, Google TV, and such are able to license Netflix and use their technology because it's much harder to hack them. Netflix has been fighting movie companies for years now to get full Linux support because Silverlight is the only player technology with the DRM to satisfy the studios that movies can't be copied from the stream, and Microsoft obviously has no intention of making it available on mainstream Linux distributions.
I believe that Boxee, Google TV, and 360/PS3 all use other technologies, but that can be inherently less secure because it's harder to get inside of them. Also, they can afford to pay the monstrous fees to work with Netflix and develop a solution that will satisfy all of Netflix's backers.
Licensing technology, especially with all of the patent stuff that's been going on lately, is an incredible undertaking and costs a lot of money, and many companies are unwilling to license to companies like Canonical because Linux is a huge administrative headache due to its openness and peoples' desire to have open systems.
At least, that's how I understand all of this. I could be wrong.
Boxee, Google TV, and such are able to license Netflix and use their technology because it's much harder to hack them. Netflix has been fighting movie companies for years now to get full Linux support because Silverlight is the only player technology with the DRM to satisfy the studios that movies can't be copied from the stream, and Microsoft obviously has no intention of making it available on mainstream Linux distributions.
I believe that Boxee, Google TV, and 360/PS3 all use other technologies, but that can be inherently less secure because it's harder to get inside of them. Also, they can afford to pay the monstrous fees to work with Netflix and develop a solution that will satisfy all of Netflix's backers.
Licensing technology, especially with all of the patent stuff that's been going on lately, is an incredible undertaking and costs a lot of money, and many companies are unwilling to license to companies like Canonical because Linux is a huge administrative headache due to its openness and peoples' desire to have open systems.
At least, that's how I understand all of this. I could be wrong.
I agree, but Redhat is staring at a billion dollar annual revenue. Innovation follows platforms that people want to use in their own spare time. Redhat needs to make this happen in the long term or they risk ending up like Solaris where no one wants to use them after 5pm.
There are a couple of different problems here. RedHat is actually pretty good in that they only include open software in their distribution. I, and many others, would not trust the OS nearly as much if they included things like Flash or other binary only blobs. These binary blobs could be doing anything. We know Flash works against the user's interest, and who knows what other binary piece might do?
Secondly, how would they license? Most of the code they could license requires a charge per copy. RedHat , Ubuntu and most Linux distros encourage the free redistribution of their disks. You can download it for free(aside from bandwidth charges which RedHat is not involved with. They don't even know how many copies are really in use. So, either they would have to change their whole distribution model or they would have to pay for something that is fairly nebulous. Fluendo has published a version of the MP3 codec that can be distributed for free. They purchased a license that has no per copy costs, but that is unusual to even have that as an option.
Finally, the RedHat company produces the RedHat distro for commercial use and the Fedora distro for home use. There is an active community of Fedora users who happily use it after 5 PM and you can find how to get most codecs working in Fedora, if you search a bit. The freedoms associated with Linux make it much more pleasant to use that any proprietary solution available today. I would also say Linux is more powerful and easy to use, but I can see how not everyone would agree about those, since your experience and workflows can drive those comparisons. OpenSolaris was making good progress. It is a shame it was killed a little before it got to the point where it was usable for everyday duty for the average person.
Secondly, how would they license? Most of the code they could license requires a charge per copy. RedHat , Ubuntu and most Linux distros encourage the free redistribution of their disks. You can download it for free(aside from bandwidth charges which RedHat is not involved with. They don't even know how many copies are really in use. So, either they would have to change their whole distribution model or they would have to pay for something that is fairly nebulous. Fluendo has published a version of the MP3 codec that can be distributed for free. They purchased a license that has no per copy costs, but that is unusual to even have that as an option.
Finally, the RedHat company produces the RedHat distro for commercial use and the Fedora distro for home use. There is an active community of Fedora users who happily use it after 5 PM and you can find how to get most codecs working in Fedora, if you search a bit. The freedoms associated with Linux make it much more pleasant to use that any proprietary solution available today. I would also say Linux is more powerful and easy to use, but I can see how not everyone would agree about those, since your experience and workflows can drive those comparisons. OpenSolaris was making good progress. It is a shame it was killed a little before it got to the point where it was usable for everyday duty for the average person.
I think a large majority in the world is in the "I dont mind paying 2 bucks now and then but dont make me go searching for a solution on a technology forum because I couldnt care less about how to get it to work".
RedHat isn't interested in making a desktop OS, though. Their focus is on the enterprise market, with the Fedora team doing their best to make a desktop OS. It would be very difficult for RedHat or Novell to really make a push into the mainstream desktop market, and I imagine that justifying to their shareholders would be impossible.
The desktop distro teams can't organize enough to get support from major companies, and the enterprise companies can't push into desktop because it's financial suicide to try and support normal desktop users who can barely use Windows.
The desktop distro teams can't organize enough to get support from major companies, and the enterprise companies can't push into desktop because it's financial suicide to try and support normal desktop users who can barely use Windows.
The part I dont understand is what prevents Redhat, Ubuntu etc to license multimedia codecs just like any other closed source company? Most significant streaming devices like the boxee, google tv etc run on top of a linux kernel, with netflix support and all other bells and whistles. Why dont linux companies push to license the same and make them available on the desktop?
Most linux companies aren't interested in the desktop. Redhat is focused on servers. Canonical is the only major linux distro/company that has the desktop as a primary focus.
I've never understood the "MP3 support on Linux was terrible for a long time" thing--when was this long time? I'm pretty sure I was playing MP3 files under Redhat 6.2... how long ago was this?
My first experiences with MP3s on Linux was with RedHat 9 and Fedora Core 4 - Fedora 9. Yes, it was always possible to install the restricted codecs, but only recently were those instructions and processes made easier (and now, with recent distros, automatic). Maybe I was doing it wrong, but asking a user to install "restricted codecs" for something that Windows Media Player can do automatically isn't good for making users feel comfortable with your system.
If their goal is for normal people to use it as a desktop. I don't think that is redhat's goal, I don't know about novell, but it is canonical's goal.
Bold new interfaces, new APIs, and complete reinventions of the desktop metaphor are really exciting hobby projects for these brave volunteers.
Perfecting backwards compatibility, re-implementing buggy behaviour from prior versions, and ensuring ABI stability do not make exciting projects. These are the torturously painful, labor-intensive foundations of Microsoft's success.