Things I Like About Linux

Ok, a few weeks ago, I gave my list of things I hate about Linux as a desktop operating system. Now, I want to counterbalance that list with the things I like about Linux. I will state upfront that none of the items on the list will be of the "Because Windows does this..." or "Unlike Windows...". I really dislike that about a lot of discourse around Linux as a desktop environment. It's more Microsoft or Apple bashing than Linux cheerleading. 

So, without further ado, here are the things I like about Linux as a Desktop OS. Keep in mind that none of what I like will depend on which distribution, or distro, that you are running. A distribution is a packaged set of software that includes the Linux kernel, graphical user interface (often Gnome, or KDE, through there are literally dozens of choices), and application software. Choose wisely.

1. It runs on extremely underpowered machines. It's true that you need to find the right distro to match your computer's resources, but Linux does this better than anyone. I'm not talking about running an older version of the operating system; I mean a fresh new version of a Linux distro on practically ancient hardware. Right now, I have a laptop from 2006 running MX Linux. It's not great but it's serviceable and still useful. All of this is due to the design of Linux. It is not monolithic. The kernel stays quite small and creative distro makers find collections of applications and GUIs that fit in under resourced machines. This is why single board computers such as the Raspberry PI run Linux. 
2. All the distribution choices. I can choose a distribution that suits me or my machine. Low resources? There's a half dozen distros for that. Something modern and zippy? Sure, there are lots of mainstream distros for that. What if you don't like the user interface? Choose a distro with something different, weird even. 
3. On that note, there are distributions tailored to functions. There are distributions that are designed for software development, creatives, office work, security professionals, specific update methods, certain languages, some for use as a LiveCD, education, beginners, Mac users, Windows users, and many more. 
4. You can still change almost anything. If you find that no Linux distro gets you 100 percent to where you want to be, you can alter something to get you all the way. Package managers, applications, even graphical interfaces, can all be changed easy enough. You are even able to load multiple GUIs on your computer and switch between them effortlessly. You can also adjust so many small things, allowing you to tweak your installation to your needs and likes.
5. The cost can't be beat. While nothing is truly free, the initial capital cost of many distros, even major ones such as Ubuntu, is zero. You can pay for support if you don't want to rely on community support and your own talents, and there are some distros only sold as commercial products. The vast majority of Linux distros, however, are available for download for free.
6. The difference between a server and desktop is basically only the GUI. You can run all the server software on any Linux installation, alongside the desktop environment. In fact, the main difference between a server distro and desktop distro is that the server distro comes prepackaged with the server software and the desktop distro with the GUI preinstalled. If you want to load the desktop distro, so that you have access to GUI tools, and then load up a bunch of server software, it's pretty easy.
7. There are a multitude of ways to install and manage software. Most desktop OS' come with what is called a package manager. As it sounds, it is a way to package, install, and then manage (remove, update, list) the software on a machine, along with their dependencies. Most distros come with either apt, yum/dnf, or pacman. Most distros have a GUI for searching catalogs of software and then installing, removing, and updating software in those catalogs. You can choose the one that works best for you or stick with whatever came with your distro.
   Ubuntu uses a system called Snap which not only installs and manages software but runs it in a container system similar to Docker. It provides easy control over running software, in addition to installation. Flatpak is similar in that it installs and manages software but runs it in a sandbox to ensure that applications can't harm the system overall. Both have GUI front ends. Snap and Flatpak represent the future of package managers - containerized systems that not only manage software installs, but the runtime environment as well.
8. Even when they look different, Linux systems can interoperate. Assuming that you have installed all the dependencies, pretty much anything that runs on one Linux machine can run on another of equal resources. Ultimately, Linux is Linux, no matter the distro. Sure, if you have something compiled for a completely different microprocessor architecture it may need to be recompiled, but all Intel architecture machines will run all run the same software.

My home lab is a prime example of the versatility and interconnectedness of Linux. I have an ancient (2006) laptop running MX Linux which I use for small monitoring tasks. I have two machines running Debian derived Ubuntu Desktop OS, but configured as servers for various services within my environment. Finally, I have a laptop from 2010 running Pop_OS, itself a variation on Ubuntu, that performs the majority of monitoring and observability for the system. That's four machines with three different Linux distributions, running a host of file and cloud services, plus monitoring. All are capable of running the same modern browser, despite vast differences in age, system architecture, and resources. There was no cost for installing and managing the operating system, outside my labor. This is what I like most about Linux.

Things I Hate About AI

Anyone who knows me will tell you, I'm not a Luddite. Quite the opposite. I like shiny new technology. I have a closet full of broken tech dreams i.e. all kinds of cool gadgets that were either ahead of its time or outlived its rather cool usefulness. So, when I tell you about the things I hate about AI, it's not a knee jerk reaction. In fact, I wrote a number of papers in the mid-2010s about the potential of AI to help us mere humans.

I don't think that AI is reaching that potential. My list of things I hate about AI is partly why I believe that. 

1. It's often wrong but sounds right. Unless you have expertise in an area, you can't tell if the AI answer is true or not. If you do have expertise, you don't need it. This is an example where no answer is a better answer. I've learned to only use AI in situations where I can truly evaluate the answer's veracity.

2. It makes us lazy. We stop doing learning simple things because the AI does it for us, just, you know, wrong. Lazy isn't necessarily bad. A lot of great software was created by people too lazy to do a simple task. Lazy plus wrong, however, is a toxic combination.

3. All that typing or speaking when a couple of button clicks will do is not progress. We moved away from command lines for a reason - they were too much work for a lot of tasks and error prone. GUIs, designed right, have democratized computing. Which brings me to…

4. AI is being used to make up for bad UI design. Instead of spending bazillion dollars on AI, try fixing your horrid interface or placing that one important selection right up front. I guess we're back to the lazy thing again. Seriously, if I have to ask an AI agent to find and change a setting for me, then the UI is not working out.

5. Generative AI slop is ruining art for everyone simultaneously. Art has soul. Art has creativity. A prompt doesn't count as either and all AI can do is mimic something already created. The problem is that people are getting used to the idea that AI can create art and that what it spits out is art. 

6. AI slop in general but especially code. When revered open source projects like cUrl have to stop bug bounties because of it, you know it's destructive. It's another effect of the intersection of lazy and wrong. You get code, plans, writing, and search results that are not useful. So, it's a waster of everyone's time and resources.

7. The environmental impact is not worth the results. Is the consumption of massive amounts of energy, and the pollution that comes with it, worth what we get from AI? The true ROI is lousy when you take the damage into effect.

8. RAM, once a cheap commodity item, is increasingly expensive because of AI needs. The irony is that there may not be PCs capable of running AI apps because of AI. Once the cost of the endpoint exceeds the benefits of the service, which will be discarded first? I'm betting on the AI.

9. General AI is purposeless. Domain specific AI adds value to whatever tasks you are doing. General AI, especially chat, is a time suck. It's like voice activated everything. It makes sense in the car but not in a crowded office, or church. AI is like that. It has to be used where it makes sense and it's not. That means it needs to be tailored to and restricted to specific domains. Copilot for Microsoft 365 is actually useful. General Copilot on Windows? Less so, by a lot.

It is apparent from my list that I doubt the long-term ROI on AI. That's a money problem and hence, not my concern. My chief concern is that using AI doesn't yield consistent, high-value benefits in most instances. The societal costs - cost of RAM, environmental damage, relying on false information, and the laziness it breeds - are everyone's problem. 

RAM It All To Hell!

 Warning: This post has the potential to be acronym laden. Read at your own risk.

As we all know by now, RAM prices are going through the roof. Some companies are even going so far as to exit the consumer market in favor of OEM sales. All of this is caused by the build out of AI systems by major tech companies. These systems have dubious profitability models. Here are some possible effects this sudden rise in RAM prices may have on the broader market.

1. The Mountain Climber. RAM prices continue to climb. And climb. And Climb. This has the effect of making RAM expensive for consumer products such as SSDs, laptops and desktops, and, especially, smart phones. Other devices that rely on computer technology such as smart TVs are also affected. More expensive storage means more expensive devices, which slows consumer and maybe small business purchases. The electronics segment takes a huge hit. They will have to decide between selling equipment and worsening margins. Ironically, many of these companies are the same companies that are building out AI centers. So, the RAM manufacturers win but everyone else loses.
2. The Crash and Burn. It turns out that no one really wants the AI stuff enough to pay for it. After hundreds of billions of dollars in capital investments and labor, most AI companies either go belly up or severely cut back on their AI products. Half or fully built datacenters are snapped up by the handful of tech companies that found a way to make AI useful enough for their customers to see value in them. With the buildout stalled or stopped, all that RAM that was held back floods the market. Consumers get a windfall, as cheap RAM allows for upgrades and lower prices, electronics and computer companies win back some margin, and AI investors go home with lighter pockets.
3. The Old Ways Return. Back when I started my career, in the before times, RAM and storage devices were expensive and limited. You had to learn to optimize your code to run on computers and devices with extremely low resources. That changed when RAM and hard drives became cheap. We could add Gigabytes of RAM and Terabytes of disk space to even low-end consumer devices. Those times may now be at an end, and the software industry may need to go back and find ways to shrink the footprint of software. This means more cost and time for software development. More cost to the consumer too. Given the amount of competition in the software business, companies may not have the ability to raise prices and, instead, take a hit on margins and profits. 
4. The Soft Landing. The boards of companies investing in AI start to demand profits from AI that match the level of investment. In response, CEOs, slow, rather than stop, the build out of new data centers. RAM doesn't exactly flood the market, but prices start to come down as availability comes back up. Eventually, the market finds its equilibrium. At that point, consumer prices are a bit higher but not crazy high and some value from AI is achieved. Rather than a blood bath, larger companies go on a buying spree and consolidation takes hold. Most of the winners will be large tech companies and a handful of now incredibly wealthy entrepreneurs. 

To me, the most likely scenario is the Crash and Burn scenario. This happens all the time in the tech business. Companies jump on a bandwagon, spend stupid amounts of money, discover that consumers aren't in it for the durations, and then retrench. Some companies win; some lose. The AI Crash and Burn is the best scenario for the consumer. They have some short term pain but eventually get lower prices and some AI value. 

The Soft Landing is also possible, though less so than the Crash and Burn. The history of computing is rarely so pleasant. Just look to the Dot Com crash and the Storage Service Provider bloodbath for inspiration. This scenario is probably the best one for the industry and consumers alike. Prices come down and we get new and useful products. If this happens, it will be a unicorn.

The least likely is the Old Ways Return scenario. Software is a bit like food. Our ancestors lived with constant food scarcity. Over time, food became abundant and we no longer know how to live in a scarcity environment. That's why so many of us are overweight to the point that Ozempic is a major drug. Early in my career, I had to jam software into kilobytes of ram and disk space. Very few software developers today have ever lived with that kind of resource scarcity. RAM and disk space were so cheap that you could expect consumers to just buy more to suit your applications. Memory and storage space are just not something that extreme optimization is given time and money to anymore, and no one knows how to do it well.

If we get the Mountain Climber scenario, we're all screwed. If RAM prices continue to climb, it hurts the tech industry across the board. Consumers too.

These are just observations from my 40+ year old perch. I'm typically an optimist until given a reason not to be. I'm rooting for the Soft Landing, even if I think it unlikely. Let's see if we get the AI equivalent of the PC revolution or Dot Com crash.

Things I Hate About Linux as a Desktop

I've been using Linux since the days you had to compile it from source and there were no distros to speak of. Those were the days of altering two dozen configuration files just to get it kind of working. Ah, the olden days. Since then, Linux has come to dominate the server space, powers every commercial and private cloud, and is the backbone for my home lab. I have at least four Linux computers in my house and all have full desktops loaded on them. A lot of activities are much easier to perform using the desktop tools and, in a pinch, my Linux servers can act as a secondary desktop. That's after my Windows desktop and two Windows laptops but I digress.

Despite all that, there is still a lot of things I hate about Linux as a desktop computer. In fact, these problems are what keep me from jettisoning Windows in favor of Linux. They are also part of why Linux has stalled at its current tiny fraction of the desktop computing market.

So, here are, in no particular order, my complaints about Linux. There are more, but these are top of mind for me.

1. After all these years, some things can still only be done with the command line. Yes, it's getting better, but the command line is still unavoidable. For newbies and non-techies, this is enough to keep them away.

2. The desktop distros are different enough that they may as well be different operating systems. If the Linux community wants to fulfill the dream of being a viable desktop OS, they need to settle on one GUI. Gnome, Cinnamon, and KDE are heading there but for every distro that adopts one of them, a new GUI emerges. The fragmentation is killing the Linux desktop market. Many Linux users see this as good, favoring choice over consistency. The rest of the world is confused by it all

3. Which brings me to diffusion of energy. So many maintainers are complaining about how few of them there are to maintain all the distros, applications, and components that go into a desktop OS. That's in part because they are all working on competing products. There are hundreds of distros with a half dozen GUIs. On top of that the bundled apps are different as well. Lots of people doing the same work just spreads the butter too thin.

4. Competing package managers and app stores don't help either. No one app store interface can update packages from all the different formats. That's a problem for developers and users alike. At moment, I use scripts to update APT, Snap, and Flatpak packaged applications. Your average person has neither the ability nor desire to do write code to manage updates.

5. No matter what anyone says, none of the graphics look as good as Windows or MacOS. Look at Gnome or LibreOffice next to Microsoft or Apple equivalents. I get that that's a heavy lift. Microsoft and Apple can employ a small army of designers to tweak the smallest aspect of the user experience, and even they don't get everything right. Aesthetics do matter to the average person who looks at Linux and has a flashback to 1998.

6. Linux suffers from the "chicken or the egg" principle. Major applications, such as Microsoft Office, won't run on Linux. That slows adoption since many people need these apps. That reduces the market for Linux desktops, making it less attractive a market for major software companies. It's a vicious cycle for sure. Linux needs an iron clad Windows compatibility layer that emulates Windows behind the scenes. Wine and similar apps are still not good enough as far as compatibility and performance goes.

7. Hardware compatibility is still a problem. No matter the reasons for this, a lot of hardware, both old and new, can't run Linux well. I find this especially true with graphics hardware. It even manifests itself with strange desktop GUI behavior. And no, Wayland didn't make it better.

8. While it's great that some Linux distros can run on low-end machines, when you upgrade the software on those machines, it can either bork the machine entirely or make it act all wonky. Either disable updates when the hardware doesn't match up with later requirements or make updates that work on everything. You can't just leave it to fate. And don't tell me that it's impossible to test everything. Microsoft does a much better job with backwards compatibility and when it can't, disallows the upgrade such as the Windows 10 to Windows 11 upgrade issues.

9. The ability to operate alongside Windows machines is still poor. SMB shares either can't be connected reliably or break during a reboot. It's been 30 years of Linux working with Windows machines. This needs to be fixed for Linux to be a reliable desktop machine.

10. All those configuration files are the worst. There are so many configuration files still lurking around in Linux distros. For example, to change from the Ubuntu LTS update cycle to a non-LTS one requires a change in a text file. Corrupted text files can bork your whole machine. Settings of all kinds are sitting in files that can be erased, moved, or corrupted. This needs to be a database with settings apps that change behavior. Files like these are a leftover from the 90s. That was over 35 years ago. 

11. Which leads to a lack of obvious settings available to the user. For example, a number of distros that used to use Cheese as the camera app, switched to Gnome's Snapshot. The latter doesn't have setting to invert the image. Lots of cameras don't do this automatically. Unfortunately, lenses flip the image so that it looks backwards. This is not to dish on Snapshot per se. Lots of apps are missing obvious settings such as flip the screen so that it looks true to life.

12. Gaming support still sucks. Compared to Windows, the best "Gaming" Linux distro is still much less capable than its Windows counterpart. That is partly due to graphics card support. Weirdly, we know this is possible because SteamOS is a Linux flavor. Mainstream distros, i.e. the one's that most people are likely to use, are not great for games. Meanwhile, Microsoft is doubling down on game support merging Xbox features into Windows. 

There's more, of course, but these are the ones that irritate the most. I would love to see Linux distros that are a viable alternative to Windows or MacOS for desktop/laptop computing. It's not even close and the major commercial distro players are obviously more interested in the server market. One can hope, nonetheless.

Things I Hate About Microsoft Products

I have been around computer technology long enough to know that there are pros and cons about everything. For that reason, I'm not a Microsoft hater, or a Linux hater. Ok, I am an Apple hater, but that's for pretty specific reasons.

Windows 11 is my daily drive. I have two Windows laptops plus a high-end Windows desktop. I pay for an Office 365 subscription. If I didn't like Microsoft's products, I wouldn't spend my money on them, especially with all the free, open-source stuff available, In many ways, Microsoft makes superior software that people think is worth paying for. 

That said, there's a lot not to like. So, here are some of things I hate about Microsoft products. It is neither an exhaustive list nor the final chapter in things to hate about Microsoft products.

1. Some Microsoft products won't close on exit, minimizing to the taskbar instead. Copilot doesn't even come up with a reasonable manner to set it to close. This should be an affirmative setting. Everyone else has a way to toggle this behavior. Frankly, whatever the reason is for not having such a setting, it's really up to the user to decide if they want that behavior.

2. Office Online will sometimes insist I create a Passkey for Office 365. The ability to turn off this tendency to interrupt what I'm doing to make me cancel no fewer than three prompts is irritating. Worse yet, it doesn't go away forever. Every once in a while, it pops up again. You used to be able to turn this off, but Microsoft eliminated the setting to do so. This behavior is either bad programming or evil intent. 

3. Settings on Windows, Edge, and Office keep moving around. It's nearly impossible to remember where some settings are because they are not in the same place after an update. Some products such as Edge, do this all the time. Yes, products evolve but thoughtfully not randomly.

4. On that same note, Microsoft keeps hiding settings for things like minimize on close and Passkeys. Microsoft giveth and Microsoft taketh away.

5. Copilot is too stupid to notice when these settings have changed. It constantly gives bad support information. What's worse than an AI giving bad information? Giving bad information about itself and its creator's other products. 

6. OneDrive can't sync a file if it's open and hence insists on marking it as an error. Microsoft should either figure out open file sync or stop marking it as an error. One of these is personal vault which is designed not to stay open. The feature is actually an error. What?

7. Widgets are so limited they are a waste of taskbar space. Just put the weather int he lower corner and be done with it. It's the only widget anyone really uses anyway.

8. If you use an alternative browser, such as Firefox or Chrome, Windows still wants to open Edge. That's just stupid. or it's evil. Take your pick. Maybe Microsoft is trying to force Edge on those who are not into it. I actually like Edge. It has a lot of useful features I like to use regularly. If I choose differently, however, then respect that. It makes Windows seem inconsistent. 

9. Speaking of Edge, they need to rationalize tab management. At the moment we have Tab Groups, Collections, and Workspaces. Each does something a little different. There is some new Copilot tab management, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how that works. I'm not motivated to figure it out because I have some many options right now.

10. Speaking of Workspaces, why don't they automatically reload/update websites when you open them? There might be some underlying technical reason but really, that's bad UX. We expect that a tab will reload when we open it. 

11. Microsoft seems hell bent on gathering my private information. I'm always playing whack-a-mole with privacy settings. And those settings move around (see number three) or get hidden (see number four).

12. It's entirely stupid that there wasn't a version of Windows 11 that older machines (I'm talking machines only a few years before Windows 11) could upgrade to. A lot of folks are either stuck with buying a new machine or flying without a net now that Windows 10 is no longer supported.

13. And having to reboot after every update is annoying and dangerous. I'm betting lots of people put off critical updates because they don't have the time to go through one or more reboot cycles. Figure out how to update software in place.

14. And why do we still have to alter the registry to do certain things. This is not some kind of Windows hacking. Microsoft's own support documents tell you to do this all the time. You gotta love it when they tell you to alter the registry and then flash a "Danger! Danger Will Robinson!" message at you when you do. Seriously, there should not be a reason to monkey with the registry in 2026.

I'm sure I'll think of more. Microsoft is a big company that makes complex software. They've also adopted a bit of the Apple paternalism over the past few years. Many of the things I hate about their products relate to that behavior. I predict it will only get worse with all this AI stuff. We are going to be expected to treat tech support like a session with a therapist only with less concrete results.