I don't see any specific example of what exactly is bad about it in this reply, so, the question remains open.
If the answer would be so obvious that the question must be a disingenuous troll question, then surely it must be effortless to give a meaningful answer. It's a terrible architecture because it...what? What obviously backwards and never can and never could possibly work idea does it try to implement?
Not even my question but I just found criticizing the question with this answer pretty rich.
That's my experience too, it's mostly basic CRUD interfaces. People say it's fast but that's because it gives you the most barebones user-hostile interface you could have.
The company paid IBM $100k to upgrade a single server and this shit is locked with licences for cores and memory. It's not even that fast.
The problem is they are too deep in it now but this shit needs to die.
It's one of those technologies that "almost works", like Bluetooth or ring binders. It's not quite broken enough to the point where people can justify breaking compatibility and working on an alternative, but it is a major pain point to anyone who uses it.
Specifically, it introduces and entire class if new build/deploy issues, has a system that you need to actively fight against to get a UI that looks great, state synchronisation that feels like it was designed for UNIX terminals from 1985, and a whole host of corner case bugs and bizarre performance issues.
I actually wish it were more broken so that we could all finally move on to something good.
Poor start-up time, terrible application bloat, uninspiring language with poor concurrency support, massive RAM requirements, everything XML, complex tuning required, what a nightmare.
No wonder the world is running towards Python and serverless as fast as they can...
Worse latency and performance (on intel and AMD), xdotools don't work, window managers don't work. Doesn't work without dbus (the first thing I usually uninstall) and additional seat/login daemons which indicates its bad design.
* Horrible usability and bad user interfaces.
* Even worse design of the applications.
* Integration with existing systems make the apps so huge that lots of bugs appear.
Because it's too big, it's very slow to start, it's controlled by a company that is not very lovely, it's not installed by default on our system, it's free and opensource without in fact being very libre, it has frequent security flaws that don't seem to be addressed seriously... Some of this is probably only partially true, but it gives you an idea why people don't want to use it, whether they're right or wrong.
Can you elaborate? genuinely curious
reply