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.
It's slow to connect, uses a lot of resources and cannot be installed without bringing in hundreds of megabytes of dependencies (e.g. X11, Gnome libs).
It's slow to start up. It prevents you from installing the version of something you want. It updates on its own schedule. It has numerous bugs relating to the sandboxing that prevents apps from fully working properly. It mucks with your home folder structure...
* 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.
This is of course completely subjective, but, from the top of my head:
Painful user interface. No good package management system. Instability and unreasonable hardware requirements for even simple tasks. Missing good command line tools and light-weight methods of remote administration, development and testing.
It is also very in your face.
Went to go install the SDK on windows - have to create an account, click a ton of stuff in the installer to convince it that it's okay to give me the free version, etc
It then proceeds to install 20+ gigabytes (yes) of stuff, including their ide that you can't actually uncheck.
It's a poor, verbose, arcane solution in every problem space it purports to solve.
It was fine in its era, but that's a long time ago. It is completely unsuitable as a project management tool and a poor task runner.
Also its ubiquity is overhyped. There's no build platform where I can't download the tools I need, that's the entire point of a build platform, and most such platforms come with far more advanced tools pre-installed.
All the obvious ones: closed platforms, walled gardens, lack of repair or upgradeability, overpriced hardware, general user and developer hostility, excessive secrecy, arrogance, security bugs, planned obsolescence. Then there's the more subjective stuff: I find their UIs appalling and I'm not a fan of their design aesthetic.
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.
It's slow and bloated. For someone who grew up coding intros and cracking protections in machine code on C=64 and the Amiga, such bloat simply won't fly. It's an abomination. I hate wasting my life away waiting for slow software.
reply