Korean Job Discussion Forums

pandapanda · Joined: 22 Sep 2007

Even if it installs well and runs fine that misses one glaring thing. So does Windows. Most people who use Windows aren't looking for an alternative. If it were in this state when Windows 95/98/ME were out and peoples PCs crashed constantly then maybe it would be a valid alternative but XP is a stable operating system that does 99% of the tasks that 95% of the users want to do.

JustJohn · Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Location: Your computer screen

True, I have very little against XP.

But linux will continue to evolve while XP eventually becomes unsupported and then where will you go? I see linux more as the alternative to upgrading to vista. It's faster, more secure, and arguably more stable and less annoying than vista. Plus, it's free.

pkang0202 · Joined: 09 Mar 2007

The biggest hurdle for Linux is compatibility. Sure, OpenOffice is great for a free software suite, but the world uses Microsoft Office. I sure as hell don't want to spend hours on a spreadsheet/powerpoint using OpenOffice, only to pull it up on a windows PC and see things missing, out of order, broken.

Linux's opensource nature is also a problem. If I want to download drivers, I gotta know exactly what distro/build that I have. 95% of Windows drivers out there work regardless of whether you have 98/ME/2000/XP.

Let's face it. A lot of Linux applications are NOT user friendly. You gotta dig through thousands of pages on a forum in order to find an answer for the simplest of operations.

I have Linux and Vista dual booted on my desktop. I use Vista as my main OS and I use Linux to play around.

i'm using LinuxMINT. What I hate about it is if there is a new release/version, I gotta clean install it. There is no upgrade option.

JustJohn · Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Location: Your computer screen

Okay, this post I actually agree with to a large extent, but I still feel like you're talking about the linux of 2004. I'll give it the old point by point:

1. I'm not that huge a fan of OpenOffice, as I think it's heavier than it should be, but it's completely compatible aside from a few comment tools. Seriously a non-issue unless you are doing extensive proofing.

2. Actually, a lot more than 10% of drivers are version specific, but I think anyone who has the confidence to experiment with linux should NOT have trouble remembering what OS they are using. Seriously.

3. LIke what? As I said, I'm pretty new to using linux on an every day basis, but every program I've run so far (aside from the terminal of course) has an intuitive GUI. I haven't needed to look up how to do anything that wasn't a command line.

4. I don't know about mint, but with mandriva my fresh install took about 20 minutes, most of which I spent surfing the web and watching scrubs. Total time I was working on it was about 5 minutes. Sure it would be nice to have a 1 click update button, and I'm sure it's in the works, but when the install is that easy it hardly matters in my opinion.

mrsquirrel · Joined: 13 Dec 2006

Chris Kwon · Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Location: North Korea

Unless you are going to be programming, don't waste your time with linux. The average user doesn't benefit from linux..only the elite nerds.

Demophobe · Joined: 17 May 2004

I'm still looking for the "why" in this thread....the title promised it.

Why would I try Linux?

JustJohn · Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Location: Your computer screen

Hmm, good point. The first answer was addressed to people who already see a benefit but thought linux was too hard in the past. For them the reason would be "Linux is getting close to headache-free."

The incentive reasons were only mentioned briefly. Aside from programming/sever stuff my quick take would be "more advanced than XP, faster than Vista"

But you don't have to take my word for it. It's completely free, so there's no reason not to try it and decide for yourself (unless you don't have the spare 5 minutes to install).

JustJohn · Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Location: Your computer screen

pkang0202 · Joined: 09 Mar 2007

Here are the major problems I have with my Linux install now that hasn't been resolved.

1. Video flicker. I have an ATI x1950 video card. I hear its a widespread issue. What is the solution on the forums? Go get an NVidia card. Nice.

2. On my Linux MINT, I have an option to set the "appearance" to "extra" which enables cube desktop, etc... I think via Compiz or Beryl. Well, when I do, I get an all white screen with just my mouse cursor visible. I have the latest ATI drivers for Linux installed. I even tried a few legacy drivers and no go.

Both problems point to crappy drivers. That would be ATI's fault for not putting good drivers out there. However,

http://digg.com/microsoft/29_of_Windows_Vista_crashes_caused_by_NVIDIA_drivers

29% of VISTA crashes are due to NVidia drivers, so, if the blame for NVidia's crashing is pinned on Windows, you can also say Linux is to blame for ATI.

I have to question Linux's stability. If you have just the OS and no applications/software then yes Linux is very stable. Hell, Windows and OSX is stable when you don't install anything on there. However, in the real world, you have to install applications, add/remove hardware, etc...

The linux forums are flooded with very tweaks to scripts. It is common place to go into Linux Terminal to SUDO gedit something. That, to me, does not imply "stability". If I install something, and it crashes my computer, and I gotta manually change things to get it working again, then that is the opposite of "stable".

I'm not a Linux hater. Like I said, I dual boot Linux and I play around with it. I'm just pointing out that Linux is NOT ready to replace Windows. Linux is making large strides though. The distros that are out now are leaps and bounds over what was available a year ago.

JustJohn · Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Location: Your computer screen

Sounds to me like mint isn't ready. Try something else. Like Mandriva.

Yes, ATI doesn't care about linux and that creates some problems, but I hear most ATI users have been able to run 3D straight out of the box with Mandriva.

As for stability, I think core stability is better than Windows. Servers everywhere are running linux and they cite stability as one of the main reasons. And as for stability with lots of stuff installed, that doesn't really depend so much on the kernel. Both windows and linux now "compartmentalize" if you will, so that when something hangs it doesn't take your whole system with it, and I think that's largely all they can do. Now my guess would still be that linux is easier to keep a stable system on because people label beta and buggy software as such. In windows little applications are always wanting to install themselves and you have no idea how stable their code is.

However, I did have firefox randomly close on me a couple times yesterday in linux. So it's not infallible. I think it was my fault for filling a partition and messing up the cache though. I'll find out tonight.

cj1976 · Joined: 26 Oct 2005

Linux is good if you want to surf the web, use office apps and open media files. It's no so good if you want to play any decent games, create music or do anything that requires an ActiveX plug-in.
On an older system it might be useful if all you are doing is basic stuff like internet and word processing, but if you are using a newer, more powerful system it just becomes slightly annoying after a while.

JustJohn · Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Location: Your computer screen

I do agree with you to a large extent.

Older systems are where linux is undeniably superior. Ever put a super-light distro on an old windows PC and watch it get literally 10x faster? Your friends with ancient PCs will think you are a god.

If you play a lot of directx games you'll probably want to keep a dual boot system, that's true. (I'll be doing that myself for the foreseeable future) Nearly everything can be run in wine now though, and the performance hit is negligible with openGL.

I would argue that Audacity is can handle your music creation needs if you are anything less than a professional musicain.

Activex is the devil. I have not run an activex app in close to 3 years, and I've been running Windows until this month. My policy is that any site that uses it deserves to be boycotted anyway. Very rarely have I ever seen content that tempted me to enable it either. That said, you can still run activex on linux, you just need to go through wine. But who would want to?

cj1976 · Joined: 26 Oct 2005

I use ActiveX for banking and also for a private file-sharing server based here in Korea. It's quite popular amongst foreigners here so I guess there are a few people who need ActiveX capability.
You make it it sound simple to do. I'm not a total noob and I could not figure out how to get Wine and ActiveX working. The same happened when I wanted to install Korean input onto the keyboard. Maybe if I had had the patience to sift through endless web-forums, I could have had it working in about 5 HOURS!
To an experienced computer-savvy user, Linux might be easy. To anyone else, it's a pain in the arse.