Korean Job Discussion Forums

[JustJohn]

Oh, I'll be the first to admit that wine takes a little tech savvy to deal with. That's one thing that they need to make easier if they really want to draw a huge crowd.

As for the Korean, that's a good idea. I'll take a whack at it tonight and see how it goes.


P.S.
I personally hate activex so much that I would not bank with a company that uses it. I do realize that's just me though.

[Demophobe]

There is still no "why".

"Faster than Vista" is not a "why" answer; it is a subjective opinion. How can Linux be faster at things it cannot do?

I do these things:

~ Play occasional games like Crysis, Bioshock, Assassins Creed, Gears of War...

Linux cannot do this without Windows emulation so what's the point? They all run very well on my Vista machine.

~ Use the MS Office Suite.

Openoffice may be fine, but MS Office rocks. Everything opens all messed up; not at all like it would in Office; the two are not mutually 100% compatible. So again, what's the point. Inefficient use of time to do things 1.5 times. Most computers have MS Office, next to none have openoffice. Ease of use rules the day.

~ Surf the net.

I cannot imagine the net being any faster, nor Firefox loading faster than it currently does on my machine.

~ Watch videos

Again, no need to switch; Vista plays everything without a stutter and movie files open in a blink.

~ Rip / encode video / music

No speed / compatibility problems here either. I like the wide choice of software that's available for Vista. Audacity isn't bad, but one doesn't need Linux to run it like a hot rod.

Factually, there is no "why". Linux (some distros) is fairly competent, but it will never be a "must have" for anyone using Windows.

"Its free". So it should be. Legally, morally...it has to be free.

When someone releases a boxed product that one can buy (yes, buy) retail, Linux will get some airplay. So long as *.nix remains in the "no accountability" zone, it will be inferior and unwanted; the redheaded stepchild of the OS family.

[JustJohn]

Ah, yes. I knew this was coming. And actually, I'm surprised by the civility; thanks! Let's see...


1. Faster is not subjective; speed can be quantitatively measured. I've had both vista ultimate and several linux distros on my computer and vista was significantly slower in both system navigation and loading programs. With lighter distros the difference was startling.

Take a look at this video. This is a fairly light distro but still fully featured. He is running a Core 2 with 1GB of RAM. I personally haven't even seen a Vista system that runs acceptably on 1 gig, and linux is flying.

If you look at midrange systems or lower there is simply no contest. Here is linux on an eee. Aero would be chugging hard to do less than what you see here, and you can see it's running quite smoothly.


2. Games are not an incentive to try linux, you are right. In fact, if you are running new-ish directx games it is a drawback for linux.


3. I have not seen files opening "all messed up." They work together just fine for me. Perhaps you'd care to explain/demonstrate?


4. If you haven't watched the first video I linked, here it is again. Can you imagine it now?


5. Agree, neither has problems with videos.


6. I suppose I'll give you a toss up on this one as well. I think the linux tools are more straight forward and efficient, but some people like the windows style better I guess.



So back to the "why." I'll stick with the first reasons I gave, namely "faster, more secure, and free." And I would contend there is a large degree of accountability, even mandated in sponsored cases like openSUSE.

In your situation specifically I personally would probably dual boot since the games you mentioned would take a moderate perfromance hit in linux, and I might just leave linux alone if I played games a lot.

To anyone with an older system though, the advantage is definitely significant. Also to anyone who doesn't know how to protect their computer, anyone who is a cheapskate, and really anyone who isn't running a lot of directx games or specialized stuff built around windows.

[SuperHero]

linux is not more secure.

linux has less people writing viruses etcetera because there is not a large enough user base to warrant the hassle.

[pkang0202]

I have constant video Flicker with Linux. Doesn't matter which player I use.

Never had any video playback problems with windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, or with Vista.

[JustJohn]

[JustJohn]

[SuperHero]

[JustJohn]

Not all distros are created equal. If you choose a random distro and base your opinion of linux on that you are bound to be disappointed.

You are right to a degree, but there is a simple solution. Choose a decent distro. Organization and support are functioning fine, it's just done at the distro level. Yet another reason to choose carefully.

Unfortunately it is true that most linux distros are not "ready for prime time" so to speak. There are only half a dozen or so that I would even bother trying as a beginner. As it happens, Mint isn't one of them. I'm suggesting Mandriva for a reason. It does exactly what you say linux can't do. It just works. The whole point of this thread was to demonstrate exactly that. Go back and watch the video...

[SuperHero]

I tried to distros that were supposed to just work, ubuntu and suse. Guess what, they didn't. Why would I bother trying another one?

Anyhow it seems like Dave's Tech forum is pretty much hostile to linux - nothing personal.

[JustJohn]

Because it will work. No, actually I have no idea. I think ubuntu and suse worked or nearly worked on my laptop as well. I'm moderately surprised that both of them gave you problems though.

If I may ask, when did you try them, what gave you trouble, and what is your hardware like?


And yeah, I know there are a lot of people who are down on it here. But I tried it and my experience was nothing like what I hear from them so I thought I'd share...

[Demophobe]

Linux is faster for many reasons, not the least of which is its relatively narrow scope. Simply put, look at the vast amount of software for the Windows platform against what is out there for Linux. Think user-friendly here and it will make sense.

Now to say "its faster"...doing what? Opening a window? Launching a browser? We are splitting seconds here man...my system responds very closely to that video...no bull. Besides, there is nothing else going on in that video; a single task. You want fast? Let me unload each and every service on Vista. (before you say it, services I want to run, ok? I can control them all completely, so there is no comment to be made.)

Windows is bigger than Linux in terms of system resources, but it is directly proportional to the features.

Linux is not more secure...strawman.

Openoffice files often open in MS Office looking quite different. Try it yourself...use powerpoint as a good case in point.

"windows style"...well, in that video, I see wannabe windows.

Faster...very conditionally yes, but in a far greater sense, no.

Free...covered that. If it weren't free, it would cease to be.

FWIW, Windows is quite free as well. More secure? See above.

There is simply no need at all to dual boot. Linux offers me nothing new whatsoever. Nothing. Compared to Windows, it is limited and narrow. Using it would be a hindrance to me.

[JustJohn]

If you already have vista and your system is truly comparable in speed to the arch video then I agree with you, you have no need of linux and I would love to see a video of your system in action. (Though, if I were you I might be just a little curious to see how fast it is on arch )

Still, very few people people have a system that can run Vista anywhere near that fast and smoothly, especially with aero. For them, using linux is going to be much more enjoyable.


If we still want to talk details on speed, I can do that...
True, there is the issue of services running and such. Yes, one of the reasons the video is fast is because he's not running much extra crap. And yes, you can remove the extra crap in vista to a degree. However, it's still not going to be as fast as a light linux system because you can't stop every windows process that's eating your resources. Some are important system processes. Linux runs "cleaner" at its core. That, and I don't think it's true that system resource usage is directly proportional to the features. Even jam-packed linux distros run lighter than vista. And besides all that, one of the beauties of linux is that if I don't want the extra crap I can run something like arch and never put any of it on instead of going through and disabling everything by hand.

tl;dr? Yes, to some extent but linux is still more efficient and one of the advantages is that you don't have to have what you don't want.


Security is basically irrelevant since you don't have to worry about it with linux, but I still maintain that it's marginally more secure.

I will look into the openoffice stuff.

Windows isn't free. Not sure where you're trying to go with that one.

[Demophobe]

Alright...

This is a real misnomer: the comparison is not apples to apples. Its like comparing a Luxury Cadillac to a Lada with the same motor. They are both cars, but one is extremely comfortable and yes, perhaps slower off the light, and clearly the tiny, bare-bones Lada will be faster off the line. But the Caddy is loaded to the nuts with integrated options, while the Lada has a few things duct-taped on by some backyard mechanic haphazardly.

The Caddy almost drives itself and is extremely user-friendly, while the Lada is plagued by problems; it needs to be driven by a mechanic who knows all the quirks and quarks of the car.

The Lada owner claims his car is more secure when in truth, crime-loving citizens know that there is nothing inside that piece of crap worth taking, so they go for the Caddy. Besides, Ladas are harder to find than Caddys, so the lack of them added to their inherent lack of worth makes them utterly worthless to these citizens.

The Caddy has insurance and is sold by a reputable company, while the Ladas are distributed by nameless people out of backyards with no guarantees at all. When you get a Lada, you have to choose between things like having windows that open or seats that recline. Having a GPS on the dashboard or a rear-view mirror. you rarely can have all the options you want together, because each backyard distributor has different ideas about what you need. Each Lada is unique, but useful only to a particular small of drivers. There are Caddy accessory shops everywhere, and all accessories generally work; the shops selling crappy Caddy supplies are easily spotted. The Lada accessories are given away in backalleys or through mail-order, with no guarantee and with a good chance of being non-functional.

There are Caddy dealerships on every corner, and while they are a bit expensive, the quality assurance is there, while Ladasare free, come in the mail in an unmarked brown envelope, often with many parts not yet assembled, forcing the driver to locate the instruction manual (which often needs to be mailed for again) and spend a lot of time learning how to build their car. The Lada owner takes great pride in this; the knowledge they have gleaned from building their own car. What the Caddy owner does with the time, is drive around, wondering when the Lada owner will count their downtime into the "I am faster" equation.

Many Caddy owners do their own customizations, and the Caddy itself is quite changeable. Most Caddy owners are satisfied with the retail product, right out of the showroom, but the options exist for those who wish to customize. In reality, no two Caddys are the same, but all are initially similar, full of features and options.

But yes, the Lada owners screech off the line in their poorly built, option-less, ramshackle cars, but ultimately, it is the tortoise and the hare. The comfortable Caddy catches up soon enough, then waves to the Lada as it sits on the roadside, broken down as the owner frantically looks for the duct tape.

The Lada is secure in its crappyness. The Lada is fast in its light, featureless crappyness. The Lada is really a piece of crap. It will drive on certain roads and get you from A to B (in select situations), but with a bumpy, rattled ride that will leave the owner defensive (when he pulls up in his crappy car), and strangely proud to have arrived at the same spot the Caddy owner has been cruising to for years.

[JustJohn]

Hah. I liked the story, but do think you're severely exaggerating it.

At any rate, mine is driving just fine, and is not just faster, but has more features that I want, and less that I don't.


P.S.
Though the breaking down on the side of the road thing adds a nice touch to the story, Windows computers are more likely to break down. If there's a problem with linux it's getting it set up and working smoothly at the start.