Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mishlert]

Article here.

I use both and find that I can do most of the same stuff on either OS, but because of certain work related things I use Vista more.

[JustJohn]

For a normal computer user who's new to linux go Mandriva or openSUSE. For those a little braver go with Arch.

Ubuntu is way more popular than it should be, and I'm a little afraid that everyone will try it and think linux is much more mediocre than it really is.

[Leonidas]

Linux is over rated and requires too much maintenance/hassle for the average user. Nothing works out of the box, but with windows everything works strait away and there are absolutely no worries.

Windows
Mac
Linux

in that order.

[JustJohn]

Myth. Perpetuated by past problems/immature distros.




A bit slow, but very related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MR-nb_UFl0

[Demophobe]

[cj1976]

I've been playing around with Linux recently and I think it does have it's uses. My laptop is a bit old and it tends to slow down a lot using XP. I installed PCLinuxOS 2007 and it does run faster. Because my laptop is only used for web-browsing, the odd media application and office programs, Linux is definitely good enough.
I wouldn't bother using Linux as my main OS simply because my PC is powerful enough to run Vista quite smoothly.

[JustJohn]

Aye, we've been over this before. All the "too much of a pain" issues have been almost completely resolved except in fledgling distros.

And, (as we concluded before) it's true that if you gave a brand new top of the line system then there are only mild incentives (free, no viruses, marginally better interface, a couple desktop tricks) that may not offset the drawbacks (less hardware and software compatibility, only a couple mainstream games, some advance tasks still require editing configs or running command lines).


However, as cj discovered, most linux distros are far more efficient than windows. This means that the vast majority of PCs out there right now will run significantly better with linux.

[Demophobe]

[JustJohn]

Efficient means better use of system resources. That in turn means speed. But you know all that, so I'm a little confused why you're asking.

Anyway, you'll notice cj said the PCLOS distro runs faster than XP on his computer, which surprised even me since PCLOS is not a "light" distro. For something that comes loaded heavier than XP to outperform it definitely indicates better "efficiency" in the sense that I mean.


If you want to create a technical definition I suppose I mean

(tasks accomplished)x(performance) = (efficiency)

[mrsquirrel]

[Hater Depot]

Ubuntu isn't the greatest thing ever and many aspects of it are confusing for novice computer users, but it is a lot faster than XP, programs crash less often and when they do crash the OS handles it more gracefully. I really appreciate all of that. But still, some things about it are really pointlessly difficult or near-impossible, like manually installing fonts.

[rocklee]

I say give Ubuntu a chance or at least follow up on its progress. It works well with older computers and feels quite smooth too. Just that when it comes to tweaking the desktop, it is still nowhere near as easy as XP.

I'm hoping that Linux will make better use of internet technologies and make the desktop more "internet-like" than just a desktop. Using touchscreen as an interface would definitely make things more interesting.

XP on my system is bogging my computer down every now and then. I hope to run Linux completely on my next system and virtual install XP or Vista for Windows stuff.

[Demophobe]

It's free. -> So it should be. Its broken and/or incomplete.

It runs well on older systems. -> Because it has limited functionality and serves as a narrow platform for software. It can't do much, so why should it need much power?

It's getting better. -> Compensatory, illustrative of it's deficiencies.

XP bogs down my system. -> Your system is below what Windows requires. Upgrade, tweak or don't use Windows.

It's more efficient. -> Subjective statement, user dependent.

It's virus-free. -> There are no viruses due to Linux being highly marginal.

Better interface. -> Subjective statement, user dependent.

PCs will run significantly better with Linux. -> Empty statement due to non-specificity.

[JustJohn]

*sigh*

We've been over this already, and I believe I offered specific examples last time so if anyone wants to see them they can dig up that thread. In short:

1. It's no where near broken. You could make an argument for "incomplete" but you could make similar arguments about windows.

2. You concede

3. Nothing is perfect. Windows certainly isn't. Linux is improving faster, (you could argue that windows is getting worse even) which means that if the trend continues it will be better eventually even if it isn't yet.

4. Or upgrade to linux for free, no hardware upgrade required.

5. As I've said before, more efficient means better performance, and performance is NOT subjective. Faster is faster. Period.

6. You concede

7. You are correct, this one is subjective unless the difference is drastic, which it is not.

8. We have a specific example within this very thread. The man says his computer is faster on linux.

[kprrok]

Let's look at part of the problem here....

PCs will run significantly better with linux.