|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yeah, but it's my definition that counts. And not just because I'm being a *beep* or something; it's because I was the one who introduced the phrase.
Thus, in this case "runs better" means "performs better" which you can loosely translate to "runs smoother" or "is faster" or whatever. If you want to debate functionality (did it last thread) it's a separate (or nearly separate) issue.
While I'm not quite the linux fanboy that I may be coming across as, and am ready and willing to recognize deficiencies that actually exist, I have to take exception to the "windows is light years ahead" remark. This is simply not true. Linux is the more progressive and in some ways already the more advanced OS.
The main advantage of windows at this point is that it is the standard development platform. While that is certainly an advantage to using windows, it is completely irrelevant to which system in and of itself is better or more advanced. I think you may be failing to make that distinction.
Last edited by JustJohn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
*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. |
Sigh yourself into hyperventilation, but if you think I am making concessions, you have clearly misunderstood what I said. And this goes around and around because Linux users can't get enough of it.
Windows needs more horsepower; with current pricing, it is cheaper than ever to build a powerful machine. It seems to make more sense for software to move forward with hardware than for software to attempt to stay years behind the hardware curve. Virtual Fighter runs like an absolute champ on my machine, but is that really news, surprising or worth mentioning?
Yeah, Linux is free - a big draw for some reason - but what are we, unemployed? So broke that we can't afford a small luxury like a robust OS on a modest machine? And yes, even a modest machine will run Vista well and chew through XP. So Vista is $300...we can use it for 5 to 7 years...not a bad return, I say. From the day I bought XP for nearly $300, I got 7 years out of it. .1 cents a day.
Saying that Linux performs better than XP on an old P4 says nothing; Windows 98 performs better as well, but it comparatively pales. To put a finer point on it: you cannot do everything on Linux that you can do on Windows XP/Vista and for the areas they do overlap, they are still miles apart. The MS office suite wipes the floor with OO and in fact, the only reason OO is around at all is due to it's compatibility with Office. If it were to try and do something completely unique or heaven forbid, proprietary, it would fossilize overnight.
Linux looks more and more like Windows as it 'improves'. If it ever makes it to a great minority, I guarantee it will simply act, look and feel like Windows. It is a marginal product for a reason. I admit that the great unwashed masses are a poor measure in many areas, but they do dictate supply and demand (in a sense) and there is no real big demand for Linux. Why? It isn't useful. It is broken in that it is incomplete; the terms add up to the same thing. One may say that Windows is a monetary behemoth; an unstoppable juggernaut. However, it wasn't always that way; Windows came from obscurity and is now in it's current state of domination because it is good. If it were so bad, why is nobody seriously stepping up to challenge it? Why isn't another company addressing all the issues and complaints and making something to challenge Windows in the market?
Now, stating that it has less viruses than Windows isn't a concession; it's illustrative of the fact that Linux is unimportant. My cell phone is the best because the battery has never exploded.
Linux is superfluous. Unnecessary. No single distro totally complete. A narrow platform, few choices and priced accordingly.
I wish it were better. I wish it supported more applications, more choices, games, a myriad of software. I wish it were robust and full of useful things that were optional to be used or disabled. I wish there was a myriad of people writing great software for it. I wish it had a far-reaching support network. I wish it had thoughtful designers, innovating and furthering it, making it useful for everyone from grandmas, to children to power users. I wish it were intuitive and fostered ease of use and productivity. All of that and stay free. When that happens, I will use it. Until then, save one in the list, that describes Windows.
A good question:
Why dual boot? Why run a dual boot of Linux<flavoroftheday> distro and XP or Vista? What does Linux offer that Windows doesn't?
Linux is just a toy, an ant farm, a chemistry set...play for a bit, but then back to reality.
Seriously....illustrate how Linux is more progressive, advanced or better than Windows. And, right....I am no fanboy either...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kprrok
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: KC
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
Yeah, but it's my definition that counts. And not just because I'm being a *beep* or something; it's because I was the one who introduced the phrase.
Thus, in this case "runs better" means "performs better" which you can loosely translate to "runs smoother" or "is faster" or whatever. If you want to debate functionality (did it last thread) it's a separate (or nearly separate) issue. |
So, speed is everything?
Would you take a free car that goes 200mph but has no doors, windows, brakes, radio, or air conditioning? Or would you like the car that has all of those things plus more, only goes 120mph, and you have to pay for it?
I bet you'll take the 2nd car.
KPRROK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Demo, I'll answer later as I don't have time right now. K, you're bringing up a separate issue (which I'll address in the next post).
If you want to talk about that issue it's fine, but I introduced the word "performance" and thus if there are multiple definitions it's the one I intended that is in use, and the one I intended is (yes) essentially "speed."
When I refer to performance I'm not saying speed is everything, I'm just saying that linux is faster. And faster "pound for pound" as well, not just because it's lighter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JungMin
Joined: 18 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just install Leopard and be done with it!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, I think my previous points still stand, and I'll add a couple things based on what you've said.
| Demophobe wrote: |
Yeah, Linux is free - a big draw for some reason - but what are we, unemployed? So broke that we can't afford a small luxury like a robust OS on a modest machine? And yes, even a modest machine will run Vista well and chew through XP. So Vista is $300...we can use it for 5 to 7 years...not a bad return, I say. From the day I bought XP for nearly $300, I got 7 years out of it. .1 cents a day. |
I think the non-crippled Vista versions are more like 400-600 dollars, but let's say 300 for the sake of argument. Say I want to buy a new system with a nice monitor but can't spend over 700. You've got 500 after the monitor. If you buy vista that's 200 left for all your hardware. Crap system. Run a free OS and you've got 500. Pretty decent system. It makes a huge difference for anyone not buying a top-end system. Hence the big draw.
| Quote: |
Saying that Linux performs better than XP on an old P4 says nothing; Windows 98 performs better as well, but it comparatively pales. To put a finer point on it: you cannot do everything on Linux that you can do on Windows XP/Vista and for the areas they do overlap, they are still miles apart. The MS office suite wipes the floor with OO and in fact, the only reason OO is around at all is due to it's compatibility with Office. If it were to try and do something completely unique or heaven forbid, proprietary, it would fossilize overnight. |
A bunch of random arguments. I'll address some further down, but most are due to existing Windows market share.
| Quote: |
Linux looks more and more like Windows as it 'improves'. If it ever makes it to a great minority, I guarantee it will simply act, look and feel like Windows. It is a marginal product for a reason. I admit that the great unwashed masses are a poor measure in many areas, but they do dictate supply and demand (in a sense) and there is no real big demand for Linux. Why? It isn't useful. It is broken in that it is incomplete; the terms add up to the same thing. One may say that Windows is a monetary behemoth; an unstoppable juggernaut. However, it wasn't always that way; Windows came from obscurity and is now in it's current state of domination because it is good. If it were so bad, why is nobody seriously stepping up to challenge it? Why isn't another company addressing all the issues and complaints and making something to challenge Windows in the market? |
I never said it wasn't good. I would even say it's very good on top-notch machines. The reason no one wants to compete is because Windows is an ingrained industry standard. You'd have to have something that blows windows out of the water to compete, and it's not poor enough that anyone can do that.
| Quote: |
Now, stating that it has less viruses than Windows isn't a concession; it's illustrative of the fact that Linux is unimportant. My cell phone is the best because the battery has never exploded. |
Unimportant or not, the point still stands.
| Quote: |
I wish it were better. I wish it supported more applications, more choices, games, a myriad of software. I wish it were robust and full of useful things that were optional to be used or disabled. I wish there was a myriad of people writing great software for it. I wish it had a far-reaching support network. I wish it had thoughtful designers, innovating and furthering it, making it useful for everyone from grandmas, to children to power users. I wish it were intuitive and fostered ease of use and productivity. All of that and stay free. When that happens, I will use it. Until then, save one in the list, that describes Windows. |
I would say it has most of that. I think at the very least the devs are a lot better than you seem to think.
| Quote: |
A good question:
Why dual boot? Why run a dual boot of Linux<flavoroftheday> distro and XP or Vista? What does Linux offer that Windows doesn't?
Seriously....illustrate how Linux is more progressive, advanced or better than Windows. |
Like I said before, Linux offers better performance, a more secure environment, and marginally better interface.
It's "better" than windows in those ways, and it's more advanced in terms of file system, user interface, modular capability and stability, and 3d desktop environment.
I admit there are still deficiencies, but linux is bleeding edge. Linux users have had a 3d desktop environment for years. Just introduced in Vista, the windows options are still behind what was available years ago in linux. Not only that, but if there's something missing from linux I can request that it be added and many times the feature will be available in a couple weeks. There's something rather appealing about being able to request features and getting them right away. You have to wait 7 years for microsoft, and they're a lot less likely to listen to you in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JungMin wrote: |
| Just install Leopard and be done with it!!! |
Leopard is definitely the best choice for a certain set of users. Namely, the people who want the advantages of linux and don't mind making the following trade:
a little perfomance
some tweakability
$100
being on bleeding edge
FOR
Telephone support
A little more streamlining in most cases
Much easier to configure very advanced options (though there aren't as many that can be changed) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[/quote]
Security companies have been saying, somewhat gleefully, that Macs will be attacked 'any time now' for the last four years. So I asked Ken if he thought Macs would come under attack ‘soon' , with the unprecedented growth in Mac sales.
"Yes, without a doubt ... hacks on Mac OSX have occurred this year and in the past few years already." But he conceded the number of incidents has remained much lower than for the other platforms.
Don't get me wrong - malware and viruses will find their way to Macintosh computers. If anything, Apple's capacity to annoy some dyed-in-the-wool PC users should be enough to inspire some serious efforts.
Then, of course, the malware authors would have to buy Macs ...the danger to them is that they then become Apple converts. There's already a widely held suspicion that many viruses for PCs are written on Macs in the first place, perhaps due to the CIA's endorsement a few years ago of Macs and OS X for their security reasons.
Ken reckons future attacks on Macs will come down to Apple marketing.
"If more people use Mac OSX as a platform for internet-facing or other critical servers," he says, "then more hackers will find it a viable target and will pay more attention to it. Linux was not a common target a decade ago but it has surpassed Windows as the most-hacked platform in Australia and around the world now."
It looks like Apple marketing could use TippingPoints figures to sell servers, if you ask me.
Incidentally, TippingPoint provides two solutions for Mac servers, including the Xserve - the TippingPoint Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and Network Access Control (NAC).
BTW, you can get Norton Anti-Virus for Mac - the latest version does not seem anywhere near as intrusive as older versions and it's way faster. It just doesn't really have any work to do, so far.
[quote]
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac-planet/2008/6/17/macs-and-hacks/?c_id=5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kprrok
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Location: KC
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
| I think the non-crippled Vista versions are more like 400-600 dollars, but let's say 300 for the sake of argument. Say I want to buy a new system with a nice monitor but can't spend over 700. You've got 500 after the monitor. If you buy vista that's 200 left for all your hardware. Crap system. Run a free OS and you've got 500. Pretty decent system. It makes a huge difference for anyone not buying a top-end system. Hence the big draw. |
Wow, this whole section just shows why discussing this with you is never gonna work.
If you've got $700 to spend on a new computer, you won't be spending $300 on Vista. You have two options...
1) Run to Dell, HP, or one of the big box stores and buy a complete system that will run what you want and have Vista and the monitor included. Or,
2) IF you're building your machine piece by piece, you'd never spend that much as you'd know all about the OEM copies that you can get for $100 or so. Also, if you're working on a budget and you're building yourself, you've probably got spare parts from old builds that you'll re-use. Thus, your whole argument falls to pieces....
I'm done.
KPRROK
EDIT: Here's the link so you can't claim I'm making the $100 price tag up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
I think the non-crippled Vista versions are more like 400-600 dollars, but let's say 300 for the sake of argument. Say I want to buy a new system with a nice monitor but can't spend over 700. You've got 500 after the monitor. If you buy vista that's 200 left for all your hardware. Crap system. Run a free OS and you've got 500. Pretty decent system. It makes a huge difference for anyone not buying a top-end system. Hence the big draw. |
Most pre-fabs come with an MS OS pre-installed and supply an OEM disk. Linux will require much re-training and a relatively high learning curve due to it's incompleteness and after all that, you have a very limited selection of software to choose from. You can't game either, and don't get me started on WINE lameness....
| JustJohn wrote: |
| I never said it wasn't good. I would even say it's very good on top-notch machines. The reason no one wants to compete is because Windows is an ingrained industry standard. You'd have to have something that blows windows out of the water to compete, and it's not poor enough that anyone can do that. |
"top notch" machines? Look, even you know that low-end machines can run XP (it is 7 years old) and the most modest modern system can handle Vista pretty well. Heck, if your hardware is so old it can't handle XP and you haven't the money to upgrade even to that low level, your OS is one of the last things you should worry about. Even the the much-maligned Vista isn't enough to move people to Linux...they just want to stick with XP.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Unimportant or not, the point still stands. |
Using this as a boon to Linux is pathetic...that was my deeper point. Useless=nobody uses it=no viruses=whatever, man.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| I would say it has most of that. I think at the very least the devs are a lot better than you seem to think. |
You can say what you want, but I talk with facts or more importantly here, evidence. I don't doubt the devs or anyone else involved, I have issue with the "final" product. They just.can't.get.it.together.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Like I said before, Linux offers better performance, a more secure environment, and marginally better interface. |
Not true, meaningless and subjective, in that order.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| It's "better" than windows in those ways, and it's more advanced in terms of file system, user interface, modular capability and stability, and 3d desktop environment. |
File system? Maybe...too bad that dude went loony. User interface? You're drunk...this is one of the many Linux Achilles heels. Are they still using command lines? Modular capability? Geekbleat. Stability? Well, there is certainly nothing going on to crash Linux, but I still can't concur...Windows XP and Vista are rock solid.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| I admit there are still deficiencies, but linux is bleeding edge. |
On P3s? Jeeezzz.....I think it bled out already.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Linux users have had a 3d desktop environment for years. Just introduced in Vista, the windows options are still behind what was available years ago in linux. |
Superfluous. I haven't mentioned anything about BS eye candy, but if you must...Vista looks great! Interestingly, MS was attacked by the Linux community for it's 'focus on eye candy'....guess that was yesterday, huh?
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Not only that, but if there's something missing from linux I can request that it be added and many times the feature will be available in a couple weeks. There's something rather appealing about being able to request features and getting them right away. You have to wait 7 years for microsoft, and they're a lot less likely to listen to you in the first place. |
There is nothing 'missing' from Vista or XP. If you mean some software, well, we know where this is going; the availability, scope and depth of software for the Windows platform is absolutely unbeatable. As for the changeability/customization of Windows, there are all manner of tweak softwares, shell integrations/extensions, registry alterations...all that and thank goodness for the vast Windows user community for the same thing....innovation.
If you like, double my cost calculation...make it $600. So, that means .2 cents per day. Get a job.
Last edited by Demophobe on Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:33 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm pretty sure Dem's running a "free" version of Vista Ultimate x64 sp1 as I am. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If you like, double my cost calculation...make it $600. So, that means .2 cents per day. Get a job. |
Couple decimals off, but the point stands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If you like, double my cost calculation...make it $600. So, that means .2 cents per day. Get a job. |
Couple decimals off, but the point stands. |
Its more than just the decimal points that are wrong, but I don't really care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interestingly, I inherited an old laptop recently.
P3 800, 256MB RAM. Very weak system....a perfect candidate for Linux, right?
Well....it runs XP nicely. I use it in class to play movies, MP3s, surf, Powerpoint, Word...pretty much what Linux can do.
Now, all of this is done right out of the box with no 3rd party software except some video codecs. Runs like a charm. Of course, I tweaked the services, but that is hardly elite stuff or going into areas of the OS that are off-limits...basic stuff.
Funny that nobody is complaining that games and other softwares have swollen far more than Windows.
Games are 8 to 10GB these days and the hardware requirements are generally pretty high. All manner of software is just getting bigger and bigger. Graphics drivers are 40 to 60MB! I dumped AVG free because of the bloat.
My point here being that an unaltered, out-of-the-box Windows installation flies along and it isn't until one starts loading it down with 3rd party software that it begins to slow at all.
I would love to see a Linux install, complete with everything that I need from a computer. It would choke.
However, everyone knows that this situation cannot be; Linux cannot supply the experience that I or the vast majority of computer users need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And the hostility begins... Not sure why you guys feel the need to get all worked up over an OS debate.
Anyway, to kpprok:
I have no idea how much the price goes up when you buy a computer with windows pre-installed but I do know that several companies including dell have been experimenting with selling ubuntu systems in their budget line for the exact reason I mentioned.
Not having been looking to buy Vista recently I didn't know OEM copies were readily available so I guess that's a good find, but I wouldn't want any Vista version other than "ultimate," and even with that version $100 can still make a significant difference in low-level hardware.
In summary, I acknowledge that it's probably not nearly that drastic of a difference, but the principal does hold at least to some degree.
To the linux being hacked article:
This is to be taken with a grain of salt for the time being. They didn't release the data and the same group has published false stories before. Even if it's true (still entirely possible of course) they were only doing servers in Australia, most of which are linux-based, so you would expect more attacks on the linux servers. Link me again when they have all the facts and I'll be more interested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
