Linux vs. Linux Users(shamusyoung.com)
shamusyoung.com
Linux vs. Linux Users
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=20339
7 comments
Google Cache https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.sh...
You didnt meet upon Linux users, I doubt that highly, it seems the comments you got were from people who had a wish to use Linux or perhaps tried it out as a LiveCD/Wubi installation and felt they were on top of the world. Some kind of teenager fanboys.
Of all the quite many Linux users I know none would be interested in your, quite funny, article. Its just no on the radar to be interested in such articles if youve been using Linux for more than two-three months.
The problem is this fanboism and making choice of OS some kind of life-style choice and then we have flamewars like in Month Pythons Life of Brian when "Peoples Liberation party and "party for Peoples Liberation" fight.
Of all the quite many Linux users I know none would be interested in your, quite funny, article. Its just no on the radar to be interested in such articles if youve been using Linux for more than two-three months.
The problem is this fanboism and making choice of OS some kind of life-style choice and then we have flamewars like in Month Pythons Life of Brian when "Peoples Liberation party and "party for Peoples Liberation" fight.
That's a whole lot of "No True Scottsman". Just because you don't know individuals like this personally doesn't mean they're not part of the community.
Honestly this kind of denialism ("You didn't meet Linux users, I doubt that highly") gives me the same impression as the people rabidly defending Linux while not even noticing the article is satire.
If you really don't feel there is some problem with the Linux community, you probably aren't spending enough time acting as a member. All the Linux users I know personally would react reasonably to this article. Also all the Linux people I know would probably enjoy reading this article since it's funny.
With that said I don't feel this is a Linux-specific issue. There are many communities that have problems seeming hostile over seemingly insignificant reasons. As a person who likes to try and help people, it makes me upset to watch almost 100% of questions in programming IRC channels get bogged down in a ridiculous never-ending trail of condescending "Why?" questions. Linux elitism and condescending IRC help and etc. are all the norm for tech people but stuff like this will help turn away new participants as fast as anything else. In other communities I see people getting vitriolic over music genres or art styles.
As you mention, there are tons of smart, sensible Linux users, just like there are tons of helpful programmers. But invariably, the angriest or most opinionated people in a community will start posting the most and will end up making their entire scene look a little uglier. Sites like HN that incorporate user moderation are helping. The other thing that helps is simply when more level-headed and polite people put themselves out there to push their semi-neutral agendas. I know I personally have stopped a few "Why are you even THINKING about that!?" trains by simply answering the user's original question when I was able.
If you really don't feel there is some problem with the Linux community, you probably aren't spending enough time acting as a member. All the Linux users I know personally would react reasonably to this article. Also all the Linux people I know would probably enjoy reading this article since it's funny.
With that said I don't feel this is a Linux-specific issue. There are many communities that have problems seeming hostile over seemingly insignificant reasons. As a person who likes to try and help people, it makes me upset to watch almost 100% of questions in programming IRC channels get bogged down in a ridiculous never-ending trail of condescending "Why?" questions. Linux elitism and condescending IRC help and etc. are all the norm for tech people but stuff like this will help turn away new participants as fast as anything else. In other communities I see people getting vitriolic over music genres or art styles.
As you mention, there are tons of smart, sensible Linux users, just like there are tons of helpful programmers. But invariably, the angriest or most opinionated people in a community will start posting the most and will end up making their entire scene look a little uglier. Sites like HN that incorporate user moderation are helping. The other thing that helps is simply when more level-headed and polite people put themselves out there to push their semi-neutral agendas. I know I personally have stopped a few "Why are you even THINKING about that!?" trains by simply answering the user's original question when I was able.
Linux users are no better (or worse) than the average human, in my experience. There will always be those who use it because it's trendy (in certain circles), iconoclastic, or quirky. There will always be those who are incapable of conceiving that reasonable people could differ in preference and will lash out at those whose preference differs from theirs.
And there will always be people who see an article on /. or reddit and will go leave an incendiary comment on a weblog after having only read the title.
I think this is less of a commentary on Linux users than on Humanity.
And there will always be people who see an article on /. or reddit and will go leave an incendiary comment on a weblog after having only read the title.
I think this is less of a commentary on Linux users than on Humanity.
Quote from cached version of OA
"Windows 8 is a mess and while Windows 7 is pretty spiffy, it’s also a hundred dollars. Given the shape of the economy right now, lots of people would probably be willing to endure a bit of a learning curve to save that kind of money."
The economic advantages of Linux/BSD based operating systems include the ability to use older hardware for longer and free/libre application software that may be adequate depending on use cases as well as the operating system itself. I would estimate significant savings over the years even though I have donated several times the cost of an OEM Windows 7 DVD to Ubuntu and other projects.
Of course, 'lots of people' will be using non-Windows systems as they move to [tablets|chrome-book like laptops|Android based desktops when available] over the next few years. Based on a colleague fluidly demonstrating her Samsung Galaxy Tab the other day, they won't need much hand-holding!
Negative comments on blogs? Perhaps not a surprise [1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
"Windows 8 is a mess and while Windows 7 is pretty spiffy, it’s also a hundred dollars. Given the shape of the economy right now, lots of people would probably be willing to endure a bit of a learning curve to save that kind of money."
The economic advantages of Linux/BSD based operating systems include the ability to use older hardware for longer and free/libre application software that may be adequate depending on use cases as well as the operating system itself. I would estimate significant savings over the years even though I have donated several times the cost of an OEM Windows 7 DVD to Ubuntu and other projects.
Of course, 'lots of people' will be using non-Windows systems as they move to [tablets|chrome-book like laptops|Android based desktops when available] over the next few years. Based on a colleague fluidly demonstrating her Samsung Galaxy Tab the other day, they won't need much hand-holding!
Negative comments on blogs? Perhaps not a surprise [1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
> The economic advantages of Linux/BSD based operating systems include the ability to use older hardware for longer
Totally untrue in my experience, unless you want to use something as minimal as gentoo/archlinux, and that's not for everyone (and even then, low-level stuff like sub-optimal drivers might byte you).
Windows XP is still the champ here, and I believe in many cases 7 does as least as good a job as most popular distros (Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora/...).
Totally untrue in my experience, unless you want to use something as minimal as gentoo/archlinux, and that's not for everyone (and even then, low-level stuff like sub-optimal drivers might byte you).
Windows XP is still the champ here, and I believe in many cases 7 does as least as good a job as most popular distros (Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora/...).
If you compare XP to the latest Ubuntu, then yeah you'd have a point. But you're also comparing a decade old OS against one of the latest compositing desktop environments sat on top of one of the most bloated Linux distros; which is hardly a fair comparison.
Plus as time moves on, fewer and fewer software will support XP. Where as distros like Puppy will support all the latest browsers, have the latest security fixes and still have a lower hardware footprint (disk space, RAM, CPU, etc).
Plus as time moves on, fewer and fewer software will support XP. Where as distros like Puppy will support all the latest browsers, have the latest security fixes and still have a lower hardware footprint (disk space, RAM, CPU, etc).
I'm not comparing XP to Ubuntu. A few years ago I experimented with a Pentium 3. XP beat "mid-level" Linux distributions handily. Mid-level distributions would be something like http://www.zenwalk.org/, typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE). Note how they advertise for speed on the front page.
I also owned a first-generation netbook, and there XP was better than Puppy, Slax, etc...
I also owned a first-generation netbook, and there XP was better than Puppy, Slax, etc...
> "I'm not comparing XP to Ubuntu. A few years ago I experimented with a Pentium 3. XP beat "mid-level" Linux distributions handily. Mid-level distributions would be something like http://www.zenwalk.org/, typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE). Note how they advertise for speed on the front page."
The problem here is you're just quoting anecdotal evidence - which is pretty much worthless. There's nothing to say what the specs of the systems were, what your usage was, nor any post-install optimisations (eg since you're familiar with Windows I'd wager that you weren't running a vanilla install of XP - instead disabling themes and such like to streamline the OS. But you were probably still running a vanilla build of stripping XP down to it's minimal components while running a vanilla versions of those other Linux distros).
To further prove how useless anecdotal evidence is, I wiped my wife's old laptop and installed Xubuntu and saw some marked speed improvements - despite Xubuntu having desktop compositing and such like enabled (which wasn't enabled in Windows). I've also replaced two offices full of Windows CE thin clients with Linux - same hardware, but instead of WinCE (which is as minimal as Windows gets), it's running ArchLinux with LXDE.
So we can all quote the "upgrades" that we've done, but without offering any real details such stories are worthless (and the results would be mostly down to whichever OS your most familiar with anyway - as you'll know how to tweak it's performance). Which is why the majority of my point was about the age of XP (and the issues that gives in terms of security and support) vs running the latest version of Linux. At lest with that, we can evidence our arguments.
> "typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE)"
XFCE isn't actually that lightweight. I mean, it's often used as a lightweight alternative to KDE, GNOME and such like, but they're pretty beefy / bloated desktop environments. If you wanted something lightweight then you would have been better off with LXDE, E17 or any of the numerous window managers. But this goes back to my point about it being easier to for you to run a low footprint version of Windows because you're more familiar with that - and thus how worthless anecdotal evidence is because of that bias.
> "I also owned a first-generation netbook, and there XP was better than Puppy, Slax, etc..."
Well that's definitely not true because the 1st generation netbooks were ASUS EeePCs and they were all Linux (Xandros to be precise). XP wouldn't even run on the netbooks originally. Microsoft had to push through changes to XP's code and licences after the netbook market started to take off out of worry that Linux might grab a chunk of Windows's market. And I remember this vividly because not only does my wife have a 1st generation EeePC, but I remember the Linux fanboys proclaiming that netbooks marked the "year of the Linux desktop" (which sadly never happened due to Microsoft subsidising Windows so massively that Linux netbooks actually worked out more expensive in comparison).
The problem here is you're just quoting anecdotal evidence - which is pretty much worthless. There's nothing to say what the specs of the systems were, what your usage was, nor any post-install optimisations (eg since you're familiar with Windows I'd wager that you weren't running a vanilla install of XP - instead disabling themes and such like to streamline the OS. But you were probably still running a vanilla build of stripping XP down to it's minimal components while running a vanilla versions of those other Linux distros).
To further prove how useless anecdotal evidence is, I wiped my wife's old laptop and installed Xubuntu and saw some marked speed improvements - despite Xubuntu having desktop compositing and such like enabled (which wasn't enabled in Windows). I've also replaced two offices full of Windows CE thin clients with Linux - same hardware, but instead of WinCE (which is as minimal as Windows gets), it's running ArchLinux with LXDE.
So we can all quote the "upgrades" that we've done, but without offering any real details such stories are worthless (and the results would be mostly down to whichever OS your most familiar with anyway - as you'll know how to tweak it's performance). Which is why the majority of my point was about the age of XP (and the issues that gives in terms of security and support) vs running the latest version of Linux. At lest with that, we can evidence our arguments.
> "typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE)"
XFCE isn't actually that lightweight. I mean, it's often used as a lightweight alternative to KDE, GNOME and such like, but they're pretty beefy / bloated desktop environments. If you wanted something lightweight then you would have been better off with LXDE, E17 or any of the numerous window managers. But this goes back to my point about it being easier to for you to run a low footprint version of Windows because you're more familiar with that - and thus how worthless anecdotal evidence is because of that bias.
> "I also owned a first-generation netbook, and there XP was better than Puppy, Slax, etc..."
Well that's definitely not true because the 1st generation netbooks were ASUS EeePCs and they were all Linux (Xandros to be precise). XP wouldn't even run on the netbooks originally. Microsoft had to push through changes to XP's code and licences after the netbook market started to take off out of worry that Linux might grab a chunk of Windows's market. And I remember this vividly because not only does my wife have a 1st generation EeePC, but I remember the Linux fanboys proclaiming that netbooks marked the "year of the Linux desktop" (which sadly never happened due to Microsoft subsidising Windows so massively that Linux netbooks actually worked out more expensive in comparison).
Well, it is anecdotal, never claimed otherwise. I did not do particular optimizations on XP however. I was just much more responsive out of the box.
I also agree XFCE isn't really lightweight - but it's included in a helluva lot of things that describe themselves as lightweight and target older machines.
Maybe we can say the netbook was second generation then. It was an Acer Aspire One. I think you could choose between a weird crippled Linux or a Windows install. Or maybe it was dual-boot? I installed a fresh copy to get rid of the crapware anyway.
I also agree XFCE isn't really lightweight - but it's included in a helluva lot of things that describe themselves as lightweight and target older machines.
Maybe we can say the netbook was second generation then. It was an Acer Aspire One. I think you could choose between a weird crippled Linux or a Windows install. Or maybe it was dual-boot? I installed a fresh copy to get rid of the crapware anyway.
> "I also agree XFCE isn't really lightweight - but it's included in a helluva lot of things that describe themselves as lightweight and target older machines."
It's a matter of context. XFCE is usually shipped as a lightweight yet highly configurable alternative to the feature-rich desktop environments (DE) such as KDE and GNOME. Which it is. But that's only relative to the resources that it's peers consume. However in the last 5 or 6 years LXDE has come on the scene - which is even even more stripped down than XFCE was and as LXDE has a strong focus on modularization, it's even easier to run a low-footprint LXDE desktop. But as it's a relatively recent DE, it's not been a distro default-choice until recently.
There's also E17 (enlightenment) which has been around for donkey's years yet oddly seems to draw very little attention despite it's impressive performance. Not sure why that is, but if I had to guess - it might be because it's aesthetics is a little more individual so switching between different toolkits in E17 can be a touch more jarring and harder to unify.
However if you want really low footprint, then you need to run purely window manager instead of a full desktop environment. But they're less intuitive, less pretty and just generally another class of UI.
So there's a reason why XFCE is (or was) the low footprint DE of choice.
> "Maybe we can say the netbook was second generation then. It was an Acer Aspire One. I think you could choose between a weird crippled Linux or a Windows install. Or maybe it was dual-boot? I installed a fresh copy to get rid of the crapware anyway."
You might have a 1st generation Acer netbook then. But Acer weren't the first to market with netbooks. I think they were a full year behind ASUS's EeePCs (and even further behind similar devices aimed at different markets - such as the OLPC).
It's a matter of context. XFCE is usually shipped as a lightweight yet highly configurable alternative to the feature-rich desktop environments (DE) such as KDE and GNOME. Which it is. But that's only relative to the resources that it's peers consume. However in the last 5 or 6 years LXDE has come on the scene - which is even even more stripped down than XFCE was and as LXDE has a strong focus on modularization, it's even easier to run a low-footprint LXDE desktop. But as it's a relatively recent DE, it's not been a distro default-choice until recently.
There's also E17 (enlightenment) which has been around for donkey's years yet oddly seems to draw very little attention despite it's impressive performance. Not sure why that is, but if I had to guess - it might be because it's aesthetics is a little more individual so switching between different toolkits in E17 can be a touch more jarring and harder to unify.
However if you want really low footprint, then you need to run purely window manager instead of a full desktop environment. But they're less intuitive, less pretty and just generally another class of UI.
So there's a reason why XFCE is (or was) the low footprint DE of choice.
> "Maybe we can say the netbook was second generation then. It was an Acer Aspire One. I think you could choose between a weird crippled Linux or a Windows install. Or maybe it was dual-boot? I installed a fresh copy to get rid of the crapware anyway."
You might have a 1st generation Acer netbook then. But Acer weren't the first to market with netbooks. I think they were a full year behind ASUS's EeePCs (and even further behind similar devices aimed at different markets - such as the OLPC).
I will combat your anecdotal evidence with some of my own - I've put Linux Mint XFCE on some friends and my girlfriend's laptops, and they tell me constantly how much faster and nicer it is.
[deleted]
Windows XP was designed for the Pentium 3. It's not quite surprising that it runs better on it than the latest linux kernel.
> unless you want to use something as minimal as gentoo/archlinux, and that's not for everyone
I don't actually understand why wouldn't anyone use a minimal distro like Arch on any hardware. You would be surprised just how lightweight a full featured desktop environment like KDE can be on Arch/Gentoo.
I don't actually understand why wouldn't anyone use a minimal distro like Arch on any hardware. You would be surprised just how lightweight a full featured desktop environment like KDE can be on Arch/Gentoo.
I use Arch at work. It's great and all, but I haven't really seen too much ROI (in installation & configuration) vs. using something like Mint and simply swapping out the tiling window manager.
By 'older hardware' I meant a couple of years old, maybe five.
I take your point about (I'm guessing) an 800MHz P3 with 256Mb. I'd use AntiX for something in that range as I am a bit lazy. But I could still get use from it.
I take your point about (I'm guessing) an 800MHz P3 with 256Mb. I'd use AntiX for something in that range as I am a bit lazy. But I could still get use from it.
Try Lubuntu or Debian. Windows XP can not even be installed on many systems today (no cd, no internet access, no time to search drivers..)
I mentionned Debian in my comment as a poor example of performance. Drivers are more an issue on Linux than Windows (in my experience, your mileage may vary). As for install, I install Windows from USB key, there a lot of software out there that do this for you (similar to what UNetBootin does for Linux).
> Negative comments on blogs? Perhaps not a surprise [1] > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
Obligatory comic response: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Obligatory comic response: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
> Negative comments on blogs? Perhaps not a surprise [1]
It's up to the blog owner to foster a polite and interesting atmosphere. If he's approving the cranks, idiots, and ranters, then he only has himself to blame.
It's up to the blog owner to foster a polite and interesting atmosphere. If he's approving the cranks, idiots, and ranters, then he only has himself to blame.
What does he expect? He clearly thinks Windows is a better operating system, and it shows.
Okay, I'm kidding. I've tried some comedy stuff as a hobby and quickly realized that no matter how obvious to you think the jokes are -- hell, you probably think you're making it too blindingly obvious -- someone won't get it. They simply aren't your target audience. Maybe if you filled them with memes or rage comics it would communicate "hey there doofus, this is a joke!" But you'd lose the very people you're trying to target.
The people that appreciate a slight turn of phrase or subtle, dry wit don't much cross over with the those who find least common denominator humor funny. Oh well.
Okay, I'm kidding. I've tried some comedy stuff as a hobby and quickly realized that no matter how obvious to you think the jokes are -- hell, you probably think you're making it too blindingly obvious -- someone won't get it. They simply aren't your target audience. Maybe if you filled them with memes or rage comics it would communicate "hey there doofus, this is a joke!" But you'd lose the very people you're trying to target.
The people that appreciate a slight turn of phrase or subtle, dry wit don't much cross over with the those who find least common denominator humor funny. Oh well.
I seem to remember something about trolls trolling trolls.
You get these kind of cranks for anything. Unless he's compared with a control article where he's equally dumb about a different subject I wouldn't read anything into it.
He did compare it to a "control article". A few in fact. And his article in question wasn't "dumb" - it was just satire which a bunch of kids misinterpreted as being "dumb".
In fact your post is somewhat ironic because the article was about exactly that kind of negative knee-jerk reaction where commenters are quick to jump on the offensive without stopping to think about what they just read.
In fact your post is somewhat ironic because the article was about exactly that kind of negative knee-jerk reaction where commenters are quick to jump on the offensive without stopping to think about what they just read.
>He did compare it to a "control article". A few in fact.
Were any of those he compared to ones where he was deliberately being dumb and wrong about something?
>And his article in question wasn't "dumb" - it was just satire which a bunch of kids misinterpreted as being "dumb".
Shrug. Poe's law. Or, as 4chan puts it, "ironic shitposting is still shitposting".
Were any of those he compared to ones where he was deliberately being dumb and wrong about something?
>And his article in question wasn't "dumb" - it was just satire which a bunch of kids misinterpreted as being "dumb".
Shrug. Poe's law. Or, as 4chan puts it, "ironic shitposting is still shitposting".
This. Just imagine the <expletive>storm if he did that with Apple products instead of Linux.
Seems to be down. Mirror?
It's essentially just a rant at OS fanboys who post knee-jerk reactions without stopping to think about the context of the post they're irritated by.
I feel for the author, I really do. He posted some rather obvious satire about Windows vs Linux and then faced the wrath of the brain-dead as numerous zealots took to site -and e-mail- to send profanities. But what the author misses is that this tribal behavior happens with all OSs and has been the case for many years. Sadly this is nothing new nor unique to his incident.
While it's easier said than done, sometimes it's better to just ignore the hate and silently moderate the worst comments (or better yet, close the comments on that article and let the haters have their flamewars somewhere else)
I feel for the author, I really do. He posted some rather obvious satire about Windows vs Linux and then faced the wrath of the brain-dead as numerous zealots took to site -and e-mail- to send profanities. But what the author misses is that this tribal behavior happens with all OSs and has been the case for many years. Sadly this is nothing new nor unique to his incident.
While it's easier said than done, sometimes it's better to just ignore the hate and silently moderate the worst comments (or better yet, close the comments on that article and let the haters have their flamewars somewhere else)