The Four Different Types of Linux Users


Recommended Posts

wickedlester

I would say I am a linux advocate. I do multi-boot though. I am dedicated to archlinux since 2004, but I also have another arch install for testing and a few more partitions for playing with different distros and bsd's and then I have windows 7 installed and love it also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen

Yes, I see what you mean. I was reading the alien website and this issue was raised. I've pretty much stuck with Ubuntu, and that's made things easy, but I agree with you and others who call for more consistency. I don't know that it's going to happen, though, given that Linux distros don't have a central authority.

There is a standards group, the LSB. RPM format is the standard format - all distros that are LSB-compliant will be able to read those.

As far as individual distros, that is what the package manager and the repositories are for. The end user just uses their package manager and gets installs and updates through there - without caring if the package is in RPM or DEB format or such.

It is *not* normal activity in Linux to Google a software app and find an "install" file to download. That is the way that Windows users think, though, so they often expect this on Linux. Just search your package manager (like the GUI front-end, synaptic) or browse it like a supermarket, since software packages are organized by types and function. Click to select, and apply to install.

Once installed via the package manager, your apps will always be updated. The same thing does NOT apply to any RPM/DEB file you randomly google and directly add.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+John Teacake

Dual Booter here :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prince Charming

What, no Windows Troll option?

Link to post
Share on other sites
VII7

Based on those description, none of the above. I'm a neutralist, I can be an advocate for all distributions or against all distributions... depending on the subject or the opinions of a specific situation.

Guess this definition would be more suited for me:

...a person that feels no emotional ties to FOSS/Linux, but I also don't agree with Apple, Microsoft monopole.

...use Linux because I like it more for certain tasks, if Windows or OSX was better suited for the task, then they would be using that instead.

...still keep Windows around because I also like to play some games occasionally (5 months could pass till I feel like trying a certain tile) or because I need to use a piece of Windows software that does not have a decent FOSS/Linux alternative as of yet.

...someone who knows their way around the computer or get their hands dirty with a bit of terminal code to get their system up and running.

...realize at the same time that the entire world does not work in this manner (although it would be great if it did). They are typically willing to use restricted codecs and closed source video drivers to get the performance and functionality they need out of their system.

While it is not uncommon for them to recommend Linux to their family and friends, most times they will even help them get it setup, they realize that some people are happy with Windows and they acknowledge this.

...If their hardware does not work right "out of the box" on their favorite distro they are willing to spend hours to get it working.

...so what those that make me?! :unsure: In any case, not something Jeff Hoogland could define... Guess neutralists are rarely acknowledged. :shiftyninja:

What, no Windows Troll option?

Trolls are not worth mentioning. If you didn't notice -Linux, OS X trolls are also missing. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barney T.

Linux Advocate here! (Y)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshie

There is a standards group, the LSB. RPM format is the standard format - all distros that are LSB-compliant will be able to read those.

As far as individual distros, that is what the package manager and the repositories are for. The end user just uses their package manager and gets installs and updates through there - without caring if the package is in RPM or DEB format or such.

It is *not* normal activity in Linux to Google a software app and find an "install" file to download. That is the way that Windows users think, though, so they often expect this on Linux. Just search your package manager (like the GUI front-end, synaptic) or browse it like a supermarket, since software packages are organized by types and function. Click to select, and apply to install.

Once installed via the package manager, your apps will always be updated. The same thing does NOT apply to any RPM/DEB file you randomly google and directly add.

One can argue that this is a terrible method, however. This is the reality of how you get software in Linux:

1) "Hey, I could use a program that does ____."

2) Use your favorite search engine to look up what kind of software would be good for that.

3) Compare people's opinions and the features of your options to decide which program(s) to download and try.

4) Minimize your browser, open your package manager. Wait for it to initialize.

5) Search for the program in your package manager. If you find it, go to (9).

6) Go back to your browser, go to the website of whoever makes the program.

7) Add whatever repository it instructs for finding the program in your package manager.

8) Refresh package manager. Go to (5).

9) Install program.

In Windows OR Mac (this is NOT simply where people can say "Linux isn't Windows!"), this is how you get software:

1) "Hey, I could use a program that does ____."

2) Use your favorite search engine to look up what kind of software would be good for that.

3) Compare people's opinions and the features of your options to decide which program(s) to download and try.

4) Download and try them.

So, uh, nyah. I don't think it's unreasonable to enjoy the option of installing software that way. Why not an executable package that both installs the app and automatically adds the necessary info to your package manager so it can, from that point on, be updated automatically? Seriously, it's called USABILITY. And it will go a long way toward making Linux a good desktop alternative. Until this is possible, and as long as people say "the hard way is JUST FINE thank you very much", Linux will never go beyond the server and enthusiast. Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
...

So, uh, nyah. I don't think it's unreasonable to enjoy the option of installing software that way. Why not an executable package that both installs the app and automatically adds the necessary info to your package manager so it can, from that point on, be updated automatically? Seriously, it's called USABILITY. And it will go a long way toward making Linux a good desktop alternative. Until this is possible, and as long as people say "the hard way is JUST FINE thank you very much", Linux will never go beyond the server and enthusiast. Sorry.

meh. That is just your justification for a platform that lacks package management. Fine, for you, if you don't mind chasing after updates for every single bit of software on your PC. Sure, some now include code to do this. Now you have a system loaded with apps, and several (but by no means a majority) include auto-updates, but each has to code their own update software. You cannot schedule this as one event on your system.

What a mess! (in my opinion, of course, having used Windows only for 15 years) But if you think that overall system updates are easier in Windows, who am I to change your mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid Knight

meh. That is just your justification for a platform that lacks package management. Fine, for you, if you don't mind chasing after updates for every single bit of software on your PC. Sure, some now include code to do this. Now you have a system loaded with apps, and several (but by no means a majority) include auto-updates, but each has to code their own update software. You cannot schedule this as one event on your system.

What a mess! (in my opinion, of course, having used Windows only for 15 years) But if you think that overall system updates are easier in Windows, who am I to change your mind?

All easier until:

Your distro or any distro doesn't offer the software you want.

Your distro doesn't offer the most recent version.

The software isn't in a third party repository.

The software you want isn't packaged for your distro.

The software you want is only available via source.

Personally, I'd rather spend a few minutes updating my applications by hand than dealing with the conflicting libraries problems in Linux where one package requires a different version of some system library but upgrading that system library breaks something else.

And of course, there are third party applications to handle application updates in Windows. For some reason Linux advocates seem to think that if it isn't offered by Microsoft then it doesn't count as they tend to ignore third party solutions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshie

meh. That is just your justification for a platform that lacks package management. Fine, for you, if you don't mind chasing after updates for every single bit of software on your PC. Sure, some now include code to do this. Now you have a system loaded with apps, and several (but by no means a majority) include auto-updates, but each has to code their own update software. You cannot schedule this as one event on your system.

What a mess! (in my opinion, of course, having used Windows only for 15 years) But if you think that overall system updates are easier in Windows, who am I to change your mind?

lol, dude, you quoted a paragraph where I went out of my way to point out that a package could configure itself into your package manager, and then complained about chasing after updates. Come on, we're all fighting a losing battle against carpal tunnel syndrome here. Don't waste your fingers bringing up a 'problem' with my argument that my argument specifically addressed.

BTW, this is one of my major criticisms of the Linux community mindset:

It is *not* normal activity in Linux...

I should've pointed this out earlier when you said it. See, yeah, that's sort of the point of 'suggestions'. That's the point of 'criticisms'. When there's something Linux doesn't do, and someone thinks "Hey, it'd be cool if Linux did this," they should be allowed to speak up. If person A says "It'd be cool if Linux does this," and person B says "Linux doesn't DO that," person B sounds like a dang fool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen

^^^ (solid knight) Seriously, how often are you installing new applications? Do you add a new application daily? Weekly? Every month?

I haven't needed any new apps in a while. I added Chrome browser a while ago. Before that, I don't know how long it has been. But I keep updated daily (that is my updater setting).

For me, keeping current updates and bugfixes are important. Installing a new app I don't already have? Maybe once a year?

If you like to install every app someone talks about, then I guess you would have more of a focus on installing apps over keeping updated. But you really OUGHT to be concerned about updates! After adding in all of these new apps, you just have more apps to manually check to see if there are updates.

And let me ask you, do you have a list of every bit of software on your PC that does not update itself? If you add apps in monthly, that's got to be one heck of a list, and will take you a while to visit each vendor's website periodically to see if they have a bugfix released.

Again, that's your choice, based on your needs.

lol, dude, you quoted a paragraph where I went out of my way to point out that a package could configure itself into your package manager, and then complained about chasing after updates. Come on, we're all fighting a losing battle against carpal tunnel syndrome here. Don't waste your fingers bringing up a 'problem' with my argument that my argument specifically addressed.

dude. That's already done by good package writers. I think google's Chrome did that. Other deb file click-to-installers will add the repo to your list.

Your point wasn't ignored. I agree with it, and it is already done by some. I agree more should do it. I don't normally write paragraphs just to say I agree, but I can if you like. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RealFduch

How would you call experienced Windows and *nix programmer who doesn't like Linux and hates FOSS extremists?

Just to prove I have a bit of Linux knowledge: I managed to install Gentoo (not Gentoo Linux, just Gentoo) on my Vista machine from source and successfully emerged working XFCE (yes, I had a working X server on Windows).

Why I hate Linux? It's just love turned sour. I like many general ideas behind free and community driven software. And this is why I hate Stallman, FOSS extremists, some Linux developers/maintainers and most of the visible/audible part of FOSS community. I hate them all for corrupting, tainting, raping those ideals and dreams. "Embrace. Extend. Extingiush." is the right description of what they really do from my point of view.

I have no problems with general Linux users though. And I like the developers of (decent) free/open source software.

That's how I roll =)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stetson

How would you call experienced Windows and *nix programmer who doesn't like Linux and hates FOSS extremists?

Just to prove I have a bit of Linux knowledge: I managed to install Gentoo (not Gentoo Linux, just Gentoo) on my Vista machine from source and successfully emerged working XFCE (yes, I had a working X server on Windows).

Why I hate Linux? It's just love turned sour. I like many general ideas behind free and community driven software. And this is why I hate Stallman, FOSS extremists, some Linux developers/maintainers and most of the visible/audible part of FOSS community. I hate them all for corrupting, tainting, raping those ideals and dreams. "Embrace. Extend. Extingiush." is the right description of what they really do from my point of view.

I have no problems with general Linux users though. And I like the developers of (decent) free/open source software.

That's how I roll =)

Doesn't sound like you would call yourself a "Linux User" so none of these descriptions are for you anyway. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
James7

There is a standards group, the LSB. RPM format is the standard format - all distros that are LSB-compliant will be able to read those.

As far as individual distros, that is what the package manager and the repositories are for. The end user just uses their package manager and gets installs and updates through there - without caring if the package is in RPM or DEB format or such.

It is *not* normal activity in Linux to Google a software app and find an "install" file to download. That is the way that Windows users think, though, so they often expect this on Linux. Just search your package manager (like the GUI front-end, synaptic) or browse it like a supermarket, since software packages are organized by types and function. Click to select, and apply to install.

Once installed via the package manager, your apps will always be updated. The same thing does NOT apply to any RPM/DEB file you randomly google and directly add.

Interesting info there about the LSB! Yes, I have most of my software updated with daily automatic checks via the package manager, so that's a no-brainer. I've got a few things I like that aren't in the Ubuntu repos that I use and download as DEB files. I have a reminder in my calendar to check those for updates every two weeks.

One is actually a Windows program I like. One is a Linux program that, for some reason, the version in the Ubuntu repos doesn't work properly on my machine, so I just go to the sourceforge page. Two are Linux programs that just aren't in the Ubuntu repos. And one is a Java program I like. That's it. Otherwise, it's just an automatic daily check for updates on all the rest of my software. Sometimes I can't contain my justifiable fury that it's all so easy! :rofl:

BTW, I did initially use Chrome, and of course it installed the repo automatically for updates, but then I switched to Chromium, which comes straight from the Ubuntu repos, so... same situation--couldn't be easier! Also, before I switched to Chromium, I used Opera, and it also automatically inserted its repo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid Knight

Seriously, how often are you installing new applications? Do you add a new application daily? Weekly? Every month?

This is a poor excuse. You don't do it often therefore if it isn't convenient sometimes then it isn't a problem. Further this reasoning contradicts your criticism of how its done on other platforms. If it is infrequent and therefore needlessly complex updating or installation procedures are no big deal then manually updating, which is easier by comparison, isn't a big deal at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
James7

This is a poor excuse. You don't do it often therefore if it isn't convenient sometimes then it isn't a problem. Further this reasoning contradicts your criticism of how its done on other platforms. If it is infrequent and therefore needlessly complex updating or installation procedures are no big deal then manually updating, which is easier by comparison, isn't a big deal at all.

Actually, although I have my key apps that get installed on my machine, I do search around for new things that might be useful. Most of the time, they are available in the Ubuntu repos, and so it's a simple matter of ticking a box in Synaptic or whatever. If, on the rare occasion, they aren't in the repos, I just get a DEB and that's sorted. It really is easy. I sometimes wish I could just show doubters just how easy it is. Perhaps I should do a user guide for Neowin in which I do this, with pics and all. :cool:

Keeping your Linux system up-to-date and getting the new software you want is miles easier than it is on Windows and Mac (unless, of course, the software you want will only work on a Mac or Windows system). It could be even easier if it was hardcore standardized, but it's still so much easier than anything I've ever experienced elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GenBlood

I would say I'm a Linux Advocate and user ...

I have a system for gaming that is running Windows 7 Premium and a system for everything else

that is a linux system. I prefer Gentoo as my linux distro of choice. It's source based and it's a command

line install. So, basically you have total control over the install and how it got installed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid Knight

It could be even easier if it was hardcore standardized, but it's still so much easier than anything I've ever experienced elsewhere.

I used Linux as my only OS for about two years. It's only easier if everything you want is in the repos. Unfortunately a good chunk of software I wanted to use wasn't (or wasn't at the time). And some of the descriptions in synaptic were sorely lacking any real description (some distros are handling this better than others) so you don't end up saving that trip across the web.

Link to post
Share on other sites
James7

I used Linux as my only OS for about two years. It's only easier if everything you want is in the repos. Unfortunately a good chunk of software I wanted to use wasn't (or wasn't at the time). And some of the descriptions in synaptic were sorely lacking any real description (some distros are handling this better than others) so you don't end up saving that trip across the web.

Yes, I think I use about five programs that aren't in the repos. That's still only a small percentage of what I have on my system (maybe 3%). But I definitely agree about the descriptions in Synaptic. They are often way too vague to make heads or tails of. And the Ubuntu Software Centre (I use Ubuntu) is an attempt to remedy that by making more popular software easy to get and to know what you're getting, but it is a bit too basic as well, as far as I'm concerned.

Probably the biggest problem with Linux software in general is documentation. Not just letting me know what x does so I can know whether I want to download it, but also, once I've got x, knowing how to use it. I have to admit, with a lot of the software I use day to day, I know how to use it because I can figure it out without help files. Many programs have help files, but they could be a lot better. I guess writing up documentation is not that sexy a thing to do. But then, as this is to some extent about "community", probably I should write up documentation for programs I like to use and share it with the developers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
RealFduch

Doesn't sound like you would call yourself a "Linux User" so none of these descriptions are for you anyway. :p

Hmm. Looks like you are right lol. Work is with FreeBSD, personal stuff is with Windows and Linux is only about some rare experiments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
vhane

I guess that I was a Linux advocate several years ago. I tend to advocate something when it's still shiny and new to me. I eventually become more pragmatic about my choices once I'm past the honeymoon stage. This is how I've summed it up on another forum:

My journey with various operating system flavours went something like this. I started with DOS and went from:

- Using Windows exclusively, having never used a Mac for any significant length of time, but looking down on Mac users nonetheless - "Noobs need simplistic software, are only attracted to pricey, shiny bling."

- Switching to Linux, being your average obnoxious elitist zealot - "Norton vs. McAfee for firewalls? Pah! Me, I roll with iptables."

- Switching to BSD, being an even bigger elitist prick - "The Linux scene is full of FSF zealots. I'll take the higher moral ground."

Then I switched to a Mac.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VII7
One can argue that this is a terrible method, however. This is the reality of how you get software in Linux:

1) "Hey, I could use a program that does ____."

2) Use your favorite search engine to look up what kind of software would be good for that.

3) Compare people's opinions and the features of your options to decide which program(s) to download and try.

4) Minimize your browser, open your package manager. Wait for it to initialize.

5) Search for the program in your package manager. If you find it, go to (9).

6) Go back to your browser, go to the website of whoever makes the program.

7) Add whatever repository it instructs for finding the program in your package manager.

8) Refresh package manager. Go to (5).

9) Install program.

In Windows OR Mac (this is NOT simply where people can say "Linux isn't Windows!"), this is how you get software:

1) "Hey, I could use a program that does ____."

2) Use your favorite search engine to look up what kind of software would be good for that.

3) Compare people's opinions and the features of your options to decide which program(s) to download and try.

4) Download and try them.

So, uh, nyah. I don't think it's unreasonable to enjoy the option of installing software that way. Why not an executable package that both installs the app and automatically adds the necessary info to your package manager so it can, from that point on, be updated automatically? Seriously, it's called USABILITY. And it will go a long way toward making Linux a good desktop alternative. Until this is possible, and as long as people say "the hard way is JUST FINE thank you very much", Linux will never go beyond the server and enthusiast. Sorry.

Can't agree with you on that.

For average user and that from experience - it's more appropriate to search a software in one place (like Ubuntu software center) then google and end up with a confusing list of results, so confusing that they have to call a friend "that's more experienced" and get an opinion on that. Most average users, rarely need more then whats available with a distribution like Ubuntu - i mean, it's the same people that in Windows used I.E. (Internet Explorer) even in the old days, when it was the primary source for security problems (yet Firefox and Opera was available years before that).

As for advanced users, not the same but somehow familiar... since even Windows applications have some dependencies, like a certain version of Microsoft Visual C+ sometimes even an update for that... but those can be handled. The ones that have dependencies like "serial keys" as in 30$ or 40 $... now those are harder to endorse, for most... Not that I'm against commercial software, but every little thing you'd want to do might be available as an overpriced software. So you look for free alternatives, but at this point you could realize that there's not much difference between Linux and Windows and some good alternatives like Open Office, Avidemux, Audacity or Gimp come from Open Source...

If you gived this answer 5 or 7 years ago, probably then I would agree with you but not now.

Then I switched to a Mac.

Which is the capital of Zealots, gathering there from any major distribution... Few years back, I end up with a Mac cause I found a real good deal and I'm a sucker for good deals... Back in the old days, about 10 years ago - owning a Mac was one my ideals, but back then I wasn't in to forums and communities... Was Mac + OS X the Holly grail? No. Just overpriced hardware with a decent design and an OS that was aiming for simplicity, or more precisely dumbing down... and then, there's the community. :| Liked the simplicity, I can't argue about that... I mean, doing more in less time with an appealing environment, now that's something I could get used to (i said to myself). And since I got a Mac at a good price I felt like sticking around, so I joined the Mac communities and that's when my experience got beyond what I can't handle. End up being an advocate for Windows, Linux, Principles and Ethics... and don't see any way of fixing/improving that. So, I sold my Mac... cause I honestly, don't like what it represent this days.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
vhane

Which is the capital of Zealots, gathering there from any major distribution... Few years back, I end up with a Mac cause I found a real good deal and I'm a sucker for good deals... Back in the old days, about 10 years ago - owning a Mac was one my ideals, but back then I wasn't in to forums and communities... Was Mac + OS X the Holly grail? No. Just overpriced hardware with a decent design and an OS that was aiming for simplicity, or more precisely dumbing down... and then, there's the community. :| Liked the simplicity, I can't argue about that... I mean, doing more in less time with an appealing environment, now that's something I could get used to (i said to myself). And since I got a Mac at a good price I felt like sticking around, so I joined the Mac communities and that's when my experience got beyond what I can't handle. End up being an advocate for Windows, Linux, Principles and Ethics... and don't see any way of fixing/improving that. So, I sold my Mac... cause I honestly, don't like what it represent this days.

My post was meant to be ironic. At the end of the day, I find it silly to attribute ideals to operating systems. I can get very enthusiastic about any new platform that I'm exploring, but eventually the honeymoon period ends and I tend to be pragmatic with my choices. I like OS X because of its Unix underpinnings and because if the general high quality of the software available for it. I use Linux and FreeBSB a lot because my day job is to write code for the LAMP platform.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kreuger

I'm easily an advocate. Though I definitely started out sort of as an extremist. I always hated Windows. Now, I dont care much about it. I wont talk **** about it, just state I dont use it anymore and move along :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
soldier1st

dual booter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.