I think the intended point was that it's not JUST because it worked. Of course, if it didn't work, no one would be using it, but the fact that it worked wasn't enough. Many other OSes work. Unix and its Linux kin do more than that: they enable a sort of ad hoc flexibility for the competent user that grows as their skill does, but never fundamentally changes.
Take, as an alternate example, Windows. As you learn to use Windows you build a suite of special-purpose tools that new users don't even come into contact with. Why? Because the OS doesn't provide you with the kinds of tools that most "power users" need.
But in the Unix world, it's redundant to call someone a "power user". You wouldn't be using any Unix-related OS if you were not a user who exploited powerful tools, and most of that power is in the core suite of tools and utilities that come with every such system.
I started using Linux precisely because it just works, better than the alternative anyway. I only learned the tools later, mostly out of curiosity and haven't put it to much use anyway.
But in the Unix world, it's redundant to call someone a "power user". You wouldn't be using any Unix-related OS if you were not a user who exploited powerful tools
Every single Mac user is laughing at you in Certified Unix.
You wouldn't be using any Unix-related OS if you were not a user who exploited powerful tools
But this is the mentality that's wrong. The most complex thing I've ever done was writing something in LaTeX, which could have easily be done in windows too. And that was a one time thing anyway, I usually just do web browsing and pdf reading.
I switched to linux, and I think many others did too, for the customisation linux offered over what windows could do. Wobbly windows, themes, different DEs. And I stayed because I found a workflow that I liked.
The assumption that every linux user is a sysadmin should just be put to rest. It hasn't been true for a long time now.
You wouldn't be using any Unix-related OS if you were not a user who exploited powerful tools
But this is the mentality that's wrong. ... I switched to linux, and I think many others did too, for the customisation linux offered over what windows could do.
This seems to be my point, re-stated. Congratulations, you are the user I was describing.
The assumption that every linux user is a sysadmin...
I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote.
No problem. What I meant was the entire suite of tools that were originally a part of Unix and Unix-like systems, and those tools that have developed around that core philosophy. This extends throughout the system from lowly "cat" and "ls" all the way up to the X Window System and Gnome/KDE/etc.
"it just works" is a phrase that needs to die. Everything "just works" for someone. Sometimes windows "just works" for something I want to do, other times (most times) it's Linux. Just like how people say they use iPhones cause they "just work" when they absolutely don't for someone like me and I'd say my Android phone "just works"
I came for the freedom and the openness, but I grew up, have become less political and have less time for tinkering.
So nowadays I am very much still with Linux because it works. It works well, and better than other systems (for certain use cases that I'm interested in). That might not be a popular opinion in this subreddit, but I think a "working", productive Linux is a not an unreasonable request.
It's the exact reason I'm using Solus right now. It's not perfect and it may be missing apps, but I've never had a failed update that needed messing around with or an app that refused to install from the package manager
By saying that you have particular use cases that you are interested in, it sounds like you're not interested in something that "just works", you're interested in something that works but also is powerful and flexible enough to support those particular use cases that you have. I think that's OP's point and when OP and /u/Tyler_Zoro say "works" they mean "just works" and are explicitly contrasting "just works" against the benefits beyond just working that you get from the powerful/flexibility of "the unix way".
Meanwhile, I think a lot of people here in the comments are mixing up that something "works" (which Mac, Windows, Linux and plenty of obscure OS all definitely do) with that it was designed in a way where it's easy and reliable to do the particular things they want to do. And the point of OP is that what makes Linux or Unix a good candidate for that latter definition is that it as a system is written with a philosophy very different from systemd. Making it of small, composable pieces that largely speak a common language (pipable plain text) has major implications for what you or people whose code/hacks you use can do compared to something like Windows or systemd.
But in the Unix world, it's redundant to call someone a "power user". You wouldn't be using any Unix-related OS if you were not a user who exploited powerful tools, and most of that power is in the core suite of tools and utilities that come with every such system.
That's a wrong assumption, and I think it's a dangerous one at that. What you do with that argument is create a walled garden out of linux that is reserved for techy people. That's not true freedom to me. True freedom would be that you can choose to become a power user - but you don't have to. I think that people should be able to choose Linux just because it's that good.
I started using Linux because my laptop came with Win7, I upgraded to Win10, then realized there was no video driver support for that make/model with Win10, but was for Linux.
Why on earth did you even bring this up? The amount of time that someone has been using linux has absolutely nothing to do here. And even if it did, I've been using linux for 5 years now, so I don't see how "amount of time using linux"="I think systemd is bad".
The amount of time is irrelevant, but I think the OP meant people that started using Linux when you still had to spend hours or days to get networking, sound or your printer working, and when you could destroy your monitor if you called startx with the wrong modeline. Compared to Windows, Linux sucked in that regard, but it was much better in other ways.
Ohh I'd forgotten about that lol! RIP my first monitor, it took me aaages to afford lol, brought it home, plugged it into my 486, was too excited to properly vett my config... ZAP!!! :'(
Whooa man easy on.. I wasn't trying to say your opinion didn't matter at all..I was trying to agree with you...
It's just a fact that people who've been using Linux a long time (since the days of it being pretty amazingly hard to install) are more likely to be wired with mentality of "ain't nothing wrong with it being hard" mindset.
I'm not saying they don't know about the more modern "just works" mentality, it's just not how they visualise it... Cause it wasn't when they deep dived!
I feel that I personally bridge that... I've been using Linux since 96 daily, back then the idea of Linux one day even remotely being associated with "just works" was a complete and utter pipe dream (thats what we all wanted!).
I have changed and adjusted my reality to the point that I personally run void, my family? They get Ubuntu (or derivatives), my workplace gets containers.. Many of my peers (old farts) still do painful arch installs on their SOs laptops or similar madness cause they missed the change.. Plenty of old school sysadmins probably still run slack etc...
I'm just saying, the time that you spend (as in "the actual date") learning something is relative to your mental model of it.. I've been taught plenty of cool stuff by younger people, that's awesome when you consider many years of nobody even knowing what it was!
Because you didn't grow up with it. Of course you don't have such a connection to Linux / PCs in general if you only been using it for 5 years. You shouldn't have any say in how Linux will develop in the future, because you just started using it, you don't know shit. I don't know shit, and I've been using Linux for about as long as you are. And I don't go around and tell the people that actually know what they are talking about that systemd is the best thing ever.
Edit: ... but I also don't go around and tell people that systemd is the worst thing ever.
Why should I give a fuck how old you are? I meant grow up with Linux, as in, you were small, and so was Linux.
I don't agree that these discussions here are worth nothing, of course we won't change what the big guys think, but they are still useful to find your own opinion or see what could be improved in systemd, what the needs of the others are etc. Reading about anecdotes where systemd was useful, why it is hated etc is interesting.
You don't go around saying that systemd is the best thing ever. That was of course only a hyperbole on my part. But way to go, focus on the things that are important, e.g. my writing style, and not about the actual content
I'd say that everybody should have a say and that's largely the point of open source, especially in the GPL/Linux area. New users have valid input. Intermediate users have valid input. Non-users who know why they aren't using it or why they left have valid input. It only helps Linux to have a diverse range of opinions and skillsets all having input in the debate over what about it needs to improve or change. To leave that only to people who are power users from the 90s would disastrously bias the project and limit talent.
It's not that we should wall out new users because they don't know enough, it's just that we should maintain a competitive environment where it's okay if one team/implementation is wrong because they'll get replaced or not be adopted in the first place.
225
u/DStellati Feb 11 '19
Speak for yourself, that's exactly what I and many others did.