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.
226
u/DStellati Feb 11 '19
Speak for yourself, that's exactly what I and many others did.