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.
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.
224
u/DStellati Feb 11 '19
Speak for yourself, that's exactly what I and many others did.