Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I understand you made a disclaimer that there are exceptions to your rule but why would Mac users be less savvy than Windows when Mac has roots in BSD? Until you get to scripting 95% of the commands you will run in the terminal are the exact same as any other *nix based system. Linux I can see, simply because some programs you have to compile. Mac went for simplicity with their OS, but that doesn't mean that the average user would be less than that of a Windows user.
Mac users don't fix problems, they pay Apple's Mac techs to.
Mac users [ the majority ] don't script squat, they think they don't have to.
Mac users think they have no malware concern.
Mac users think Steve Jobs is god.
all reasons Mac users are even less tech savvy than windows users.
Mac users [ the majority ] don't script squat, they think they don't have to.
Mac users think they have no malware concern.
Mac users think Steve Jobs is god.
all reasons Mac users are even less tech savvy than windows users.
As a heavy nix user (Unix Systems Engineer) I take advantage of all the nix features on my Mac.
* NEVER paid Apple to do anything to my Mac
* I Script constantly
* Any system on an open wire is susceptible including Macs
* Steve is an ass
* NEVER paid Apple to do anything to my Mac
* I Script constantly
* Any system on an open wire is susceptible including Macs
* Steve is an ass
I say most mac users?
the vast majority make typical windows users techs by comparison.
and in any generalization, there are exceptions to it.
I wonder why TECHS think they are TYPICAL users?
TECHS are as atypical as it's possible to be.
Your grandmother is a typical user.
[ unless she is a tech ]
the vast majority make typical windows users techs by comparison.
and in any generalization, there are exceptions to it.
I wonder why TECHS think they are TYPICAL users?
TECHS are as atypical as it's possible to be.
Your grandmother is a typical user.
[ unless she is a tech ]
Getting so riled up.
My grandmother is a typical user. Ha! How did you know?... Stalker.
How does this sound(?):
Generally speaking, most Mac users think they [insert your comments here].
People who [insert your comments here] are fools for [insert your comment here].
So, by logic, most Mac users are fools.
Looks like I'm going have a very anti-Apple day today... God - Help me.
My grandmother is a typical user. Ha! How did you know?... Stalker.
How does this sound(?):
Generally speaking, most Mac users think they [insert your comments here].
People who [insert your comments here] are fools for [insert your comment here].
So, by logic, most Mac users are fools.
Looks like I'm going have a very anti-Apple day today... God - Help me.
From what I see, the 'average' (Grandma, the guy in the office cubical) on either Mac or Windows are about the same in terms of skill.
They don't live beyond the desktop or documents folder.
They don't want/are scared to monkey with the OS other folks fix it)
They don't script.
The only differences are where either system forces the user to learn something particular in order to make something work (malware, permissions, etc.).
And based on the guys talking about converting their grandmothers to Ubuntu, I'd say the same holds true of Linux for the 'average' user.
They don't live beyond the desktop or documents folder.
They don't want/are scared to monkey with the OS other folks fix it)
They don't script.
The only differences are where either system forces the user to learn something particular in order to make something work (malware, permissions, etc.).
And based on the guys talking about converting their grandmothers to Ubuntu, I'd say the same holds true of Linux for the 'average' user.
How about, "Most Accessible Operating Systems to Users of Increasing Skill Level" then?
I, as a tech, like having a Linux box for all the cool crap you can do with Linux and its assorted tools.
I use a Windows box when I need to get something done, via a platform that is acknowledged and supported by everyone, everywhere.
I am trying to switch my creative tools to Mac because frankly, if I could run Waves Multirack "without an OS at all", I would. And the Mac platform is good about getting out of the way.
I've never tried BSD. FWIW, I've used Solaris and hate it. There's a point when being rooted in 1970's methodology just makes things cumbersome with no added benefit.
I don't think any of the OSes classifies my skill level, but if I knew nothing at all about computers, I'd probably learn according to Jack's chart.
I, as a tech, like having a Linux box for all the cool crap you can do with Linux and its assorted tools.
I use a Windows box when I need to get something done, via a platform that is acknowledged and supported by everyone, everywhere.
I am trying to switch my creative tools to Mac because frankly, if I could run Waves Multirack "without an OS at all", I would. And the Mac platform is good about getting out of the way.
I've never tried BSD. FWIW, I've used Solaris and hate it. There's a point when being rooted in 1970's methodology just makes things cumbersome with no added benefit.
I don't think any of the OSes classifies my skill level, but if I knew nothing at all about computers, I'd probably learn according to Jack's chart.
At least for a Linux user (I'm using Debian).
Everything seems to be different!
OK! KDE is the same old good KDE, but everything else differs, beginning from the file system tree.
I tried PC-BSD, and indeed is a very good and polished distribution. I'm just too lazy for learning how to handle my OS, from the ground up!
The major inconsistency was the struggle with it's filesystem. Since GParted doesn't (and won't) support it, I had to backup-restore and create-delete-resize my partitions from command prompt. (Especially the last one, is extremely dangerous).
OK! Just my experience!
Otherwise PC-BSD impressed me A LOT!!!
Everything seems to be different!
OK! KDE is the same old good KDE, but everything else differs, beginning from the file system tree.
I tried PC-BSD, and indeed is a very good and polished distribution. I'm just too lazy for learning how to handle my OS, from the ground up!
The major inconsistency was the struggle with it's filesystem. Since GParted doesn't (and won't) support it, I had to backup-restore and create-delete-resize my partitions from command prompt. (Especially the last one, is extremely dangerous).
OK! Just my experience!
Otherwise PC-BSD impressed me A LOT!!!
the BSDs are Unix systems.
Fully and completely passing the Single Unix Specification.
GNU/Linux is a Unix-like system.
As you noted in your article Linux is a kernel for an os.
You boo-booed though in the base system comment about it.
the GNU system, [ binutils, gettext, gcc, glibc, make ... ] is the base system REQUIRED by Linux.
yes, required, the Linux package was designed to work with the GNU system.
I might have gotten a couple of the more technical differences between all 7 of the BSDs and the GNU/Linux system myself.
though often, if you use user friendly as a criteria, the BSDs will not measure up well. georgos67's comment about partitioning tools being a perfect example of that common failing in the BSDs.
on the other hand, they work, they are stable, and they do have a far better track record for security than even GNU/Linux has.
I would hesitate to say that they have the exact same software included over the base system though. most of the BSDs have to modify more than build options in a package to get it to build for reliable use. They tend to have their own version of these apps. [ other than the major projects like xorg, bloated garbage like KDE and GNOME ]
The license difference between the BSD licenses and the GNU-GPL makes including GPLed software an issue for them.
Fully and completely passing the Single Unix Specification.
GNU/Linux is a Unix-like system.
As you noted in your article Linux is a kernel for an os.
You boo-booed though in the base system comment about it.
the GNU system, [ binutils, gettext, gcc, glibc, make ... ] is the base system REQUIRED by Linux.
yes, required, the Linux package was designed to work with the GNU system.
I might have gotten a couple of the more technical differences between all 7 of the BSDs and the GNU/Linux system myself.
though often, if you use user friendly as a criteria, the BSDs will not measure up well. georgos67's comment about partitioning tools being a perfect example of that common failing in the BSDs.
on the other hand, they work, they are stable, and they do have a far better track record for security than even GNU/Linux has.
I would hesitate to say that they have the exact same software included over the base system though. most of the BSDs have to modify more than build options in a package to get it to build for reliable use. They tend to have their own version of these apps. [ other than the major projects like xorg, bloated garbage like KDE and GNOME ]
The license difference between the BSD licenses and the GNU-GPL makes including GPLed software an issue for them.
Open Solaris. (Which seems to be in a world of hurt, still. Way to go, Oracle.)
Yeah, BSD is Unix.
Yeah, BSD is Unix.
I certainly agree that the BSDs are Unix systems and GNU/Linux is a Unix-like system.
However, the GNU system is not technically required to be used as a base system for Linux. We have systems that use Busybox, though you would need more than that to have a build environment. Also, theoretically, you could use the BSD system with a Linux kernel (I'm not sure if anybody has actually done that, but I wouldn't be that surprised).
Perhaps, though, you just meant that some kind of a base system is required, and GNU is the one used in pretty much everything referred to as a Linux distribution.
Does Android actually use GNU as a base system? I've heard conflicting claims about that.
However, the GNU system is not technically required to be used as a base system for Linux. We have systems that use Busybox, though you would need more than that to have a build environment. Also, theoretically, you could use the BSD system with a Linux kernel (I'm not sure if anybody has actually done that, but I wouldn't be that surprised).
Perhaps, though, you just meant that some kind of a base system is required, and GNU is the one used in pretty much everything referred to as a Linux distribution.
Does Android actually use GNU as a base system? I've heard conflicting claims about that.
I'm not sure about a Linux kernel under a BSD userland but with Debian you can swap Linux out for a BSD kernel (unsure which) or a few other kernels.
apparently android does have SOME gnu stuff because gnu.org says it has "very little" of the GNU system.
"Linux, on the other hand, was a newly created OS loosely based on a UNIX derivative (Minix, to be exact)"
Um, no... In fact, Linus and Andrew Tannenbaum clashed over the design of linux, Tannenbaum remarking he'd flunk Linus for his OS design, because the design of linux was so radically from minix, violating Tannenbaums basic theories. (meanwhile Linux is well established as an enterprise OS, while minix is still... well, a toy OS).
The linux kernel was in fact written using the book "The design of the Unix operating system" by Maurice J bach, which describes sort of an SVR3-ish design.
The only connection to minix, and it is a very scant one, is that the very first revision of linux made us of the minix file system, to get up and running. The minix fs was soon supplanted by xiafs, extfs, and ext2fs.
Um, no... In fact, Linus and Andrew Tannenbaum clashed over the design of linux, Tannenbaum remarking he'd flunk Linus for his OS design, because the design of linux was so radically from minix, violating Tannenbaums basic theories. (meanwhile Linux is well established as an enterprise OS, while minix is still... well, a toy OS).
The linux kernel was in fact written using the book "The design of the Unix operating system" by Maurice J bach, which describes sort of an SVR3-ish design.
The only connection to minix, and it is a very scant one, is that the very first revision of linux made us of the minix file system, to get up and running. The minix fs was soon supplanted by xiafs, extfs, and ext2fs.
Your comments about upgrades doesn't mention the fact that there is no single way of doing upgrades in Linux - i.e - apt-get , yum , zypper, emerge, pacman
Arch linux/Gentoo operate in sort of a more BSD way when it comes to packages (although they are generally split packages - that often have a meta-package that installs base..)
Arch linux/Gentoo operate in sort of a more BSD way when it comes to packages (although they are generally split packages - that often have a meta-package that installs base..)
Focusing on "Linux" is like refering to all cars as "engines" where the distribution or car is the product not a part of it. The distribution is the product not the kernel it happens to use. Once you focus on the distirbution level, you can differentiate between companies/organizations and the very different but interoperable products they develop. Red Hat, Debian and Backtrack all happen to use the Linux kernel but they are three very different products in the same way that Prius, Tempo and Jaguars are all very different but interoperable product inspite of all being based on a combustion engine.
At the distribution level, each has a primary and standardised method of software management.
apt-get (with Aptitude and Synaptic being front ends) is the standard upgrade method for Debian and Debian derived distributions like Ubuntu and Mint.
yum (with Yast as a front end?) is the standard upgrade method for Fedora.
urpm* (with rpmdrake front end) is the standard upgrade method for Mandriva.
"Linux" is a family of different but interoperable software platforms not one single software platform and standard assembly of parts.
These days, users don't really have to know that level of detail though as the GUI pointy-clicky software managers generall work the same way and the distribution's repositories provide vetted and easily installed/upgrade/uninstalled software packages.
At the distribution level, each has a primary and standardised method of software management.
apt-get (with Aptitude and Synaptic being front ends) is the standard upgrade method for Debian and Debian derived distributions like Ubuntu and Mint.
yum (with Yast as a front end?) is the standard upgrade method for Fedora.
urpm* (with rpmdrake front end) is the standard upgrade method for Mandriva.
"Linux" is a family of different but interoperable software platforms not one single software platform and standard assembly of parts.
These days, users don't really have to know that level of detail though as the GUI pointy-clicky software managers generall work the same way and the distribution's repositories provide vetted and easily installed/upgrade/uninstalled software packages.
Nice post, and mostly correct, but there's one point I'd like to make:
On OpenBSD at least, it is very rare to have to build a package from source. Your friendly neighborhood mirror will have an installable package for essentially all ports, just set your PGK_PATH environment variable to something sensible and use pkg_add to add binary packages directly from there.
The main exception is packages where there is some sort of license restriction that forbids redistribution by the project.
On OpenBSD at least, it is very rare to have to build a package from source. Your friendly neighborhood mirror will have an installable package for essentially all ports, just set your PGK_PATH environment variable to something sensible and use pkg_add to add binary packages directly from there.
The main exception is packages where there is some sort of license restriction that forbids redistribution by the project.
I use windows - so you are saying that a Linux user (in general) is more PC savvy just because the use a different OS?
Tell me - Are people better drivers because they build / maintain their own car????
So....this despite my many years in the game, the experience I have building and running networks along with the university qualifications in pure computer science?
Get real.
Tell me - Are people better drivers because they build / maintain their own car????
So....this despite my many years in the game, the experience I have building and running networks along with the university qualifications in pure computer science?
Get real.
in what way is a TECH a typical user?
oh, I know, they take offense at their GRANDMOTHER being called non tech savvy.
[ cause your grandmother is a typical user, unless she is a tech ]
oh, I know, they take offense at their GRANDMOTHER being called non tech savvy.
[ cause your grandmother is a typical user, unless she is a tech ]
Most USERS don't poke around in any operating system. If Linux users are more tech savvy, it's because the OS forces them to become so. I submit there aren't any 'USERS' running BSD or Unix on a PC, only the technically qualified.
it took me 3 hours to get the partitions made with openBSD, cause the tools aren't made for the typical end user, nor for the average tech.
It's a really, really odd way of working for 90% of the world.
It's a really, really odd way of working for 90% of the world.
A user is a person who uses a computer or Internet service.
I submit that just because I use Windows as an OS (well one of many) does not make me any less PC-Savvy.
I submit that just because I use Windows as an OS (well one of many) does not make me any less PC-Savvy.
What term would you use to describe non-technical people who are interested in computers only as a tool, a means to an end, and not itself as an object of interest? 'Civilians'?
one is driving a Grand Prix Car and the other a 1988 Nissan Sunny.
So they are just users. You could however class them as:
Professional Users
Enthusiast Users
Users
OR say - Object Orintated style - Class USER at the top with sub classes for Professional and Enthusiast. These other classes just have redefined and additional methods attached to them.
So they are just users. You could however class them as:
Professional Users
Enthusiast Users
Users
OR say - Object Orintated style - Class USER at the top with sub classes for Professional and Enthusiast. These other classes just have redefined and additional methods attached to them.
If we're going to use the automobile analogy, your bottom tier 'Users' class correspond to .drivers'. The members of TR are closer to mechanics and gearheads. If you don't think those guys don't differentiate between themselves and those of us who just drive cars, spend a couple of hours in a professional garage. Not a 'quick lube' or Wal-mart's tire bay, either; a REAL garage. They'll have stuff to say about 'drivers' that's every bit as derogatory as what IT pros say about 'users'.
But it could be said that, "Just because you're a mechanic, it doesn't mean you are a good driver."
In the same fashion, A computer hardware manufacturer may not be Software savvy at all.
In the same fashion, A computer hardware manufacturer may not be Software savvy at all.
as many drive.
so Mechanic can be a subclass of driver in this instance with the mechanic functions added.
Mechanics are also drivers although you would not go this way as there are likely more drivers than mechanics.
so Mechanic can be a subclass of driver in this instance with the mechanic functions added.
Mechanics are also drivers although you would not go this way as there are likely more drivers than mechanics.
Are also drivers with that same logic. As are Footballers and China-ware mongers.
By no means, does mechanic=better driver than x
x being the variable occupation.
By no means, does mechanic=better driver than x
x being the variable occupation.
I think that is the key right there. If you only used Windows in absence "of many" alternatives. This is different for the majority how thing "windows" and "computer" are interchangeable terms and look at you dumbfounded when you suggest that computers can run other operating systems. If you only ever used Windows, your unlikely to be more tech savvy than someone who uses Windows+others; if only due to cross pollination of good habits and introduction to different ways of doing things.
Object Orintated style - Class USER at the top with sub classes for Professional and Enthusiast. These other classes just have redefined and additional methods attached to them.
We're using the term "user" meaning a first level computer operator; can turn on computer, knows that clicking the "Email" icon brings up there email. No care for how it works and barely the understanding that it works. For what they do with the machine and given there interests in other areas, they really don't need to understand it to any further depth.
This is different from considering anyone who uses a computer a "user" with subsets based on area of interest or skill level.
Your not a "user". At minimum, you would be recognized under the "techie" title/skill-level of not an even more elevated title.
I also see "professional" as an indication of employment status rather than skill level. One can be highly skilled though they may not be professionally employed in the same way that someone professionally employed could be a complete twit that hids it well (or has interesting photos of the CEO ).
This is different from considering anyone who uses a computer a "user" with subsets based on area of interest or skill level.
Your not a "user". At minimum, you would be recognized under the "techie" title/skill-level of not an even more elevated title.
I also see "professional" as an indication of employment status rather than skill level. One can be highly skilled though they may not be professionally employed in the same way that someone professionally employed could be a complete twit that hids it well (or has interesting photos of the CEO
).
I'm completely aware that your lumping all who use a computer under the "user" category with sub-categories for how or at what skill level they use a computer. I also think your intentionally misunderstanding my use of "user" as a title not a literal translation of "someone who uses a computer" in the same way your intentionally misunderstanding the differentiation between "driver" and "mechanic".
Ah well, some others will get it..
Ah well, some others will get it..
> Most USERS don't poke around in any
> operating system. If Linux users are more
> tech savvy, it's because the OS forces them
> to become so.
Yes... that whole "installing another operating system" thing. It doesn't matter how complicated that is or how complicated it is to run once you've installed it. Just being aware that there's other choices out there and why you might want them is more tech saavy then most Windows users have.
> operating system. If Linux users are more
> tech savvy, it's because the OS forces them
> to become so.
Yes... that whole "installing another operating system" thing. It doesn't matter how complicated that is or how complicated it is to run once you've installed it. Just being aware that there's other choices out there and why you might want them is more tech saavy then most Windows users have.
when it comes to opensolaris and now the sonus project its just different!clearly most people compare useablility of windows against any new OS.But think back at the days you have spent learning to rebuild broken windows software..clearly its where you start..kids love linux/opensource.
than Windows users or even Mac users.
That's how I would define it. Not necessarily "tech" savy rather "programming" savy.
That's how I would define it. Not necessarily "tech" savy rather "programming" savy.
>I use windows - so you are saying that a
> Linux user (in general) is more PC savvy
> just because the use a different OS?
Yes. Just the mere fact that someone is even aware of what an OS is, indicates a higher degree of tech saavy. Windows is the default option pushed by hardware vendors. It's been pervasive for over 20 years (going back to DOS). Any thing else (even MacOS) indicates some greater awareness and a lesser degree of apathy towards technology.
So the generalization is probably true (in general). I would put Windows at the bottom of the scale for user tech saavy because of this.
Of course generalizations aren't going to be true in all cases.
> Linux user (in general) is more PC savvy
> just because the use a different OS?
Yes. Just the mere fact that someone is even aware of what an OS is, indicates a higher degree of tech saavy. Windows is the default option pushed by hardware vendors. It's been pervasive for over 20 years (going back to DOS). Any thing else (even MacOS) indicates some greater awareness and a lesser degree of apathy towards technology.
So the generalization is probably true (in general). I would put Windows at the bottom of the scale for user tech saavy because of this.
Of course generalizations aren't going to be true in all cases.
GNU/Linux is a unix clone.
Regarding your discussion on control. The BSD's are generally very well audited. OpenBSD is the epitome of code quality and, at the risk of sounding biased, it really does clobber just about any Linux distro in edge security roles.
pf is miles ahead of iptables, and yes I long ago cut my teeth on both.
I don't really agree with the "tech savy" analysis but that argument could go to perpetuity.
Regarding your discussion on control. The BSD's are generally very well audited. OpenBSD is the epitome of code quality and, at the risk of sounding biased, it really does clobber just about any Linux distro in edge security roles.
pf is miles ahead of iptables, and yes I long ago cut my teeth on both.
I don't really agree with the "tech savy" analysis but that argument could go to perpetuity.
"If you?re a fan of user-friendly simplicity, you will surely look at this and immediately turn away. This is especially true for new users. Few new users want to have to compile from source. This can make for a cumbersome distribution."
Jack has clearly never used BSD enough to have to "compile from source". It isn't like you have to download a bunch of code files, unpack them, compile them by hand and copy them into their destination. No, you simply issue a single command, which is just as easy as doing it in Linux to install something via yum or apt, which then downloads the source, does the compile, copies to the right place, etc.
Jack is also clearly uninformed here. While I can't speak for ALL BSDs, FreeBSD (the most popular flavor by far) has a built in binary packaging system and repository. In fact, the ports system (the way you deal with compiling source code most of the time) is actually just a real time binary packaging system... it downloads the code, compiles it, creates a binary package, and then installs it.
J.Ja
Jack has clearly never used BSD enough to have to "compile from source". It isn't like you have to download a bunch of code files, unpack them, compile them by hand and copy them into their destination. No, you simply issue a single command, which is just as easy as doing it in Linux to install something via yum or apt, which then downloads the source, does the compile, copies to the right place, etc.
Jack is also clearly uninformed here. While I can't speak for ALL BSDs, FreeBSD (the most popular flavor by far) has a built in binary packaging system and repository. In fact, the ports system (the way you deal with compiling source code most of the time) is actually just a real time binary packaging system... it downloads the code, compiles it, creates a binary package, and then installs it.
J.Ja
My opinion on the user base would be:
Windows ---> Mac ??> Linux ??> BSD ??> UNIX
I say this because many Linux/BSD users would rather do their work on a Mac and still be able to use the commands that they use on Linux/BSD.
-RT
Windows ---> Mac ??> Linux ??> BSD ??> UNIX
I say this because many Linux/BSD users would rather do their work on a Mac and still be able to use the commands that they use on Linux/BSD.
-RT
Mac shuld be in around the same place as Linux as it uses the Unix core and gives the user the option to use just X11 and not Aqua
AN excellent read, I like how you kept yourself neutral though the entire article.
...up until a few years ago Macs didn't use BSD, they used a proprietary Apple OS, and Mac fanboys have been around since the beginning of Macs. Thus, ergo and in conclusion, being a Mac user does not make one more tech savvy than a Windows user by default. The majority of users of BOTH OSes are fairly comparable, IMHO.
Myself, I am not overly tech savvy, but I do know my way around Windows, and have been experimenting with Linux, so at this point I would like to give a shout out to MY favorite distro: Yo, Mint! Holla!
Myself, I am not overly tech savvy, but I do know my way around Windows, and have been experimenting with Linux, so at this point I would like to give a shout out to MY favorite distro: Yo, Mint! Holla!
I joined techrepulic simply to scold you for going out on your stupid limb and tell you you're an idiot. Trying to compare new users to long time user OCD tech gurus, ya, pat on the back smarts. As an Apple User since 4.5.3 you had to be more savvy to get your files to work with PC's and vice versa, while ALL pc users would always say, "it won't work on a Mac. Mac's suck" even tho it would work. I am not the exception. Unix and "like" unix os users are a different breed of people. It has nothing to do with "savvy". But I guess Unix like/BSD users have a lot more in common with PC users than I knew, always thinking they're better than the Mac user. Shut up Jack.
I mean, mercy sakes, this darned blog post is over 2 years old, almost
have to scrape the mold off of it to read, and the only reason you joined
TR was to scold Jack?? By the way, Jack is notorious for throwing blog
posts up, some quite controversial, then just stomping the gas pedal
never to return and read comments. It is therefore very unlikely that
Jack Wallen even knows you posted your comment. I almost flagged
it as a "zombie", worthy of deletion...and when comments are deleted,
they don't go to the trash can on your Mac...they are gone!
Wizard57M
TR Moderator
have to scrape the mold off of it to read, and the only reason you joined
TR was to scold Jack?? By the way, Jack is notorious for throwing blog
posts up, some quite controversial, then just stomping the gas pedal
never to return and read comments. It is therefore very unlikely that
Jack Wallen even knows you posted your comment. I almost flagged
it as a "zombie", worthy of deletion...and when comments are deleted,
they don't go to the trash can on your Mac...they are gone!
Wizard57M
TR Moderator
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
