Linux/Unix Tribalism

[RichardET]

Programming, by its very nature is 100% logical, not emotional, but Linux/Unix users, developers, and enthusiasts display the most bizarre emotional responses over "which Linux is better?", or "which *BSD is better?". Clearly "better" should be defined in relation to something else.

[montag dp]

Are you saying one computer program cannot be better than another? What exactly are you getting at?

[RichardET]

Of course, a program, or a system can be better than another one for various reasons, and personal preference matters, but these arguments I read very often on various forum sites, with titles such as "Ubuntu vs. OpenSuse", or "OpenSuse vs. Fedora", or "OpenBSD vs. FreeBSD", or "KDE4 vs KDE3" or "GNOME2 vs. GNOME3" or
should the desktop be minimalist or full featured, which for some people is equivalent to "bloat", are mainly just equating personal choice with some proof that it is better in a fundamental way, which is definitely *not* an argument. I have read some people referring to KDE4 as "eye candy", or that Ubuntu is for those "non techies" who can't use a more "robust" Linux like "Fedora." The irony for me is that I doubt most of these flamers have even written one C program, much less actually studied any of the internals they so passionately argue for or against. I guess its a metaphor for just about everything.

[SeijiSensei]

You don't need to be a programmer to have opinions about whether one program is better than another. For most of us what matters is whether the program does what it should and is easy to use. As an example, GIMP is a powerful graphics editor, but it has a relatively steep learning curve. If I want to crop or resize an image, it's a lot easier and faster to open the image in Gwenview and edit it there. If I need to do more complex things, I'll use GIMP.

That said, there are an awful lot of self-important, opinionated people who use Linux, the kinds who complain about KDE's "bloat" after using it for half an hour or maybe never at all. I don't see much difference between Fedora and Ubuntu except for the treatment of proprietary software. People who think there are vast differences under the hood among competing Linux distributions are deluding themselves. Most distros are using similar kernels and similar libraries and offer pretty similar lists of pre-compiled programs in either RPM or deb packaging.

[buzzingrobot]

Most of us equate "best" with our own preferences. Since we all have different preferences, that's a poor way to determine what's "best".

We can only convincingly determine what is "best" if it is amenable to being measured, and if we all agree on what needs to be measured. So, for example, we might decide that it's important to measure how long file managers take to load jpegs of a certain specific size. We'd say the file manager with the fastest load time was the "best".

But that file manager might also employ the slowest GUI and not, subjectively, seem fast at all to users.

We use software we like, and call it the "best".

[Buntu Bunny]

Most of us equate "best" with our own preferences. Since we all have different preferences, that's a poor way to determine what's "best".

Exactly. It's entirely subjective.

[Jason Kuzhively]

I remember my first try at GNOME 3 and to tell the truth, it was good.

I didn't go searching for reviews before I installed GNOME and if I did, Public opinion would stop me from ever trying out GNOME. There were moments of confusion when I couldn't find the minimize and maximize but truly, GNOME 3 is what taught me the use of workspaces. I owe that to GNOME. Nowadays, I use KDE and Xfce. GNOME 3 is a pretty and fine approach to opening the Linux world to the world and getting rid of the basement-nerd image. See, most of the world isn't bothered with productivity, the only thing they probably do is Facebooking, Tweeting, Chirping and some E-Mailing. There is nothing more to it.

For us users who are even bothered with productivity, you don't need to send hatemail to GNOME for choosing a completely different layout. There are other choices out there - Xfce, Cinnamon, KDE, etc. But of course, the attitude of the developers to it's user base overshadows the futuristic idea behind GNOME 3 and there are several design flaws which I am surprised the didn't notice.

In the near future, the phones will be running GNOME 3 or Unity - which is a very comforting thought as free software would considerably lighten the cost and expenses of a SmartPhone and at the same time, bring Linux efficiency to Phones. A beautiful example is Android... but I'm still open to change.

Do ya thang, Linux...

[lykwydchykyn]

We live in a world where adults get into violent confrontations over football teams, and you're surprised that software developers get passionate over software?

Programming is not 100% logical; designing software is an art. It requires a logical mind, but so does architecture or engineering. Like any other art, craft, or academic discipline, practitioners get strong opinions about tools, materials, and other people's work.

[mJayk]

We live in a world where adults get into violent confrontations over football teams, and you're surprised that software developers get passionate over software?



As predicted by Orwell the devolution of humanity :-)

[llanitedave]

We live in a world where adults get into violent confrontations over football teams, and you're surprised that software developers get passionate over software?

Programming is not 100% logical; designing software is an art. It requires a logical mind, but so does architecture or engineering. Like any other art, craft, or academic discipline, practitioners get strong opinions about tools, materials, and other people's work.

Yes indeed. Mathematicians get emotional over mathematics. Computers are tools, as are programming languages. They're logical tools designed for use by emotional people.