4 ms·

Something about this seems slightly wrong to me. Perhaps it's the assumption that users are a thing that is a property of the software? I guess it isn't clear w

by grkvlt 10y ago

Something about this seems slightly wrong to me. Perhaps it's the assumption that users are a thing that is a property of the software? I guess it isn't clear what way the causation goes, or even if it exists - just as the GP points out above. Would you say Windows had _low_ quality users? Or just _more_ users? I think early or niche adopters by their nature have to have a lot invested, and this manifests itself in commitment to producing documentation, bug reports, evangelising and so on. Essentially you are sampling from the far end of the long tail, whereas with commodity software the gaussian distribution comes into play and pretty much everything is normal (pun intended) or at least average.

SwellJoe 10y ago
I think I've been pretty clear that I don't know why FreeBSD users are on the high end of the knowledge scale, and that survival bias is a plausible explanation. And, yes, Windows users, taken as a whole, do average out to be (very) low quality users. Linux users are somewhere in between. I'm not making a argument about causation, merely one of correlation and probably something about the mean level of knowledge.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jrapdx3 10y ago
  The "user quality" associated with FBSD may be "higher", though it's a hard parameter to measure. Worth considering if the user quality has something to do with properties of FBSD itself vs. user characteristics. Since I run a number of systems, each of the 3 OS (FBSD, Linux, Windows) is represented. Two OS attributes define important differences, ease of administration, and ease of user applications (including installation of app software). Here's my theory: As I see it the OS sort out in opposite directions based on these attributes. For ease of admin I rank them as: FBSD > Linux > Windows. Ease of use/apps is the reverse order: Windows > Linux > FBSD. From an admin point of view, FBSD is the most straightforward to configure and maintain. Windows is an admin nightmare. Linux is more complex than FBSD partly because of its heterogeneous origin and more frequent, less predictable changes. No doubt non-tech savvy users are more comfortable and feel more productive with Windows and don't have to learn much about the OS itself. FBSD can be used as a desktop/laptop OS but that's much more difficult to accomplish. Linux has more options/apps vs. FBSD, but fewer than Windows. These factors favor FBSD in the role of server and Windows for general users. Linux can be a server or desktop. The reason Linux is more often used in the server role is probably an outcome of FBSD's relative obscurity, not inherent Linux superiority. When it comes to servers, given a choice, in a Linux-dominated world relatively few will select FBSD. When there's a chance to get familiar with both, the lower admin burden of FBSD makes it an attractive option. In my view FBSD, especially in the server niche, is simpler and easier to master which encourages admins to learn it in depth, therefore its users tend to more consistently appear to have a higher knowledge level.

by grkvlt 10y ago

SwellJoe 10y ago

I think I've been pretty clear that I don't know why FreeBSD users are on the high end of the knowledge scale, and that survival bias is a plausible explanation. And, yes, Windows users, taken as a whole, do average out to be (very) low quality users. Linux users are somewhere in between. I'm not making a argument about causation, merely one of correlation and probably something about the mean level of knowledge.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jrapdx3 10y ago
The "user quality" associated with FBSD may be "higher", though it's a hard parameter to measure. Worth considering if the user quality has something to do with properties of FBSD itself vs. user characteristics. Since I run a number of systems, each of the 3 OS (FBSD, Linux, Windows) is represented. Two OS attributes define important differences, ease of administration, and ease of user applications (including installation of app software). Here's my theory: As I see it the OS sort out in opposite directions based on these attributes. For ease of admin I rank them as: FBSD > Linux > Windows. Ease of use/apps is the reverse order: Windows > Linux > FBSD. From an admin point of view, FBSD is the most straightforward to configure and maintain. Windows is an admin nightmare. Linux is more complex than FBSD partly because of its heterogeneous origin and more frequent, less predictable changes. No doubt non-tech savvy users are more comfortable and feel more productive with Windows and don't have to learn much about the OS itself. FBSD can be used as a desktop/laptop OS but that's much more difficult to accomplish. Linux has more options/apps vs. FBSD, but fewer than Windows. These factors favor FBSD in the role of server and Windows for general users. Linux can be a server or desktop. The reason Linux is more often used in the server role is probably an outcome of FBSD's relative obscurity, not inherent Linux superiority. When it comes to servers, given a choice, in a Linux-dominated world relatively few will select FBSD. When there's a chance to get familiar with both, the lower admin burden of FBSD makes it an attractive option. In my view FBSD, especially in the server niche, is simpler and easier to master which encourages admins to learn it in depth, therefore its users tend to more consistently appear to have a higher knowledge level.