1 |
Neil Walker <neil@×××××××.nu> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> Linux is much older than 1997... |
4 |
|
5 |
>> Not at all. [...] |
6 |
|
7 |
I really meant unix... where most of linux cmds and base tools comes |
8 |
from. But as people do unix/linux is often thought of as one kind of |
9 |
thing. |
10 |
|
11 |
[...] |
12 |
|
13 |
> Hmm. Most of the people who used (actually, played with because it |
14 |
> wasn't a usable operating |
15 |
> system until much later) Linux in the early days came from Minix. |
16 |
> Remember that? Newbies |
17 |
> to Linux were not newbies to computers and operating systems. Far from |
18 |
> it, most were pretty |
19 |
> adept DOS hackers. |
20 |
|
21 |
[...] |
22 |
|
23 |
> You seem to have entirely forgotten what Linux actually was in the |
24 |
> 1990s. It was actually a hacker's |
25 |
> paradise. There were NO newbies in the sense of people who were new to |
26 |
> computers using Linux. The |
27 |
> very nature of Linux users in those days was that they were |
28 |
> experimental, had some (if not considerable) |
29 |
> knowledge and were keen to try any new gizmo that came along and, if |
30 |
> there wasn't one, develop their |
31 |
> own. Indeed, that's exactly how and why Linux is where it is now. |
32 |
|
33 |
No I didn't forget... |
34 |
|
35 |
I knew nothing whatever about a computer in the 90s you are talking |
36 |
about. My only knowledge of a computer came from things like seeing |
37 |
the girl at the unemployment office bring up my records. And not even |
38 |
all unemployment offices had computers yet. |
39 |
|
40 |
My first encounter with a computer or home computing started in |
41 |
1996. Right from scratch. |
42 |
|
43 |
I think you've got this a little back assward.. lots of commentary |
44 |
with `quite honestly, `definitely not' and other sorts of comments |
45 |
indicating a deep knowledge are a bunch of hooey. |
46 |
|
47 |
You may remember some things... but you do not have a good picture of |
48 |
what the lower echelons was like. |
49 |
|
50 |
That hardcore of experimenters that are the folks who really put linux |
51 |
on the map was growing rapidly.. Just as the new user base was. |
52 |
|
53 |
In the yrs I mentioned (96 upward) newbies were flocking to linux. |
54 |
Some old timers complained about it bitterly on linux News/Mail |
55 |
groups. How the linux network was getting watered down with a bunch |
56 |
of numbskulls and etc. |
57 |
|
58 |
> FWIW, I have been involved with computers one way or another since 1969 |
59 |
> (a few months before Man |
60 |
> set foot upon the moon). |
61 |
|
62 |
Then you would have had quite a different view of the lower levels of |
63 |
the linux movement. And it was a movement then... |
64 |
|
65 |
Yes there were a hard core of quite adept hackers... many of them were |
66 |
very willing to offer help to newcomers back then. All the main mail |
67 |
groups or newsgroups had a cadre of true experts... much like today. |
68 |
|
69 |
That core of experienced grew quickly too. |
70 |
|
71 |
There were lots of meetings around the country of the `lugs' where newer |
72 |
people brought machines and more experienced users helped them get an |
73 |
OS on it and running. You don't hear that anymore, the OSs are much |
74 |
easier to install and configure. |
75 |
|
76 |
One guy from Alaska... whos name I have forgotten... took me in hand |
77 |
for several wks... walked me thru lots of stuff off the lists. and |
78 |
even by phone with me in California, It's really a shame I've |
79 |
forgotten his name... kind of embarrassing, because he spent a good |
80 |
bit of time coaching me for a while. |
81 |
|
82 |
But the influx was already growing quickly as can be seen from the |
83 |
huge user base that happened in those 10-12 yrs. So at least from 96 |
84 |
on your picture ain't cutting it. I'd guess the user base expanded |
85 |
several hundred percent from say 95 to 2005. |
86 |
|
87 |
To say there weren't linux newbies is silly. Not to mention wrong. |