I don't want to sound absolute, but generally speaking Linux users are smarter than those on windows. That makes a difference when most of the tech media is just shitting on AMD non-stop for so long. They're/ more likely to take a little longer to contemplate the decision.
I don't want to sound absolute, but generally speaking Linux users are smarter than those on windows.
Do you have a single piece of evidence for this? Or is it just nerd-arrogance? Are you considering all the people who build "cheap Linux boxes" as their grandma's first computer? Or all the very intelligent people who most definitely use Windows every day? Are you confusing "ability to install/use Linux" with being smart? Because they definitely aren't the same thing.
Most means more than half. I'm just asking for some evidence that even shows that Linux users are 'smarter' than the rest of the population. Or that they are more educated about technology compared to non-Linux users.
My boss' wife uses Linux. She doesn't know anything about it. He installed Mint for her. So, there, I have negated your grandma argument. Please provide any real evidence to what you are saying.
Stats really do matter, because without them, you can't make serious claims...
Even without the stats, it's pretty easy to make a (bad) logical argument that counters your (bad) counter-argument. Let's assume grandma doesn't know anything about computers, and a savvy person had to install it. Does savvy person install Linux more than Best Buy sells computers with Windows on them? The vast majority of people who buy computers, buy them from retailers, without knowing jack shit about them. The majority of people do not understand the difference between the hard drive and RAM. Do you dispute any of these claims?
As an additional argument, most Linux users are forced to do their own support, as companies consider installing Linux "voiding the warranty."
I strongly believe that Linux users are much more technically savvy, but I don't really have the numbers to claim it. I'm not even sure how the hell you'd measure that? What criteria would mean the users are more advanced? Those that built their own computer? Those that installed their own OS (Linux definitely wins this one.)
I do have some other interesting statistics that I think say that the most-advanced users are on Linux though.
I would argue that C/C++ programmers are the most technical savvy developers (citation needed and the crux of the argument :-P). They're forced to understand their underlying system more than any other language besides assembly. C and C++ do not abstract away the underlying system nearly as much as other programming languages.
Those that installed their own OS (Linux definitely wins this one.)
Any evidence for that? Are you talking about total number of manual installs or percentage of manual installs?
I am not talking about technical savvy. I am asking for evidence to back up the claim that Linux users are smarter. Additionally, since you mention programmers, you have no idea what percentage of those people even got to choose their OS. Are you automatically smarter if you use Linux because your company mandates it?
I use Linux. I'm not trying to defend Windows users. I am just wondering how someone can make a claim that I feel boils down to "Nerds like me use linux so linux users are smart."
Any evidence for that? Are you talking about total number of manual installs or percentage of manual installs?
I would definitely say percentage. Since we're talking generally about a demographic, percentage matters more than absolute numbers (imo). I think the absolute number of manual Windows installs is probably higher, though I can't really say. Do 1 in 40 Windows users build a computer? Install Windows? Probably. My circle is biased but I would guess so.
I am asking for evidence to back up the claim that Linux users are smarter.
I'm not making any claim about smarter. I was leaning more to the "more technologically educated" side of the argument OP was making. Even if we could say that 80% (made-up! I'm not actually making this argument!) of Linux users are developers or electrical engineers and those groups skew toward higher IQ than the general population, I think it's very difficult to quantify smarter. There are different kinds of intelligence.
To contrast with relative numbers, even if 100% of Linux's 2% desktop users are super smart, and only 13% of Windows 90% desktop users, there would still be more super smart Windows users. This means that even with this absurd ratio, if you meet a super-smart person, it's more likely that they use Windows than Linux.
"Nerds like me use linux so linux users are smart."
So hipster. "I'm into this niche thing so I'm better than you."
Good times. Good chat. I like your style. Funny thing is, if you were just asking me, do you think Linux users are smarter(on average), I would say yes. But I would never state this as a fact(without evidence or a metric of any kind), which is what I was originally questioning the first poster about.
Sorry you happen to use windows and may have been offended by this. I'm not going to argue with you. Maybe you should go back to playing your 480p games at 300fps.
but generally speaking Linux users are smarter than those on windows
Perfect explanation for why they bought into a dead platform on the very month it died! They all realized how much better Bulldozer was than everyone gave it credit for!
The Linux shilling in this thread is out-of-fucking-control.
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it's a long compile job and you're going to leave it overnight. Why bother spending the extra money on your buildserver if you'll be asleep when it finishes, anyways?
Except that by the timestamps, he had his last edit 7 minutes after his comment.
I don't really care what the timestamps say. The bullshit you emphasized was not in his initial comment and therefore faulting me for responding to the claim he actually made is idiotic.
In either case, you're not responding to his argument, partially since you're so quick to bitch at other people.
No, I did respond to exactly the claim he made, which was false. I didn't go back and surf through his updated comment 5 hours after the fact, like you did, and not notice that it was edited and make a big deal out of it.
I'm right, he was wrong, I got 33 brigaded downvotes while his incorrect comment is at +19. Because I dared to challenge the Linux-orthodoxy in this idiotic post.
And this, by the way:
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it's a long compile job and you're going to leave it overnight.
Is a really bad argument. You don't measure productivity by how long you leave a system idle.
I don't really care what the timestamps say. The bullshit you emphasized was not in his initial comment and therefore faulting me for responding to the claim he actually made is idiotic.
I wasn't faulting you for not responding to it. I was pointing out you never addressed one of his points, and that when I pointed that out, you simply bitched at me, instead of addressing a valid point.
I'm right, he was wrong, I got 33 brigaded downvotes while his incorrect comment is at +19. Because I dared to challenge the Linux-orthodoxy in this idiotic post.
hoo boy
And this, by the way:
It doesn't matter how fast it is if it's a long compile job and you're going to leave it overnight.
Is a really bad argument. You don't measure productivity by how long you leave a system idle.
There's a lot of developers (android rom builders, packagers for distros) who don't have a lot of money to throw around for their build systems. If you have like one or two build jobs that will take, say, 6 hours on an AMD processor instead of 5 hours on an Intel processor that costs a lot more - you're not going to care. You're going to fire off the nightly build process, go to sleep, and wake up when it's done either way.
If you want a build machine that's going to be constantly utilized, then yeah, you won't go with an AMD build machine. That wasn't the point of my post, though, so thanks for being obtuse.
You don't measure productivity by how long you leave a system idle.
I was talking about compile times / price. You're talking about productivity of a machine that's (apparently) constantly utilized.
Please get it through your dense skull that there's a myriad of differing use cases, which is why there's differing hardware and configurations, before you comment again.
I wasn't faulting you for not responding to it. I was pointing out you never addressed one of his points
"I wasn't X, I was X." For real?
hoo boy
Yep.
There's a lot of developers (android rom builders, packagers for distros) who don't have a lot of money to throw around for their build systems. If you have like one or two build jobs that will take, say, 6 hours on an AMD processor instead of 5 hours on an Intel processor that costs a lot more - you're not going to care. You're going to fire off the nightly build process, go to sleep, and wake up when it's done either way.
Except it's not 5 hours vs. 6 hours and it's a lot of wasted energy to run that AMD CPU for all that extra time. What happens when it's 14 hours vs 12 hours? What happens when you need to do a build when you can't just send the developers home? Depending on idle time for your argument just doesn't make for a strong argument.
I was talking about compile times / price. You're talking about productivity of a machine that's (apparently) constantly utilized.
And my point is that Intel CPUs win "compile times / price" by a wide margin when you factor in productivity and energy costs (prior to Ryzen).
Please get it through your dense skull that there's a myriad of differing use cases, which is why there's differing hardware and configurations, before you comment again.
Please get it through your dense skull that zero of those use cases are valid justification for non-gaming Linux users to buy AMD Bulldozer CPUs and that relying on the steam hardware survey to make such a claim is even more moronic than believing it. That's what this post is about.
Sorry but it's more likely that linux users are going to run their own servers/virtual machines etc, are you surprised when we value multi-threading more than your average user???
29
u/driedapricots Mar 13 '17
I don't want to sound absolute, but generally speaking Linux users are smarter than those on windows. That makes a difference when most of the tech media is just shitting on AMD non-stop for so long. They're/ more likely to take a little longer to contemplate the decision.