What is Linux Literacy?

[blackbelt_jones]

I hope the mods don't object, but I wanted to start a new thread in order to invite people to post their own ideas of just what sort of knowledge should be required for "linux literacy". If you think it's redundant, feel free to close my previous thread.

The following has been moved from that thread:

Originally posted by Valdner

What I would like to see is what exactly you mean by Linux literacy. Perhaps some sort of check list of things one needs to know to be considered Linux literate.


Well, here's what I think:

You ought to be able to install your system, handle your package manager, manage your root account, use your gui applications, manage your hardware devices (your printer, scanner, and cd burner) and use the shell in a basic, interactive way. Finally, I would add that you should be able to use the available documentation sources (including the community itself) to find the information that you need. I may have left something out, but that 's a pretty good thumbnail sketch.

I'm not the final authority on this. It's my wish that the community, especially those who write the documentation, start working toward a consensus on just what is considered "linux literate".

To an extent, it's really a personal judgement call. If you feel like you can use your computer effectively to do what you want and need, that's what makes you literate. One thing that I've left out of my checklist is lan networking, which is something that just hasn't come up in my everyday use. For others, that may be important.

[blackbelt_jones]

Gee whiz, doesn't anybody have anything to say about this?

[GmarAppledude]

Ok my opinion is that if you want to do something but don't know how you can look it up. If the next time you come across the same problem and don't need to look it up then you have become literate in that "thing". From this point of view we are only literate in things that interest us. For example I have no experience of printers in linux as I don't own a printer, this does make me illiterate in inux printing (CUPS is it?) but it makes no difference to me at all. If I do buy a printer I can look up how to use it and next time I'll be literate.

So basically I am saying there are are fw core elements we learn when we install linux for the first time, without these we are completely lost but they are so fundamental, that becomming literate in these elements is unavoidible. Basically this things you listed above. The more elements we become literate in the more experienced we become and the easier it is to cross reference with new problems.

I think people sometime underestimate what they can do so they ask for peace of mind rather than needing the information, this is to be encouraged as it builds the community. IMHO :)

[chatins]

Linux literacy might be defined as knowing the 20% of Linux that does 80% of the heavy lifting.

Installation and configuration
Basic Linux conf files
Package management
User space and permissions
Driver configuration, hardware basics
Multimedia basics
Yum, Synaptic
Single User mode
Checking disk space
Linux file system basics
Boot loader options
Basic terminal, shell commands
Man pages and how to use them
Linux history and open source GPL basics

80% of knowledge is required for only 20% of tasks

Linux Masters know:
Linux programming
Kernel hacking in the Linus Torvalds sense of the word!
LFS
Linux security
Interoperability
Debian
Slackware

[DSwain]

Well, in general, I think understanding the tools you need to use everyday is a good thing to do. I also appreciate anyone who sits down with the command line and does the work by hand. You can almost get away without it these days but you miss so much when you do. It's a world of fun to use it and see what you can do with yourself. It's great for mind expansion.

Also, I think a person who is willing to patient and willing to read things through and tinker is very Linux Literate. Anyone who is willing to be kind and listen and help people out is also very Linux Literate, or at least a good candidit to use it.

[blackbelt_jones]

Originally posted by chatins
Linux literacy might be defined as knowing the 20% of Linux that does 80% of the heavy lifting.


chatins, I love that!

But I disagree with one thing... debian isn't just for masters anymore! I tried a dozen or more distros, and debian was the one that I kept coming back to, because I found it the simplest to run.

[XiaoKJ]

Linux literacy and you add slackware and debian to it?

at least installing gentoo without notes, and LFS and the likes is much more than that!!! slackware installation is so damn easy loh

well.... I don't have the time to answer now.... I'll keep this thread in mind.

[blackbelt_jones]

Did I say slackware? Not slackware!

But Sarge (not woody!) is actually pretty easy to install and run these days, if you use the Debian-Installer (http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/) disk.

A lot of people aren't aware of how the Debian-Installer, which came out late last year, has changed the picture of Debian for beginners and intermediates. It's not a graphical install, but it's simple and intuitive... in fact, it's essentially the same installer that Ubuntu uses. (You need a little more hardware info for Sarge: you to need the manufacturer of your video card, and the hz refresh rate for your monitor is helpful but not necessary)

When you install debian off the net, (a high speed connection is required) apt is already preconfigured, and you're ready to start downloading and installing at will.

For me, Sarge has run better and more easily than Debian-based distros like Mepis and Ubuntu, or any RPM distro such as SuSE or Fedora. That's just my experience.

[Parcival]

Originally posted by XiaoKJ
at least installing gentoo without notes, and LFS and the likes is much more than that!!!

Yes, it is, but it's not required to be considered a linux literate person. I think those examples are closer to gurudom.

[blackbelt_jones]

Well, maybe I got confused, and failed to understand my own question.

No one distro ought to be required for literacy. My point is that after trying (at least briefly) something like 30 different Linuxes (I'm counting different version numbers in this tally, btw), Sarge and Sarge alone is the one distro that I found to be so easy to install, set up, and operate that it brought real Linux literacy within reach for me. And it gets easier and more intuitive with every upgrade.

I may be crazy, or maybe it's got something to do with the fact that I've been diagnosed with ADHD, and my brain just processes these things differently, but I think Debian's potential as a distro for beginners and nonexperts is way underestimated in the Linux Community. (Sarge is not Woody) . This is why my Linux Literacy blog is based on Debian.

[DSwain]

As it was said before, it shouldn't matter which distro you're using and probably should depend more on general execution of things. It reminds me a bit of school learning. There are a lot of kids who can manage to memorize just about anything, or try to. When it comes right to it, though, it can't be applied in any other way. Someone could memorize how to install Gentoo, or LFS for that matter. I think, if you can really understand the commands you're forging through and using them on other systems and such, that's being literate of Linux.

[hotleadpdx]

I would agree that picking the flavour of the month in distros isn't "literacy," anymore than finding the most difficult distro to install makes for a literate Linux user. Granted, you gain knowledge in the installation process with the more difficult distros, but that counts for little if you don't actually use the system for anything but bragging rights.

Literacy (in my opinion) is a matter of being able to use the system to accomplish the tasks that you need to accomplish wether it's multimedia, system administration, programming, etc.

[LNXchd]

I are illiterate...dont know nothing about no linux...:D...green and learning....trying anyways. Found this (http://www.levenez.com/unix/guru.html) floating around the web. Sets clear standards for a guru and a newbie, even though it is unix, good info, I guess. :D

[blackbelt_jones]

Eh.
I'd take this with a grain of salt. I think it's mostly intended to be humorous., though, frankly, I don't know enough about Unix to get most of the jokes. But this checklist, serious or not, centers on mastery, not literacy.

You know, I consider myself to be reasonably literate... but most of my use of Linux still centers on the gui. I continue to learn the command line-- often as a kind of short cut, and as a way of running certain applications that I like, e.g. Festival, wget, and, of course, apt-get. And I want to learn shell programming.

This is where litearacy and mastery diverge. Mastery is about gaining the vast power and control that linux has to offer the knowledgable user. Literacy is being able to do the everyday things that people do with computers. I just took a quick look, but I think that very few of the applications and commands mentioned are necessary to be literate.

[Rinias]

This is honestly a very hard question to answer... Seeing as most of us come from Windows and some from Mac, our basis for literacy changes the way we look at literacy- even our own struggles and triumphs make it different.

What is Windows literacy? And Mac literacy?! (Is there such a thing?)

Depending on our distro of preference, or the one from which we learned the most, our opinions change. What is computer literacy? Maybe Linux literacy should simply be a branch of that. Does one have to know how to install a distro to be literate in Linux? I don't think so. After all, the installation doesn't have much to do with the system once you're up and running.

And why should one be able to configure all sorts of stuff? There's no real reason with hald, hotplug, etc. C'mon! Things like that should just work! Even installing nVidia drivers is a little much to ask!

Whether one is using the GUI or the CLI I think they are literate if they can do what they want/need to do. Whether you set your WEP with iwconfig wlan0 key open XXXXX or you fire up kwifimanager, I just don't see the difference.

Users should never need to know what is going on with the system- the system should just work. Desktop users, and thus usually administrators, should know a little- like where to go for help when something goes wrong. Then they know, and they don't have to go for help should the same problem occur.

Installation, in and of itself, is pretty crappy. Why do people have to deal with "cryptic" install programs? Why is there very little information for the options when you are installing? Installation should be easier. Yes, some questions can be asked about hardware, etc- but make them clear enough (or give explainations) so that people don't have to already have installed a few times to know the answer. ( What the hell is a /dev/hda?)The "hardest" install/"most difficult" configuration does not make a distro any better- nor does the "easiest". It's all just the little nuances between systems and configurations. The real test is the daily use of the system itself to do what needs to be done.

So what is Linux literacy? Excluding games and etc, it's being able to do what you want to do. Everyday.

@ +

[i_m_meen]

linux literacy? odd idea.
first of all, you should be it&c literate first. and that's why lots of people call linux difficult. you don't know your computer, it won't work right.
i think that using the gui isn't literacy for anyone who knows a bit about computers. and when you know the gui, you're WINDOWS, OR MAC literate.
linux is nice as a desktop os, but if you want to use it right, the console is king. for tweaking i mean, and many more.
anyway, you should know how to install your operating system and programs, both with win and with lin.

[blackbelt_jones]

Originally posted by i_m_meen
linux literacy? odd idea.
first of all, you should be it&c literate first. and that's why lots of people call linux difficult. you don't know your computer, it won't work right.
i think that using the gui isn't literacy for anyone who knows a bit about computers. and when you know the gui, you're WINDOWS, OR MAC literate.
linux is nice as a desktop os, but if you want to use it right, the console is king. for tweaking i mean, and many more.
anyway, you should know how to install your operating system and programs, both with win and with lin.

You seem to have come in late here. The discussion that we've been having is about the concept of literacy as distinct from mastery, and the idea is is try to come up with a rough but objectve idea of what that entails. There can't be one definition of literacy for people who know a bit about computers, and one for those who don't.

To give you an idea, when the government talks about "literacy" in the broader, more conventional sense, one skill that is often cited as the measure is the ability to address a letter. There are obviously levels of skill well beyond that, but we're talking about practical minimums.

There's no doubt that the console is a great tool to learn, but literacy is about bottom line practical necessity, and I think that means that we're basically talking desktop. One simple measure of literacy for me is the fact that I no longer need to use Windows to surf, download, email, listen to internet radio, do word processing, watch video, install apps, burn CDs, and edit html to post on my blog. I don't do anything fancy, but everything I do, I do with Linux.

What is it&c?

For further discussion on linux literacy, check my blog (http://debianjones.blogspot.com/2005/05/linux-literacy-vs-linux-mastery.html) .

[retsaw]

Originally posted by blackbelt_jones
What is it&c?
An educated guess based on the context would be "information technology & computer".

Given the definition of literacy is being able to read and write, then "linux literacy" might be being able to read and write the word "linux" :p

Seriously, to be linux literate you should know enough to do what you need to do, I would think it would consist of being able to do the same things on linux as being computer literate would entail, with the possible addition of knowing how to install/remove programs.

[DSwain]

An educated guess based on the context would be "information technology & computer".

Either that or Information Technology and C like the programming language. Why should somebody have to be an IT manager and write in C code to use an OS? I see your point as it can be a very useful guideline for Linux and other F/OSS softwares, but I mean why for an entire OS? There are a great deal of applications to do the things that you want your OS to do, you shouldn't have to rewrite them all. I think those things would fall more towards mastery, personally.