140 lines
9.2 KiB
Markdown
140 lines
9.2 KiB
Markdown
**The Gatekeeping Problem**
|
|
|
|
The "RTFM" culture runs deeper than just telling people to read manuals - it's about who gets to decide what constitutes "proper" Linux knowledge. You see this in forums where someone asks "How do I install a graphics driver?" and gets responses like "If you can't figure that out, maybe Linux isn't for you." This creates artificial barriers where the measure of worthiness becomes suffering through arcane processes rather than accomplishing actual work.
|
|
|
|
*Branches:*
|
|
- The myth of "earning your stripes" - why do we think struggle equals legitimacy?
|
|
- Documentation that's written by experts for experts, creating circular gatekeeping
|
|
- The assumption that everyone has unlimited time to become a command-line wizard
|
|
- How this hurts diversity - who has the privilege to spend weeks learning esoteric commands?
|
|
|
|
**Accessibility vs. Purity Debates**
|
|
|
|
This touches the core tension in Linux philosophy. The command line is powerful, but insisting everyone use it is like insisting everyone rebuild their car engine instead of just driving. Yet there's real concern about losing what makes Linux special as it becomes more mainstream.
|
|
|
|
*Branches:*
|
|
- GUI tools as "dumbing down" vs. democratizing access
|
|
- The false dichotomy - why can't we have both power and usability?
|
|
- Systemd wars as the ultimate purity vs. practicality battle
|
|
- Package managers: apt vs. pacman vs. portage vs. GUI software centers
|
|
- The desktop environment hierarchy (i3 > GNOME > KDE > XFCE according to some)
|
|
- Mobile Linux and whether Android "counts" as Linux adoption
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Corporate Involvement Backlash**
|
|
|
|
There's legitimate concern about corporate capture, but sometimes the reaction goes too far. Canonical gets hate for trying to make money while making Linux accessible. System76 gets criticized for charging premium prices. Red Hat gets vilified for... being a business?
|
|
|
|
*Branches:*
|
|
- The sustainability problem - how do we fund Linux development without "selling out"?
|
|
- The IBM/Red Hat controversy and what it means for enterprise Linux
|
|
- Nvidia drivers and the pragmatism vs. principles debate
|
|
- Steam Deck success vs. "real Linux" gatekeeping
|
|
- Microsoft's WSL - collaboration or colonization?
|
|
- The venture capital influx into Linux companies
|
|
|
|
**New Territory to Explore:**
|
|
|
|
**The Streaming/Content Creator Divide** - Traditional Linux users vs. YouTubers/streamers who bring mainstream attention but maybe lack deep technical knowledge. Is Luke from LTT dropping Linux helping or hurting the cause?
|
|
|
|
**The Generation Gap** - Older users who remember when Linux required serious dedication vs. younger users who expect it to "just work" like their phones.
|
|
|
|
**The Security Theater Problem** - Using security and privacy as cudgels to shame people for practical choices. "You use Zoom? You're part of the problem!"
|
|
|
|
**The Professional vs. Hobbyist Split** - Server admins who use RHEL at work but get looked down on for not running Gentoo at home.
|
|
|
|
**The Minimalism Cult** - When using fewer resources becomes a competition rather than a practical choice.
|
|
|
|
Which of these resonates most with your experience in the Linux community?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**The Gatekeeping Problem - Deep Dive**
|
|
|
|
**The Myth of "Earning Your Stripes"**
|
|
|
|
This is the most insidious form of gatekeeping because it masquerades as virtue. The idea that you must suffer through compiling kernels, wrestling with X11 configs, and memorizing man pages to be a "real" Linux user creates this weird hazing ritual. It's like saying you can't appreciate music unless you build your own instruments.
|
|
|
|
The suffering becomes the point - not the learning, not the accomplishment, just the pain. People wear their battle scars like badges: "I spent three weeks getting my WiFi working on Arch." But why is that good? Why do we celebrate inefficiency as dedication?
|
|
|
|
This creates a hierarchy where:
|
|
- Manual compilation > package managers
|
|
- Command line > GUI
|
|
- Obscure distributions > popular ones
|
|
- Breaking things and fixing them > things working smoothly
|
|
|
|
The real kicker? Many of the people enforcing these "stripes" learned Linux when it genuinely required this suffering. They project their historical necessity onto today's newcomers who have better options available.
|
|
|
|
**Documentation Written by Experts for Experts**
|
|
|
|
This is circular gatekeeping at its finest. The people who write documentation already understand the system deeply, so they document it in ways that make sense to... people who already understand it deeply. Then when newcomers can't follow it, they're told "the documentation is perfectly clear."
|
|
|
|
Examples everywhere:
|
|
- Man pages that assume you know what you're looking for
|
|
- Installation guides that skip "obvious" steps
|
|
- Troubleshooting that says "check your logs" without explaining which logs or how to read them
|
|
- Configuration examples without context about what they actually do
|
|
|
|
The expert curse is real - once you know something well, it becomes nearly impossible to remember what it was like not to know it. But instead of acknowledging this limitation, the community often treats documentation confusion as user failure.
|
|
|
|
Worse, suggesting that documentation could be clearer gets pushback: "The information is all there." Yes, technically, but so is the entire English language in the dictionary - that doesn't make it a good way to learn English.
|
|
|
|
**The Privilege of Unlimited Learning Time**
|
|
|
|
This might be the most overlooked aspect. The assumption that everyone can spend weeks learning arcane commands reveals massive privilege blind spots. Who has time to compile Gentoo from scratch? Who can afford to break their main computer while learning?
|
|
|
|
- Students with flexible schedules vs. working parents
|
|
- Tech workers vs. people in other industries
|
|
- Those with backup computers vs. single-device households
|
|
- People with reliable internet vs. those with limited connectivity
|
|
- Native English speakers vs. those reading translated documentation
|
|
|
|
The "just spend time learning" advice ignores that time is a luxury. When someone says "I need my computer working by Monday for work," responding with "you should learn vi first" is tone-deaf.
|
|
|
|
There's also the assumption that everyone wants computing to be their hobby. Some people just want to check email, browse the web, and get work done. They're not failing at Linux - Linux is failing them if it demands they become hobbyists.
|
|
|
|
**How This Hurts Diversity**
|
|
|
|
The demographic makeup of Linux communities isn't an accident. When the barrier to entry requires significant time investment, comfort with technical failure, and thick skin for community interactions, you're selecting for a very specific type of person.
|
|
|
|
The gatekeeping specifically excludes:
|
|
- People without technical backgrounds who could bring fresh perspectives
|
|
- Those from cultures where asking for help is discouraged or seen as weakness
|
|
- Anyone who doesn't fit the stereotypical "computer nerd" archetype
|
|
- People who learn differently (visual learners in a text-heavy culture)
|
|
- Those who need accessibility accommodations but face "figure it out yourself" attitudes
|
|
|
|
The irony is crushing: an operating system built on principles of freedom and openness ends up with communities that are demographically homogeneous and culturally exclusionary.
|
|
|
|
**The "Real User" Fallacy**
|
|
|
|
At the heart of all this gatekeeping is the belief that there's such a thing as a "real" Linux user - and that this person looks exactly like the gatekeeper. They use the terminal exclusively, compile from source, run minimal window managers, and scoff at anything that makes computing easier.
|
|
|
|
But this creates impossible standards:
|
|
- Use the terminal... but not too many aliases or scripts (that's cheating)
|
|
- Customize everything... but not with tools that make customization easy
|
|
- Understand the system deeply... but don't use tools that help you understand it
|
|
- Be self-sufficient... but also participate in community forums
|
|
|
|
The goalposts constantly move. Ubuntu was too easy, so people moved to Arch. Then Arch got too mainstream, so they moved to Gentoo. Then Gentoo got installers, so they moved to Linux From Scratch. It's gatekeeping all the way down.
|
|
|
|
**The Expertise Performativity Problem**
|
|
|
|
Much gatekeeping stems from people performing expertise rather than actually helping. Answering "use dd to write the ISO" instead of "use Balena Etcher" isn't more helpful - it's showing off knowledge. The goal becomes demonstrating superiority rather than solving problems.
|
|
|
|
This shows up as:
|
|
- Unnecessarily complex solutions to simple problems
|
|
- Refusing to acknowledge easier alternatives exist
|
|
- Name-dropping tools/concepts without explanation
|
|
- Correcting trivial details while ignoring the main question
|
|
- Responding to "how do I..." with "why would you want to..."
|
|
|
|
The community rewards this performance, creating a feedback loop where being helpful is less valued than appearing knowledgeable.
|
|
|
|
**Breaking the Gatekeeping Cycle**
|
|
|
|
The solution isn't eliminating standards or expertise - it's separating gatekeeping from legitimate guidance. Good mentorship says "here's how to do what you want, and here's why it works." Gatekeeping says "you shouldn't want that until you understand this other thing first."
|
|
|
|
What would non-gatekeeping Linux advocacy look like? How do we maintain the culture of learning and empowerment while dropping the hazing rituals?
|