> one of the bazillion "Hey I'm a bit of a noob here, but..." questions on reddit or whatnot only to receive a barrage of conceited responses by zealots who make it very clear how put-out they are by their question-- which they didn't have to read, let alone answer-- and how rude it was for them to not read entry 427 on the FAQ which leads to a page of resources that might have addressed part of their problem.
Today's Linux support forums are nothing like this. You only get an angry response when you start out by whining about how Linux "can't" (doesn't, with your current understanding) do what you want, or doesn't behave exactly like what you're familiar with. You might get asked to pay attention to the forum rules and guidelines banner that tells you to use some inxi invocation or whatever to get your system info - and that will link to a fully detailed guide on how to do it, as well as how to format your post properly.
If anything, the Mint forums for example are too eager to assume you're a noob, and will suggest awkward foolproof approaches to everything that don't respect what you're trying to accomplish if it's a bit advanced.
Okay, the Arch forums will respond to you with just a link to the Wiki if you're asking something that's well covered in the wiki. That's supposed to be a hint to read one specific wiki page (and they told you which one); they won't waste breath on "how put-out they are by your question" because a) they aren't, and b) typing more words is the thing that would make them put out. The point is that if you can't make sense of the wiki, then you should ask something more specific. And if you don't know what a word means, you should look it up.
And if we're talking about "users that have real practical skill born from computer use at school, work, while gaming, doing art, etc." then they should be capable of those things.
Back when I was developing said "real practical skill", being assessed as having that "real practical skill" entailed understanding that far fewer people seem to have nowadays. I don't just mean things like poring through manpages or reasoning about command pipelines. Nowadays it seems that people can be perceived as computer literate without things like having a working mental model of a "file" or a "path".
Today's Linux support forums are nothing like this. You only get an angry response when you start out by whining about how Linux "can't" (doesn't, with your current understanding) do what you want, or doesn't behave exactly like what you're familiar with. You might get asked to pay attention to the forum rules and guidelines banner that tells you to use some inxi invocation or whatever to get your system info - and that will link to a fully detailed guide on how to do it, as well as how to format your post properly.
If anything, the Mint forums for example are too eager to assume you're a noob, and will suggest awkward foolproof approaches to everything that don't respect what you're trying to accomplish if it's a bit advanced.
Okay, the Arch forums will respond to you with just a link to the Wiki if you're asking something that's well covered in the wiki. That's supposed to be a hint to read one specific wiki page (and they told you which one); they won't waste breath on "how put-out they are by your question" because a) they aren't, and b) typing more words is the thing that would make them put out. The point is that if you can't make sense of the wiki, then you should ask something more specific. And if you don't know what a word means, you should look it up.
And if we're talking about "users that have real practical skill born from computer use at school, work, while gaming, doing art, etc." then they should be capable of those things.
Back when I was developing said "real practical skill", being assessed as having that "real practical skill" entailed understanding that far fewer people seem to have nowadays. I don't just mean things like poring through manpages or reasoning about command pipelines. Nowadays it seems that people can be perceived as computer literate without things like having a working mental model of a "file" or a "path".