Well, as a computer science major you should know several Linux distros.
At least Redhat(Centos) and Debian, to start with, and wouldn't hurt to be familiar with Gentoo, Suse, Slackware, and Ubuntu.
If you want to learn Slackware then you'll have to learn the individual components that comprise a Linux distro, like the Kernel, Xorg, Bash, Linux printing, Samba etc.
You don't have to know them inside-out, but you'll need to spend a day or two on each to become familiar with each and able to work it.
The benefit is you'll learn the basics and acquire a solid foundation.
You'll only need a few hours to become familiar with any other distro once you know Slackware.
And when your friends Ubuntu doesn't boot any more after a bad update you'll be able to help him fix it
T3slider gave you some good pointers, so invest some time and learn.
That's what comp sci is all about after all, or are you there for the hot chicks

How can defining a "typical" or "average" computer user be construed as defending M$ Windows? That makes no sense. This thread has become a pile of hair-splitting, nit-picking, rubbish.
Sometimes, ErV, I think you argue just for arguing's sake.

I absolutely disagree! BTW A typical user of English would never hyphenate those words

Seriously though, I agree with BrianL's definition of a typical user.

How would you define a...Oh NO!!! Don't bother!
I'm glad somebody agrees with me about something, anyway.

Explanation. See any Windows vs Linux "discussion". There will be an argument "a \"typical user\" can't do that!!!!!" - normally in defense of windows. Without definition of "typical". In every thread, in every discussion, in any place when people compare distributions, operating systems, etc, there will be "typical user" without clear definition. Does it make sense now? Anything that doesn't have definition means flamewar - normally about "what exactly is this thing". I'm sick of that, and I'd like to see a definition, because otherwise "typical user" covers a very wide range of people.

A "typical" or "average" user will just go to a store, buy a computer, and there's a 98% chance that it will have Windows preinstalled. If and when that user becomes aware of alternative OS's, then they may or may not decide to switch, depending on whether they're interested enough.

In my opinion average person that just suddenly decided to buy computer, went to store and purchased machine with preinstalled windows, is unable do anything on all operating systems. But I also think that it is not "typical user" mentioned in comparisons like the one in current thread. To me it looks like that it is commonly assumed that there is some average skill level. And there is no explict list of things included into that average skill level. And this is a problem.

/*complete offtopic*/
for some reason this thread reminds me picture of typical browser users.

Nice link, ErV.

Oddly enough I would have to agree that 'typical user' depends entirely on what people normally use their systems for and is probably better targeted to applications and interfaces more than anything else.

I would say a 'typical user' is familiar with computer applications that they would normally use... (Office (pick one), Internet (insert your browser name here) or any of the thousands of various applications available. There are quite a few standards (ex... Internet Explorer, Firefox ), but none all inclusive because not everyone uses them or likely even one exclusively. This all implies that they can use the interface ( CLI or GUI ) that they have to use to get to these applications. None of this requires a user to be able to identify any component of a given system (video card vs hard drive), just familiarity with using what is available on that system (type or click this to get to this).

Working as a PC tech, this would be only my working definition of a 'typical user' and atm , consequently, currently removing a 3.5in CD from a floppy drive while explaining to another that the eject button on the CD-rom does in fact eject a CD, but does not power off the computer to a guy who can hand me my ars utilizing spreadsheet software.

Most people I work with use the computers and the software installed, but the knowledge ends with manipulation of installed software and oddly enough, some are extremely advanced users... of that software .

Oh, yes. I'm done with it.

I am not sure if it was already mentioned, but there is a YouTube video called Fat Chicks vs. Skinny Ones" (or something like that) where there are two geeks having - nearly - a screaming match over which is better, Slackware or Ubuntu.

Definitely worth the watch.

I agree mainly with ErV. As a moderator on a Mozilla forum it sometimes surprises me how little people -who call themselves "pro"- know, and on the other hand, complete noobs, but willing to learn, won't give up and tackle the most difficult problems.

I know what BrianL and Woodsman mean by "typical user", but the point is, they're often not as "typical" as one might think.

I find "typical users" will always try to get something to work if they want it to work, but if they don't care, or have a prejudice against a product they won't try at all

I have not noticed anyone post this yet, but I just want to further ErV's comment and say that the term "typical user" is completely subjective not only to the person presenting it, but also to the person it is referring to.

My "typical user" who buys a computer at Best Buy: saves up some flow, goes in, buys a glitzy system, end of definition. Even the Mac fans that shop at Best Buy still act somewhat "typical". We, Linux and UNIX users, are atypical.

However, at a Linux computing conference we would be seen as the "typical [end|power] user", while the Windows and Mac dudes would be cast off as atypical.

This also, argumentatively boils down to the environment for which we target our "typical user" comment towards: at the computer place where Windows (and Apple) have the market share, we Linux users are atypical. At an alternate OS setting, it is the Windows (and Mac, Haiku, ReactOS, *BSD, etc.) users that are atypical.

What I wrote when I thought I had lost my previous post:
Everyone needs to stop being so offended. ErV is just trying to remove the obfuscation from the conversation through means of interrogation.

It boils down to the term, "typical users", being completely and utterly subjective; it is the point-of-reference that defines the implication.

If we walk into a computing scenario where Microsoft (or even Apple) hold the market share, Windows and Mac users are the "typical users" - we are atypical. However, should a Windows or Mac fuddy-dud walk into a situation where Linux is the popular choice, they are seen as atypical, while we Linux users are seen as completely "normal" (again, "normal" being subjective).