On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 06:52:01PM +1000, Robin Whittle wrote:
> Surely this is some kind of joke.
why?
> The average user needs exactly the same computing environment as other
> average users, whatever its strengths and weaknesses.
the average user needs something to do basic word processing on,
and perhaps a spreadsheet and/or internet access and/or a few other
programs.
believe it or not, but "average users" used computers quite productively
before microsoft monopolised the desktop with Windows.
> > "EverythingLinux, an online Linux store, announced today that it
> > will donate Red Hat Linux and Sun's StarOffice CDs to PC charities
> > upon request.
>
> Who at a charity has what it takes to negotiate the RedHat package
> selection inquisition, let alone read installation manuals, create
> boot floppies and partition hard drives? What are they going to tell
> the recipient when they get thrown into vi, and have no idea at all
> what is happening?
huh? i am so sick of hearing people say that installing linux is hard
while installing windows is a breeze. it isn't. and it isn't. the
truth is that linux is much easier to install than windows because the
procedure is documented.
i'm also sick of hearing people say "but average users will never be
able to install linux" and using that as the reason why linux will never
succeed in the mainstream - here's a newsflash for you: 99% of "average
users" will never be able to install windows either.
have you ever tried to install windows 95 from scratch? it's nearly
bloody impossible unless you're an experienced computer technician or
computer hobbyist willing to have a go and learn.
you need a CD. and you need a boot floppy with the DOS driver for your
CD-ROM drive. you've probably got the former but you almost certainly
don't have the latter because the dealer who installed windows on your
system the first time didn't bother providing it. how thoughtful of
them.
if they did provide the boot floppy, then they probably just gave you
the one that came with the CD - which is *intended* for the dealer to
copy a cd-rom driver and edit config.sys so that it works. except no
dealer ever does that, they just make a disk for themselves to use in
the shop when building the system...and the customer doesn't even know
that they should ask for it when they buy the system.
if you're lucky enough to have an internet connection and another
computer you may be able to find a driver which you can download and
put onto the floppy yourself. don't worry about understanding the
documentation because there probably isn't any - "no user servicable
parts inside" is the motto.
and then if you're really lucky you can spend a day or two swearing at
the stupid machine until you finally realise that even though the MS-DOS
driver can see the CD-ROM unit and so load the windows installer, the
windows installer itself can't see the CD-ROM is because you've done the
*sensible* thing and put the CD-ROM drive on the secondary IDE interface
rather than as the slave device on the primary IDE interface. anyone who
has even the faintest idea IDE performance will do this because they
don't want the hard disk to run as slow as the CD-ROM.
there are many more horror stories than these in windows 95
installation. admittedly, windows 98 is *much* better, they learnt a
lot...but most throw-away machines donated to charities come with a
win95 CD, not win98.
the worst of it is that NONE of this is documented anywhere. you can
tear your hair out screaming in frustration at how stupid it is but
unless you make a lucky guess you'll never figure it out.
at least with linux the documentation IS published and readily available
and assistance is easy to get, and pointers to it are right there in the
README file(s) at the top of the linux CD. in fact, the documentation
is often published on the same CD so you don't need to hunt very far to
find what you need to know.
now maybe i have trouble with windows because i'm a geek and i expect
computers to operate according to principles of science and logic rather
than voodoo and black-magic, but i can never use it without ending up
incredibly angry and pissed off at the stupidity of the system.
maybe i should just give up on such unreasonable expectations and order
in a supply of chickens the next time i have to work with a windows
machine so i have the appropriate tools for the required rituals.
> :q!(enter)
>
> Why won't it read a floppy disc? Can I play Windows/MS-DOS games on
> it? I can't eject the CD. How can I install my latest inkjet printer,
> or scanner? The horror!
try reading the documentation. it's useful for more than just filling
up empty space in a box, you know.
> Maybe one day open source desktop software will become easier to use
sorry, open source software IS easy to use.
it may not be easy to *learn* but it is certainly much easier to *use*
than windows or any other microsoft product.
the problem with software that is easy to learn is that it almost
invariably comes at the price of being difficult to master. anyone can
sit down and get it doing basic things in 15 minutes...but it's almost
impossible for them to get past the novice stage because the system is
so helpful in hiding distressingly detailed information from them that
it gets in their way when they are ready to progress to the next skill
level.
so everyone operates their windows software like a novice does...or, at
best, not much more skillfully than a novice.
vi is actually a good example of this. it's fairly difficult to learn
but is amazingly easy to use when you have learnt it (and the truth is
that you only need to know about half a dozen commands to be able to use
it productively) so you can do things in it that are either impossible
in a simple-but-easy editor like notepad or MS Word or have to be done
tediously step-by-step, switching between keyboard and mouse for every
operation.
> and close enough to the mainstream experience to be interchangeable.
> Star-Office and Gnome/KDE are a step in that direction. But a charity
> operation is going to be giving computers to people who want their
> computer to be a helpful, familiar tool immediately. They don't
> want to be on any more of a learning curve than possible, and they
> certainly need to be compatible with the computing environments of all
> their friends, schools and workplaces.
why not? what's *wrong* with people actually <gasp!> learning </gasp!>
how to use the tools that they have? is it some kind of a moral failing
for a product to require that users not only have a brain but be willing
to use it?
or perhaps you think there's some special virtue in the pre-literate (or
is that illiterate?) state of mind fostered by over-dependance on GUIs
and icons?
personally, when i encounter illiterate people my first reaction is NOT
to say "it's OK to be illiterate, we'll just readjust the world so it's
not such a handicap"...my first reaction is to try and teach them how to
read and write so that they don't have a handicap any more.
and just so you understand what i'm saying here: i am not saying that
lack of computer skills is equivalent to illiteracy today (although that
is true too), what i am saying is that focusing on icons and GUIs at
the expense of textual interfaces is actively detrimental to written
language skills...it encourages people to be illiterate. i'll repeat
that even stronger: it *makes* people become illiterate.
craig
-- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 03:10:05 EST