Slashdot Mirror
Clueless Users Are Bad For Debian
Helmholtz writes "I just got done reading a very interesting article about Debian and Clueless Users that appeared on the Debian Weekly News site. I think this article would be a very good thing for users of all distributions to read, as it touches upon what might become a very real problem. Now that the word "Linux" has been splashed around by such 'heavyweights' as CNN and NPR, everyone who want to be seen as a 'cool computer guy' is trying to get Linux up. This of course is done without any heed to the absolute requirement that some Documentation-reading. And then these same people get angry when they try to install Linux and it doesn't 'just run'. I'm not try to harass anyone new to Linux, but I really think that it isn't emphasized enough that Linux is great because it requires some learning to occur. This is a concept that the Debian article holds at its core, I believe. "
While I agree with many of the points made in the article, I disagree with just as many, and with the final conclusion.
My biggest problem with the articles is it blurs all distinctions. It lumps new users who are trying to lear with new users who aren't. It lumps hackers together with sysadmins, users and power users. Because of this, its argument boils down to "Because there are new users who don't care enough to learn how to administer a system, we should ignore new users".
First off, I think that new users who want to learn should be encouraged, not frightened off. Secondly, I disagree that only hackers and sysadmins should be using Linux.
Linux is essentially Unix in structure. That means it offers good security to keep mere users from trashing the system. That means that it is far far superior to Windows or Macintosh solutions when it comes to giving users desktop machines to do their work without administration headaches. These users only need to know how to do their job on the machine, they have a sysadmin to make sure the security and configuration is handled.
He scoffs at GUI's, yet where I work, a GUI is critical. We do mostly CAD work, and I have yet to see a useful CAD system that doesn't use a GUI (The older AutoCAD for DOS doesn't count, they essentially made their own GUI). I am glad to see he is happy without a GUI, but he should realize that they are important to more than just the "we want an easy point and click interface" crowd.
I do, however share is viewpoint that distributions like RedHat are encouraging the same trend I have seen with Windows NT. They both let users who should barely be touching a computer think that they can be systems administrators, when they really have no idea of what is going on under the hood. At least with RedHat, the hood isn't welded shut.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
I liked the article. The guy is passionate about his beliefs and he likes computers. He likes to mess with them, modify them, tweak them, etc. etc. And then he assumes other people are (or should be) like him. Oops.
Computers used to be and to most intelligent computer people (=nerds) still are a "thing in itself". You install a system for the pleasure of installing a system. You tweak the parameters because you can get it exactly right. You write a Perl script to automate some stuff because it's boring to do it by hand and it feels good to do a clever hack in Perl.
But the great majority of people aren't like that at all. For them the computer is a black box that performs certain functions. This is a perfectly viable worldview that has all rights to exist. Let's say I want to write a letter. A computer is a thing that I will use to do this. All I want is to write a letter, I don't care about configuration, amount of memory, space on my hard drive, etc. Why should I be computer-literate to write a letter?
The article author's answer is that everybody should be smart enough to understand computers and those who do not should die out, or at least be banished to using pens and paper. Why? I don't know... -- because they are not worthy?
Think about the car analogy. 60 years ago you had to be (or had to employ) a decent mechanic to own and operate a car. I bet there were people around who said that unless you can disassemble and reassemble an engine, you have no business driving a car. Fortunately, they turned out to be wrong. There are still people who disassemble engines for fun, and sometimes profit, but the normal user doesn't care about all the mechanics under the car's hood. I am sure that the same thing will happen to computers. People who want to write letters will be able to do so without knowing anything about RAM and interrupts. And people who enjoy messing around with computers will still write optimized device drivers. And again, as I said, this is a GOOD thing.
The article argues for Linux to remain the domain of hard-core hackers (=hobbyists). I think that this will be the death of Linux. Without mainstream acceptance it will go to the great write-only memory in the sky and will be remembered just as a curious hack at the dawn of computing.
Of course, nothing that I said should be constituted as doubt in the wisdom of the KB law:
"In any sufficiently large group most people will be idiots."
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Linux is good because it "requires some learning", eh?
Lovely. With an attitude like that, open-source software will be pushing Microsoft off the desktop in no time. I'm sure most corporate MIS managers are just dying to sit down a teach themselves a new OS, especially something as cool as Linux.
Sorry, but IMHO, the great thing about Linux (and other free OSes, don't want to leave the BSD folks or anyone else out in the cold) is that they've kinda got a scalable geek factor. You can set up a linux box as a point-and-click machine for an average-joe desktop user, or you can have a full-blown geek box with your very own custom kernel. Still, the install is a bitch (relatively speaking, of course) and if joe user has a choice, he's still going to take Windows, because it's easier for him to play with and tweak (note: not more tweakable, just easier). You want to beat M$, you've gotta sell the idea to the non-geeks, and that means building a distribution that's made for them.
Has anyone actually got something like that in the works, or is the open source movement still too hung up on its status as a fringe element to try beating M$ at their own game?
Just a thought...
"Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?" -- Obi-Wan Kenobi
This guy doesn't seem to distinguish between "clueless" and "newbie". IMHO, someone who doesn't know very much but is eager and willing to learn is a "newbie". Someone who may have been using a system for years, but who wants to be spoonfed, doesn't want to think for h(im|er)self and won't listen to what you say is "clueless".
All being well, I will be attempting my first Linux install in a few months time (probably the m68k version of Debian). I'm not afraid of reading documentation. Actually, I love reading documentation. I've started already - I tend to start soaking up information weeks ahead of time, so I'm prepared for things when they happen. However, if worst comes to worst, and I need help from another human being, it looks like I can expect to be hit over the head with a bunch of HOWTOs and told I didn't try hard enough.
Note to the condescending hackers reading this - you were newbies once. If nobody helped you, then I'm sorry you had such a hard time, but this doesn't justify you giving a hard time to other people who want to learn.
Before we all go jumping all over the newbies, and telling them in a loud voice to RTFM, why don't we pause for a moment and think about usability and reliability.
How many of you are competent to completely rebuild your CRT? Or LCD, as the case may be?
Relatively few, I'd wager. And yet, many many years ago, anyone that wanted to use a CRT on a regular basis had to know how to tune and tweak the damn thing with a screwdriver and a soldering iron.
Now nobody cares. If a CRT breaks, we throw it away.
The same WILL happen to computers. The idea that the OS *should* be intimidating is simply BIGOTRY. You're enamored of your own Geek Prowess, and don't want to see anything that might devalue that prowess.
But it WILL happen. The only question is whether or not it will happen to Open Source or Closed Source. You get to pick -- which will be easier to use? The main thing holding Linux back is usability -- it's the Number ONE complaint in every "mainstream" review I've ever read. Like it or not, "normal" people have to be able to use the OS. They won't care about the OS, they won't care that you can customize it, they won't care about shell scripting. They WILL care about whether or not they get their work done. That's it.
Look at it another way: it's now possible to own a car without knowing jack about the mechanics of it. Does that change the underlying mechanics of the car? No. Does that put mechanics out of work? No. It just makes the car accessible to more people, who don't give a damn about the car itself -- they only want to go from point A to point B.
Why is that such a bad thing?
Why should we be trying to STOP Linux from carrying non-knowledgeable people from Point A to Point B?
. . . geez, this is one of the reasons why Unix gets such a bad rap. When was the last time you heard someone saying NT "expertise" is cheaper than Unix expertise? Probably the last time you worked in an IT department . . .
I can definately see where this article is coming from. Things are very different now then they were two years ago. The average knowledge level of a typical linux user is rapidly decreasing. It can be argued that users need not be knowledgeable, yet I have questions.
The Linux Kernel, the GNU tools, and the numerous other bits of software that make up our systems are _not_ created by some third party. They are created from within the community of people who use the software. They are not asked to give monetary compensation to the many hackers who have worked many hours to create the gifts they so flippantly wield.
A question: are these people simply taking advantage of Free Software without giving anything whatsoever back? Do they have every right to continue as they do, reaping the fruits of other's labour? Sadly, yes, they do.
One of the prime purposes of making one's code open and free is so that others can make use of it. Whether it is used for educational purposes, or as part of a new app, it is used. What happens when people who care not for these values cross over into the Free Software world? They care little about the code, but more about the image, and the fact that everything is gratis.
By not making everything as easy as possible, we place hurdles in front of the potential user. However, in leaping these hurdles, the user becomes technically stronger, more proficient, and most importantly, beter poised to contribute something back to the community.
In some way, this is analagous to the Morse Code requirement in the ham world. Does nontrivial ease of use screen out those without the drive and interest neccessary, or does it simply serve as a Great Wall for a bunch of techno-elitists?
Can refraining from making things 'too-easy' be seen as a way of ensuring the survival of the system, or should users have every right to the proverbial Free Lunch? These issues cause me a great deal of disquiet. How do we come to terms with this issue?
(this all reminds me so much of the explosion of aol onto usenet a few years ago)
Anyway, the industry can't move forward on its belly. It's our responsibility to exceed these people and do things right, as we've been doing for years--and, in a sadly high number of cases, to clean up their mistakes (but never to take the blame). Maybe someday there won't be such a drastic shortage of IT workers, and their asses will be tossed out the door. In the meantime, somebody has to bear the torch . . .
Patience.
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
This seems to be a trend, and I see this a lot in Debian and especially BSD users. The idea that something has to be difficult to be powerful. This is ridiculous and counter productive, and it just doesn't make sense. Simplicity, always. Always.
Take BSD's install and compare to Red Hat's. BSD's is far more complicated, it is counter intuitive and yet it is no more powerful than Red Hat's, which is so easy that anyone with some experience with PC's could do it with only a little RTFM. The reason BSD's install sucks is not because it is powerful, but because the people who designed it just aren't good at interface design.
Something can be simple and powerful. Deal with it. This is just something the BSD/Debian fud coalition is going to have to face.
The idea that Red Hat is somehow inferior because it doesn't make you compile and install bash before you can use it is just utterly ridiculous. This article was nothing more than "my-dick-is-bigger-than-yours" chest thumping nonsense. People like this have no point and need to be ignored. If the Debain maintainers do not want to add value (convenience is a value, yes) to linux then that's their business, but they'll just have less users because of it. Yes, even advanced users want convenience. Sorry.
UNIX like OS's are not gaining popularity because they are complex. Rather, they are gaining popularity because they are simple. Compare linux to the insane, incomprehensible complexity of Windows NT. If complexity was such a great thing in and of itself, this guy would be mucking about in the NT registry, not using Debian.
support gun control: take guns from cops
My theory is based on the idea that every feature X has a complexity Y related to it. The total complexity of a program is directly related to the summation of all Y across all X. We can consider this the baseline of complexity for the program involving all features X. It is possible (in fact, easy) to increase this complexity by the use of complicated nested menus, pop-up windows and dialog boxes when all that is really necessary is a simple checkbox. But the overall complexity of an application is directly related to the quantity of features (and therefore the power and functionality) in the application.
As for an "Advanced Features" option, involving such a menu selection only serves to obscure the fact that the features are there by making said features harder to access. The "Advanced Features" option then becomes in itself another unit of complexity, making the program even more obfuscated and confusing. In Word, if I want to change my paragraph spacing, I have to go wade through 5 levels of menus, dialog boxes, pop-up boxes and "folder tabs" just to find the selection. That's simpler than giving TeX a simple \spacing directive? Granted, I had to read many pages of LaTeX manual to find that, but it took me less time to learn LaTeX and write a 20 page paper in it than it would have taken me to write a 20 page paper in Word. Or even in WordPerfect. (yes, I realize there's a difference between word processing and document formatting. That's why I like LaTeX so much better. Let the computer worry about the details.)
As far as my "soft-core" background, I've never done any more publishing than a computer geek has to. I've written 20 page papers. I've constructed web pages for corporations. I've never written a book, never gotten published in a magazine, and I've never used Adobe Acrobat. I'm a programmer. I write programs. I design user interfaces. I deal with databases, mainframes, embedded processors, graphical user interfaces, 3D graphics, and I have extreme distaste for the Web in general. I've also written code in Perl, Fortran, COBOL, C, C++, Prolog, Korn Shell, Bourne Shell, C Shell, Lisp, Smalltalk, Java, Javascript, HTML, Visual Basic, Access, Python, Ada, Forth, applesoft basic, assembly (6502, 80x86, MIPS, SPARC, 6811, 680x0), and Pascal. I've written compilers using Lex and Yacc. I've replaced chips on motherboards, I've assembled computers from scratch, I've fabricated printed circuit boards. I know which end of the soldering iron to hold. (hold the plastic end, the metal end hurts.) I'm not sure exactly what, apart from having been forced to use operating systems and software tools that I personally feel are sub-optimal in order to fulfill my job requriements, classifies me as "soft-core". I could make the same arguments about, for example, using WordPerfect for X versus using LaTeX. (or playing Descent versus playing Doom) I was "born and raised" typing cryptic commands to a Unix command line. At first it was a pain, but as I learned, I found that there was real power in being able to type "find / -name *.jpg -print | grep foobar | perl -npe 's/\.jpg//g' " at the command line instead of (what I'd be required to do in a GUI) wandering through hundreds of little windows, selecting icons, and still manually banging in text into Notepad.
I've written in Visual C++, Visual Basic, Borland, Java, Access, and with each of these tools, one point stands out, over and over again. The fact that the developers have gone out of their way to make it easier to use gets in my way. I would like to think that I know what I'm doing. I've never used "alt-middle-button" when writing applications. I've used well-documented command-line options many times. I've never had call for an "advanced users" menu option, because you have to know your audience. Just as a real publisher would never want to use Word for all their DTP needs, a beginning user would balk at diving head first into LaTeX. But, once I learned how LaTeX works, and why it was designed that way, it could see it as an infinitely more powerful tool than Word.
As for your "typical Linux program", give me some specific examples of times when the manual page didn't tell you where the .fubarrc is located, or doesn't give information about what alt-middle-button does. (and EMACS doesn't count, becuase EMACS sucks anyway.) The only programs I've seen that were incompletely documented were either a) commercial, or b) still in development. It's a waste of time to write up every feature before the feature-set has been finalized. Every Debian package I've ever installed has a manual page, a readme, a texinfo page, and a web page to go with it. By "online help", I assume you mean "pushing F1 and up pops a window with a dancing paperclip in it." That sort of documentation is not only irritating, distracting, and gaudy but also a waste of processor, RAM, and disk. What is the point of having a dancing paperclip when a simple text file will convey the same information? (visions of "man MSWORD | grep 'line spacing' " pop into my head)
The most important part of being a programmer (and being a writer, an actor, a senator, &c) is knowing what your audience wants. If I were writing a word processor for my mom and dad, it would most certainly NOT look like LaTeX. If I were writing a database so my Dad could keep track of his wine cellar, Access might start to look like a reasonable choice. But if I were publishing a magazine, MS Word wouldn't cut it. If I were creating an on-line database holding millions of customers' information and processing orders on-the-fly, maybe Informix or Oracle would be a better product to start with. Complexity versus ease of use is the most important trade-off in designing software. The reason why there are hundreds of software packages that do basically the same thing lies in the distinction of audience. You can look at Paintbrush, PSP, CorelPhotoPaint, xfig, Microsoft Photo Editor, Harvard Graphics, the GIMP, Visio and Photoshop and say they serve roughly the same purpose. But look at the difference in target audience, and consequently the differences in price, output quality, and complexity. No one would ever tell you that the GIMP is easier to use than Paintbrush. Cripes, my 6 year old cousin could figure out how to use Paintbrush. But, look at the difference in what you can do with them. The GIMP even has its own scripting language so you can automate just about any task you want. That makes it harder to learn, but at the same time, infinitely more powerful.
Do I need to say it again to make it clearer?
Leapfrog, the indignant.
Linux is certainly not presently suited for people who need their computers to be toasters.
However, this does not excuse trying to scare people off. Just because they don't know anything yet doesn't mean they're unwilling to learn.
The first time you logged into a Unix system, if I'd handed you a tape and said "here, recover the Samba configuration from the third dump session on here", would you have known what to do? I seriously doubt it.
Computers are always approaching ease of use. It's not a point, it's a process, but if you oppose it you are in an awfully Luddite-ish position.
Linux is proving the point that just because the interface *CAN* be improved to where anybody can use it, doesn't mean the guts under the hood have to be inaccessible.
It would be a very wonderful thing if we can continue to improve both. Don't try to put the "ubiquitous computing" genie back in it's bottle, it's gotten quite too large to fit in there. Instead, try helping the process.
If you insist on denying the need, rest assured that technology will march along without you.
1) Remember, the average IQ is, by definition, only 100.
2) A good strategy would be like whut Bushnell said about video games: make them easy to learn (so the player is quickly 'engaged' in the game) and difficult to master (so it can be challenging to the advanced player). An ideal Linux would have something for everyone (Face it, that's what M$ tries to do) - for the neophyte, it would come from a store preloaded with the os, browser, office suite, Internet dialup, printer, ready to plug in, hook to the phone, turn on and hit the net running, or writing letters, creating databases, publishing web pages, etc, etc, as easy as sliding in an antorun CD. If enough boxes were sold like that the initial development cost could be brough way down.
Later on, as the user becomes more experienced, s/he could graduate all the way up to kernel hacking and development if they so desire.
It would also have to have some way of makeing system backup easily, snapshots - that way
a nervous user could make a backup of their entire system, then change various configs or install software and if they hose it, boot the recovery floppy and and do a restore to the last backup.
(That's what I do even with M$ products,
GHOST is great for that!)
BooBOo
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Leapfrog's Theory of Software Complexity:
In order to make a program easier to use (more user-friendly), you must make it less powerful for the advanced user. In order to make a program more powerful, it must become more complex, and therefore harder to use.
Case in point: Adobe Photoshop vs. MSPAINT.
Anyone who's ever used Adobe Photoshop (or, for that matter, the GIMP) knows that these are real power tools. They are incredibly useful and quite powerful, with a great many configurable options. But, I have known users who couldn't stand Photoshop because there were "too many buttons". These users turn to Paintbrush because it's easier to use. They don't care about powertools. Why use a screw gun when this rusty old philips head screwdriver works just fine? Sure, it's easier to use, but the results are vastly different.
The big three: Debian, Redhat, Slackware
Now, I don't intend to start any flamewars here, but The Way I See It (tm) is as follows. I've used this metaphor many times, and it always seems to fit.
Redhat: Redhat is a linux distribution designed for Windows users. It's been that way for some time, and the approach they're taking doesn't seem to be changing. They provide a whiz-bang easy installation, literally dozens of annoying pop-up programs with which to configure your system, and even the default window manager looks like windows 95. Redhat has done this because they want more people to be able to use it. I ran Redhat for about 2 weeks before I got just as sick of it as I did of windows because even though I know what files to edit, and where to edit them (on a normal system) Redhat would undo my changes every time I rebooted because I didn't use the "configurator" to do it. It took me 9 days to figure out how to change my hostname. The first 5 days were repeated attempts at editing /etc/hostname and the rc.d scripts over and over and being disgusted that every time I rebooted Redhat would just undo my configurations.
Slackware: Slackware is the exact opposite. It offers absolutely no configuration tools of its own. What you get is what you get, period. Slackware was my first Linux install. It was great fun. Every time I wanted something, I downloaded the source, compiled it, and installed it by hand. If there was a configuration problem, I was in there hacking kernel code, changing /etc files, moving symbolic links so my X server would go higher than 320x200. So I learned how to do it The Right Way(tm). And it was a valubale experience. This is why I think of Slackware as Linux for Dos users. Everything you want to do, you do by editing /etc files, installing it yourself, homebrewing directory structures (/opt? Sure! /foobar? No problem! /usr/local/foobar? Hey, you're the boss, buddy!) and most importantly, reading the gosh-danged manuals. My first month as a linux user involved 15% actually using the system and 85% playing RTFM(*). But looking back, I wouldn't want it any other way.
Debian: (Always save the best for last, I say...) In my opinion, Debian offers the best of what's around. You start out with a relatively simple base install (I remember using the magic 7 floppies) that's not quite as easy as RedHat, but in turn offers immense flexibility and configuration options. Then you reboot and are whisked away to the land of dselect, where literally thousands of packages lie before you, waiting for you to pick and choose what you want and don't want. Each one has a short description of what it does, and a great many have the informational notice "If you don't know what this is, you don't need it", so all but the most clueless of newbies can, and do, stumble through a Debian installation and still come out with a useful (if not optimal) system to fit their needs. Once the install is done, you're left with a machine that looks and behaves just like a "normal" unix box. If you want to change configurations, you can elect to use handy pop-up configurator boxes, but it certainly won't keep you from editing your configuration files. And the default window manager is chosen while you're installing the software. It's not magically pre-determined for you. And if you don't like the wm you chose, you can easily edit .xinitrc's to change it. Almost all the config files are well documented and in the places you'd expect them to be. For these reasons, as well as a "general look and feel" category, I've always considered Debian to be Linux for Linux (or Unix) users. People who want to get their hands dirty. Who want to edit config files, tweak settings, and recompile kernels, but not have to worry about downloading and compiling gcc and libc and m4 again. The debian package manager handles all that pesky downloading and installing for you, with over 2 thousand different packages to choose from. Oh yeah, the package manager is all written in Perl, too. I like Perl.
Conclusion: Clueless Newbies
The masses have spoken. Average Joe User wants a system that's easy to use, easy to learn, and supports all the hardware and software available now. As such, he has no need to use Debian. Or Slackware, or Redhat, for that matter. Let him suffer Windows, at least until the DOJ tears M$ a new corn-chute. For the person who wants to run a server, but doesnt know anything other than NT, point him towards RedHat. (at least its not quite as bad as windows). For someone who really wants to learn Linux, and learn it the hard way, off to Slackware with ye! And finally, for the real power user, the person who has been around the block a few times, knows what they want and how they want it, Debian is the only way to play.
At least, that's the way I see it.
Leapfrog, the mediocre.
(*)- I always saw this as Read The Fine Manual.
Seems like this long-winded gripe against new users to Debian can be shortened:
...spend three years recompiling packages to the latest versions... Recompiling packages doesn't guarantee you know how best to use them (or at all), or what the trade offs are for implementing it one way instead of another.
"Everything that is powerful is complex. Things that aren't complex suck, and it really bothers me when new users complain about things that I consider mundane. Oh yeah, Red Hat sucks too because it's not complex and they use marketing phrases to describe their product."
His view is quite understandable. There is a wonderful feeling of power when you finally bring Linux up and running for the first time. I'll never forget the feeling I got when I got my modem working (period!) and to connect to my ISP (icing!)...it was fantastic.
My problem is that this a narrow-minded vision of what he wants one distribution to be. He wants people to go what he went through, and that's the only way to learn. He won't give out answers that could be figured out in under 30 minutes on their own by reading the manual.
That's fine for him, but all people don't learn the same way. Just because someone doesn't do exactly what he does, the way he does it, it's bad or not "pure". If someone could save me 28 minutes by giving me a 2 minute explanation BUT DOESN'T I'd be pretty pissed. Especially a co-worker! Plus, one of his requirements for learning *nix is to
Call me crazy, but I thought the whole philosophy behind Open Source was the dissemination of information, not withholding it. You can ignore who you want, but I've found some real time savers in e-mail list archives in responses to (what I now consider) easy questions. Plus, who has tons of extra time on their hands?
You learn by using, not necessarily by installing. BTW...if it takes 12 times to install something (I don't care what it is) there is a fundamental problem with either the user or the software. But because someone can't make it through an install, does that mean they're a moron and not "worthy" to use Linux? I think we'd loose some potentially great additions to the community by ignoring this.
Would you consider someone who never finished high school to be stupid? Albert Einstein never finished HS. It's all relative (pun intended).
On the point of Linux software being inherently complicated to use (i.e. no GUI and lots, and lots, of options) that is because these packages where initially created to fill the need of the person who created it. Because they knew exactly what they wanted done, there's really no need to create wondrous, majestic GUI's. It's not to scare off newbies or because wrapping a GUI around it would make it less powerful. The important thing is that it *does* exactly what they want it to do. Making a broad generalization that if (GUI) {software = "lousy"} is an irresponsible statement.
A word on tech support. Customers pay for that. If you're manning the lines, you know you get stupid calls quite often. But they have the right to ask. They spent money on it. They deserve it. Don't like it? Quit. End of discussion. (and yes, did that for 3 years).
Then at the end he throws in Red Hat just so he can gripe some more. Sheesh! How does this apply to Debian in any way, shape or form? It doesn't.
Bottom line, if he doesn't like the way the Debian maintainers are taking this distribution then he can make his own. That's what it's all about right? Flexibility, power, reliability and customization?
Hallelujah and praise the lord!
I've spent time in tech support, and one of the things that really struck me about most of our callers was that they really didn't want to learn anything.
They'd call us to ask questions that were in the manual. They'd call us, wait 15 minutes on hold only to ask what was the address of our company web page (which was listed several places, including on the outside of the box and in the manual, then complain about the hold time). I swear to Buddha, I got someone on the phone once who didn't know what a modem was (I supported modems). AOL told her to call us so she did. I sent her back to them with a polite request for more information.
These are people who want a computer to be a toaster. Plug it in, and it works. When something doesn't work with their system, they flip out. (What do you mean, I can't change the interrupt on a PCI device through Windows? I have to go through the BIOS? I'm gonna sue!)
Well, ya know something? Computers aren't toasters. You're going to have to learn a little bit if you want to use them. If you don't want to learn anything, go back to your VCR and your cable TV and your daily funnies. And your preloaded Windows 9x.
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
I don't really know if he's right...
He obviously thinks that keeping Debian non-intuitive and non-user-friendly makes him a special person because he could figure it out.
Yet, we have to look at our goals as a community. Don't we want to replace Windows as the desktop OS of choice? Maybe. Remember that most windows users could fall into the category of clueless, not because they don't want to learn, but because they are using computers to do *other* tasks, and don't have the time. They want a *tool*, not a *toy*, and that's what differentiates the two types of users.
Putting some user-friendliness into Linux distributions isn't a bad thing, as long as we don't lose the ability to run a CLI, or however we want to customize it. I don't see the CLI ever being replaced, because who's going to take it away? Linus? Yeah, right!
In summary - putting user friendly tools on top of Linux is good. Those of us who don't want to use them just don't have to install them. Those who don't want to give technical advice to the newbies or the clueless don't have to. It's up to everyone.
Question: I was programming assembly language in high school (early 90's) but I only recently installed Linux. Am I a newbie? Am I clueless if I ask for help? I thought we were here to help each other - hacking isn't about keeping the secrets to yourself, is it?
Everyone who has a Clue about Linux, people like me who can pick up a CD of a distribution he's never seen in his life and install it with no documentation and blindfolded (ok, I'm exaggerating) should be spending their time doing some sort of pro gratis support. I do it on #linux from time to time. This way, as the number of clueful people increases, the number of people helping the clueless become clueful increases, and the system feeds itself.
This is a much better solution than the infuriating snobbery inherant in that article. Computer culture should be inclusive, not exclusive, and if being "geeky and withdrawn" is a qualifier to being a member of the computer culture, I certainly don't want a part of it. I don't see elitism as my reason for using an operating system.
No sig.
People (especially Mac users) use the fact that Window$ is built on a command-line foundation as a sign of weakness. Actually it's a strength...the weakness comes from the fact that the foundation is DOS which is not a true foundation but a hack by some guy in Seattle (when it was QDOS). With the strong foundation of a UNIX OS (or UNIX-like) under it we can create powerful and friendly GUI driven programs without worrying that the system will topple under it's own weight. On the other hand we can also have powerful command-line tools without the useless (in some cases) overhead of a GUI.
The same sort of thing applies to user configuration. Developers can have defaults that defer to newbies while continuing to provide the power when needed. An example: the Gnome-find program. This program helps newbies do searches without having to learn the syntax all at once and if they want more power once they are more comfortable they can always use the command line interface. Let the user use the system first then delve into it's innards if they want once they are comfortable.
We never need to dumb-down Linux we just need to provide layers, strata of access. Here's another example - when I first setup my computer I installed it with a swap partition but the swap was never enabled. This caused my computer to crash with out-of memory errors. It didn't do very much for my appreciation for Linux's stability. It sure would have been nice if there was a program that went through my system and checked for things like that (ala Wintune). Obviously this kind of thing wouldn't be terribly useful to an experienced user (and they don't have to use it!) but it would have saved me literally months of frustration.