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. "

Comments

I respectfully disagree

[Gleef]

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.

Don't assume that computers mean the same for all

[Kaa]

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

What a thoroughly unpleasant individual

[Stephen Williams]

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.

Hmmm.

[ChrisGoodwin]

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.