I've eventually come to the conclusion that I no longer am in the mood to answer tech questions for my friends, either naive or otherwise expert, until they convince me that they'll actually learn something on their own.
Sure, it takes me five minutes to answer a question that might require an hour or more of research, but when someone's just given an answer without having to do the footwork, they don't respect the value of the knowledge. This ultimately leads to a never ending stream of 5 minute interruptions from someone who's not willing to learn for themselves.
On the other hand, if they did the hours of research, not only do they gain the satisfaction of learning something new, they've probably just eliminated their next hundred 5 minute questions, thus saving both of us time.
It's tough love, but sometimes that's what it takes to get someone else to respect knowledge.
A few years ago, I took a job with {large company}, and had to submit to a credit check, drug test and criminal record check. I wasn't hugely happy about this, because I did have a mountain of student debt to pay off, and I didn't have anything that would cause me trouble in my record, body, etc, but it still bugged me.
Walking out of the drug testing place, though, I got to thinking: This isn't a huge problem for me, but what about the person who has made some mistakes? How the heck to they get any second chances when they're essentially barred from employment for five to seven years (or however long these checks go back)?
Seems like a "one strike and you're out" policy.
It's a little perverse, but I think one of the strengths of Windows is that it's such crap, and no one outside of Redmond really tries to convince you otherwise.
Take some other OS, like MacOS: My experience has been that if something breaks, you generally get useless answers like "Well, mine works fine" or "It shouldn't do that" or "I don't know how to help you," largely because normally, the thing works ok. People who can fix really difficult problems on Macs are few and far between in my experience.
Likewise, on Linux, intractible problems are answered with "You're doing something wrong" or "You're stupid" or "You don't want to do that" or "Recompile the kernel." There are lots of experts, many of whom are helpful, and can often help fix the problem, albeit without ever imparting to the naive user what they have to do to dig themselves out the next time. In the mean time, the user just feels stupid.
Windows, on the other hand, breaks and breaks often. Go to your nearby expert, and they'll roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, that happened to me, too" (probably because it did). First off, we have a community being built: users screwed by Windows. The nerd comes over, eats beer and pizza while he fixes your problem, all the while reassuring the user that it isn't because he was stupid, but because Windows sucks. User feels a lot less slighted, and because the tweakability is so limited on Windows, he might even learn to do it himself. Probably not, but at least he won't feel bad about asking for help again, 'cause he knows he won't be blamed.
I think the real shame about all of this is that everyone's making money off someone else's talent. I mean, I'd be willing to bet that with very few exceptions, it's the actual artists who profit the least from all these wonderful arrangements.
Say what you want about Bill, and I'm sure we all will, but to my knowledge, MS never had some Russian guy thrown into jail just because his employer broke a US law outside of the US.
Virus replication is reason enough to stop sending word attachments, but I sure don't see switching to PDF to be any sort of step forward.
And so many of the replies you get to this post are along the lines of "your expectations are all wrong" or "you're stupid if you don't want to learn something different" or "Windows is the one that gets it wrong."
Which points out another thing blocking commonplace acceptance of Linux: Those who evangelize it do as much to scare people off as attract them.
You will not get people to want to use your product by telling them they're stupid if they don't want to, by telling them that what they're used to is wrong, by telling them that they're asking for the wrong thing, by telling them that they just don't understand how the software works together, or by telling them that they must be doing something wrong. Unfortunately, all of these messages are routinely directed at anyone who tries Linux/GNU/X and expresses less than positive opinions.
Despite the current business climate that seems to indicate otherwise, you aren't going to get major market penetration by insulting, dismissing or angering your target audience.
The tears have come in the kitchen, the car and the shower, too.
Like many Americans, Fred Boxmasher, a stocky, 47-year-old dock worker, has
been crying every day since last week's terrorist attacks. He has been
overwhelmed with feelings of guilt.
Boxmasher is the inventor of a tool called a razor box cutter, or
box-cutter. He invented the tool years ago; it was the first to allow
ordinary people to open boxes with relative ease.
People warned Boxmasher back then that he could be putting powerfully sharp
tools into the wrong hands. He knew that was theoretically possible, but he
also knew that the tool could do good: His work created a way for people in
disadvantaged countries to more easily open their care packages without fear
of paper cuts.
Now the government is investigating whether Boxmasher's technology or
another cutting device was used by the hijackers to coordinate last week's
attacks, and U.S. lawmakers are calling for new restrictions on the
sharpness, use and distribution of the weapons.
Boxmasher and other fathers of enclosure access devices say it may be too
late, given that the technology has spread all over the world.
In a telephone interview from his home in the Bronx, Boxmasher said he
doesn't regret making his invention available to the world. Yet he has
trouble dealing with the reality that his invention was likely used for
evil.
"The intellectual side of me is satisfied with the decision, but the pain
that we all feel because of all the deaths mixes with this," he said. "It
has been a horrific few days."
Contributing to that is the hate mail he got Sunday night.
Tied to an empty long-neck Coors thrown through his living room window, it
began, "Fred -- I hope you can sleep at night with the blood of 5,000 people
on your hands." box-cutters have become "weapons of war," the note
continued, leveling the playing field between powerful box-ripping machines
and "zealots."
Boxmasher read the words over and over again the next day, trying to think
of a way to respond. But in the end, the man who is known in the packing
world for his rousing speeches and meticulous debates didn't know what to
say.
"He raises some points that many people are raising right now, namely that
terrorists can use those tools," Boxmasher said between sips from a 24oz
Bud. "But it overlooks the strong need for good box opening tools."
The open policy the United States has today toward box-cutters arose out of
years of debate in the 20th century. Boxmasher was among the most prominent
figures in the discussions, fighting against a government that threatened to
outlaw his invention for the danger it represented. He also launched a
campaign to convince Congress to ease restrictions on exporting box-cutters
to other countries. He won on both accounts.
Boxmasher and other tinkerers now struggle with the Catch-22 that sharp
tools present. If governments outlaw box-cutters, as lawmakers like Sen.
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) have suggested, it would defeat the purpose of the tool,
wasting hours of peoples' time, wrestling boxes open, not to mention causing
untold injuries that arise from not having the proper tool.
It would cause problems, for instance, for a starving family in Kosovo, too
weak to rip a food shipment open unaided. Box cutters eliminate the need to
wait for official government package opening officers to arrive.
Another inventor, Barney Letterripper, said there are also practical reasons
why the tools shouldn't be blunted. "I am extremely doubtful that this could
be done without dulling the blade to the point that would render the
box-cutter useless, and the costs in terms of time and money wasted would be
absolutely staggering," said Letterripper.
Then there are the civil liberties questions.
"We should be careful not to make any rash decisions in the heat of the
moment" that could have a negative impact on access to the interiors of
boxes, human rights and First Amendment freedoms for years to come,
Boxmasher said.
Slashdot Mirror
The best thing that could happen to X is for it to become ex-.
I've eventually come to the conclusion that I no longer am in the mood to answer tech questions for my friends, either naive or otherwise expert, until they convince me that they'll actually learn something on their own. Sure, it takes me five minutes to answer a question that might require an hour or more of research, but when someone's just given an answer without having to do the footwork, they don't respect the value of the knowledge. This ultimately leads to a never ending stream of 5 minute interruptions from someone who's not willing to learn for themselves. On the other hand, if they did the hours of research, not only do they gain the satisfaction of learning something new, they've probably just eliminated their next hundred 5 minute questions, thus saving both of us time. It's tough love, but sometimes that's what it takes to get someone else to respect knowledge.
A few years ago, I took a job with {large company}, and had to submit to a credit check, drug test and criminal record check. I wasn't hugely happy about this, because I did have a mountain of student debt to pay off, and I didn't have anything that would cause me trouble in my record, body, etc, but it still bugged me. Walking out of the drug testing place, though, I got to thinking: This isn't a huge problem for me, but what about the person who has made some mistakes? How the heck to they get any second chances when they're essentially barred from employment for five to seven years (or however long these checks go back)? Seems like a "one strike and you're out" policy.
It's a little perverse, but I think one of the strengths of Windows is that it's such crap, and no one outside of Redmond really tries to convince you otherwise.
Take some other OS, like MacOS: My experience has been that if something breaks, you generally get useless answers like "Well, mine works fine" or "It shouldn't do that" or "I don't know how to help you," largely because normally, the thing works ok. People who can fix really difficult problems on Macs are few and far between in my experience.
Likewise, on Linux, intractible problems are answered with "You're doing something wrong" or "You're stupid" or "You don't want to do that" or "Recompile the kernel." There are lots of experts, many of whom are helpful, and can often help fix the problem, albeit without ever imparting to the naive user what they have to do to dig themselves out the next time. In the mean time, the user just feels stupid.
Windows, on the other hand, breaks and breaks often. Go to your nearby expert, and they'll roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, that happened to me, too" (probably because it did). First off, we have a community being built: users screwed by Windows. The nerd comes over, eats beer and pizza while he fixes your problem, all the while reassuring the user that it isn't because he was stupid, but because Windows sucks. User feels a lot less slighted, and because the tweakability is so limited on Windows, he might even learn to do it himself. Probably not, but at least he won't feel bad about asking for help again, 'cause he knows he won't be blamed.
We're all in it together.
Doesn't that work out to about 1-1.5 inches per bit?
I think the real shame about all of this is that everyone's making money off someone else's talent. I mean, I'd be willing to bet that with very few exceptions, it's the actual artists who profit the least from all these wonderful arrangements.
Say what you want about Bill, and I'm sure we all will, but to my knowledge, MS never had some Russian guy thrown into jail just because his employer broke a US law outside of the US. Virus replication is reason enough to stop sending word attachments, but I sure don't see switching to PDF to be any sort of step forward.
And so many of the replies you get to this post are along the lines of "your expectations are all wrong" or "you're stupid if you don't want to learn something different" or "Windows is the one that gets it wrong."
Which points out another thing blocking commonplace acceptance of Linux: Those who evangelize it do as much to scare people off as attract them.
You will not get people to want to use your product by telling them they're stupid if they don't want to, by telling them that what they're used to is wrong, by telling them that they're asking for the wrong thing, by telling them that they just don't understand how the software works together, or by telling them that they must be doing something wrong. Unfortunately, all of these messages are routinely directed at anyone who tries Linux/GNU/X and expresses less than positive opinions.
Despite the current business climate that seems to indicate otherwise, you aren't going to get major market penetration by insulting, dismissing or angering your target audience.
The tears have come in the kitchen, the car and the shower, too.
Like many Americans, Fred Boxmasher, a stocky, 47-year-old dock worker, has
been crying every day since last week's terrorist attacks. He has been
overwhelmed with feelings of guilt.
Boxmasher is the inventor of a tool called a razor box cutter, or
box-cutter. He invented the tool years ago; it was the first to allow
ordinary people to open boxes with relative ease.
People warned Boxmasher back then that he could be putting powerfully sharp
tools into the wrong hands. He knew that was theoretically possible, but he
also knew that the tool could do good: His work created a way for people in
disadvantaged countries to more easily open their care packages without fear
of paper cuts.
Now the government is investigating whether Boxmasher's technology or
another cutting device was used by the hijackers to coordinate last week's
attacks, and U.S. lawmakers are calling for new restrictions on the
sharpness, use and distribution of the weapons.
Boxmasher and other fathers of enclosure access devices say it may be too
late, given that the technology has spread all over the world.
In a telephone interview from his home in the Bronx, Boxmasher said he
doesn't regret making his invention available to the world. Yet he has
trouble dealing with the reality that his invention was likely used for
evil.
"The intellectual side of me is satisfied with the decision, but the pain
that we all feel because of all the deaths mixes with this," he said. "It
has been a horrific few days."
Contributing to that is the hate mail he got Sunday night.
Tied to an empty long-neck Coors thrown through his living room window, it
began, "Fred -- I hope you can sleep at night with the blood of 5,000 people
on your hands." box-cutters have become "weapons of war," the note
continued, leveling the playing field between powerful box-ripping machines
and "zealots."
Boxmasher read the words over and over again the next day, trying to think
of a way to respond. But in the end, the man who is known in the packing
world for his rousing speeches and meticulous debates didn't know what to
say.
"He raises some points that many people are raising right now, namely that
terrorists can use those tools," Boxmasher said between sips from a 24oz
Bud. "But it overlooks the strong need for good box opening tools."
The open policy the United States has today toward box-cutters arose out of
years of debate in the 20th century. Boxmasher was among the most prominent
figures in the discussions, fighting against a government that threatened to
outlaw his invention for the danger it represented. He also launched a
campaign to convince Congress to ease restrictions on exporting box-cutters
to other countries. He won on both accounts.
Boxmasher and other tinkerers now struggle with the Catch-22 that sharp
tools present. If governments outlaw box-cutters, as lawmakers like Sen.
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) have suggested, it would defeat the purpose of the tool,
wasting hours of peoples' time, wrestling boxes open, not to mention causing
untold injuries that arise from not having the proper tool.
It would cause problems, for instance, for a starving family in Kosovo, too
weak to rip a food shipment open unaided. Box cutters eliminate the need to
wait for official government package opening officers to arrive.
Another inventor, Barney Letterripper, said there are also practical reasons
why the tools shouldn't be blunted. "I am extremely doubtful that this could
be done without dulling the blade to the point that would render the
box-cutter useless, and the costs in terms of time and money wasted would be
absolutely staggering," said Letterripper.
Then there are the civil liberties questions.
"We should be careful not to make any rash decisions in the heat of the
moment" that could have a negative impact on access to the interiors of
boxes, human rights and First Amendment freedoms for years to come,
Boxmasher said.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company