There's a FAQ entry/man page/etc. out there for just about any Linux question that one could want to ask. The point is, if it would take a new Linux user 45 minutes to figure out how to do something by sorting through all of that and trying to decipher the lingo, and an experienced user could tell them what to do in 45 seconds, often they just tell the newbie to RTFM anyway. That sort of response is not only rude and demeaning, it's the sort of thing that perpetuates the "Linux is only for the l337" stereotype.
They then criticize the linux community as being unhelpful when we won't hand over the fish. Is this fair?
It depends on the user and what their needs are. Maybe they're a casual user and just need to know how to do something simple, without spending 4 hours figuring it out. To extend your analogy, maybe they're only going to need 2 fish in their lifetime. Also, by your analogy, you're not teaching them how to fish. You're telling them to go look at some cryptic cave paintings which will tell an experienced fisherman how to fish. In my experience, a lot of Linux manuals are written for people who already know the lingo, and mostly know their way around Linux in general. Not for the new user.
Admittedly, I've no degree in physics (just engineering), so I can't say for sure one way or the other on the science of this. However, the presentation of this article, and that of the Optocom, sounds a whole lot like a snake oil salesman. "It'll fix what ails ya -- you'll never need another hard disk again! I was reviewing Einstein/Plank and Niels Bohr Atomic Theories, and suddenly the panacea for computers came to me." I get the feeling that the science of this is shaky, and that this is being used as a marketing gimmick to get research money.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a FAQ entry/man page/etc. out there for just about any Linux question that one could want to ask. The point is, if it would take a new Linux user 45 minutes to figure out how to do something by sorting through all of that and trying to decipher the lingo, and an experienced user could tell them what to do in 45 seconds, often they just tell the newbie to RTFM anyway. That sort of response is not only rude and demeaning, it's the sort of thing that perpetuates the "Linux is only for the l337" stereotype.
They then criticize the linux community as being unhelpful when we won't hand over the fish. Is this fair?
It depends on the user and what their needs are. Maybe they're a casual user and just need to know how to do something simple, without spending 4 hours figuring it out. To extend your analogy, maybe they're only going to need 2 fish in their lifetime. Also, by your analogy, you're not teaching them how to fish. You're telling them to go look at some cryptic cave paintings which will tell an experienced fisherman how to fish. In my experience, a lot of Linux manuals are written for people who already know the lingo, and mostly know their way around Linux in general. Not for the new user.
Admittedly, I've no degree in physics (just engineering), so I can't say for sure one way or the other on the science of this. However, the presentation of this article, and that of the Optocom, sounds a whole lot like a snake oil salesman. "It'll fix what ails ya -- you'll never need another hard disk again! I was reviewing Einstein/Plank and Niels Bohr Atomic Theories, and suddenly the panacea for computers came to me." I get the feeling that the science of this is shaky, and that this is being used as a marketing gimmick to get research money.