Don't waste time on current Windows users
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip May 02, 2005 1:27 PM EDT |
I agree with the author that GNU/Linux is a valid choice to put on computers. There is a problem though. Replacing Windows with GNU/Linux can be a problem for computer vendors. We have a whole generation raised in the belief that there is only one Operating System and that all software works on that one OS. How do you explain to Joe Six-pack that his shiny new "lunch-box" computer won't run Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, WinAmp, Norton Utilities, etc? It would take massive end-user education and would increase the load on support staff and sales people, answering absolute n00b questions that would have been answered by RTFM. The problem is not the technology, it's the end-user perception of what a computer is. End-users see computers as some sort of appliance that is manageable by wildly double-clicking on every button in sight. When the system blows up, it will get automatically repaired in the workshop or (and this is the more frequent scenario) get fixed by the unpaid geeky guy in the neighborhood. The end-user in the MS world is never responsible for the working state of his machine. This makes GNU/Linux unsuitable, because GNU/Linux and many other Nixes have the notion that everybody has some responsibility. Shipping machines for the unwashed masses with GNU/Linux is asking for a culture clash of mythical proportions. As long as we have a whole crowd out there that is proud of exclaiming: "I don't know how it works. I don't want to know how it works. It just has to work." then GNU/Linux is out of the question. These people will reject all suggestions of end-user responsibilities. Even Microsoft will be bitten by this attitude, they helped create under ordinary people. What will the crowd say when they discover that MS makes them lowly users per default in Longhorn instead of all powerful Admins? The uproar at the loss of the privilege to screw up the system without obstacles will be huge. The best way to get GNU/Linux used and accepted is to write off the current generation of Windows "clickants". They are beyond saving. We should "infect" the coming generation of computer users. Get 'em young, while they are not set in their thinking of what computing is. Get *Nix in the heads of the youngsters. They are the installed base of tomorrow. |
| mdl May 02, 2005 2:28 PM EDT |
I agree with much of your argument, but 4 years ago I was a Windows "clickant" myself. I have not used Windows for two years and it would be a lot easier to make the switch today. I firmly believe that if Linux was available factory installed by Dell that Linux use would increase dramatically overnight. Linux is not hard for a point and clicker to use, anymore than Windows. How many current users could install and set up Windows on a box with no OS? Sure, the young are the future, but age is no real barrier to Linux use. Inertia is, but it can be overcome. Cost and reliability (crashes, viruses and spyware) can be powerful motivating factors. Who knows but what Linux on the desktop may get its kick start from the corporate or government sectors. If they switch, their users will want to use the same system at home. I don't know when the tipping point will come, but I do believe it will happen. Look how fast the Soviet Union collapsed once that process started. History could repeat with Microsoft. |
| r_a_trip May 02, 2005 4:36 PM EDT |
I agree with much of your argument, but 4 years ago I was a Windows "clickant" myself. I have not used Windows for two years and it would be a lot easier to make the switch today. Back then you weren't a "clickant", your switch to GNU/Linux tells me you were probably the local "unofficial Windows support guy". Being interested in the tool of this era (computers) will take you off of Windows almost automatically. I firmly believe that if Linux was available factory installed by Dell that Linux use would increase dramatically overnight. Yes it would, but at what price? Freedom is the main tenet in FOSS (even if Open Source downplays its significance a bit). If we develop a 1:1 drop-in replacement for Windows, we would just change the name of the OS. People would still be dependant on the pre-loader for their "computing experience". Just shifting GNU/Linux in the place of Windows doesn't cut it. You'd still have masses of people unwilling to know the tools of their era. Trying to force the dumbed-down approach from Windows onto GNU/Linux will just foster the next generation of helpless and stubbornly lazy computer users. The argument that someone doesn't have the time to learn this tool nor is willing to do so is ludicrous. More and more processes are being automated and controlled by computers. Our whole society and economy is becoming dependant on these machines and people who can run them. What if the majority had said "screw factories and steam-engines" during the industrial revolution. We would still have been stuck in "rural" conditions. It isn't any different form saying "screw computers". It'll get us stuck in a post-industrial civilization, without progressing into a new one. The time that people are allowed to think that they can muck about without knowing what they are doing is over. Code Red, I Love You, Nimda, Slammer all did fairly minor damage, but what if digitization of every day life has progressed to the point that a virus could cost hundreds of human lives? Are we still willing to let illiterates run rampant with machines they know nothing about? Don't dumb down, just ratchet the curve up a notch. Let all those self-inflicted know-not's learn to take responsibility. They are forced to do so with every other aspect of their lives, so why not computing? |
| dinotrac May 02, 2005 7:14 PM EDT |
Gosh, r_a_trip, you don't sound like you've been around that long. Prior to the current edition of Windows, millions of people were using Windows 95 and Windows 3.1. Before that, lots of people used GASP!! DOS!! People are willing to change, but most folks need a reason sufficient to justify the effort, as well as the reasonable assurance that they will be able to do the things they need and want to do. |
| mdl May 02, 2005 7:53 PM EDT |
OK, r_a_trip, I think I am starting to understand your point of view. You are a "geek elitist" who thinks nobody should be allowed to operate a computer unless they can recompile their own kernel, etc. If Linux were only available to the people you describe, 2% of the population would be able to use Linux and the other 98% would be permanently ceded to Microsoft Windows. Look at it this way: If you had to be an automotive engineer to drive a car, we would have no traffic congestion. But driving has been made so simple that almost anyone with a basic skill set can get around town in a car. You don't need to know how an automatic transmission works to be able to put it in D to go forward and R to go backward. You don't need the understand the internal combustion engine to turn the ignition key. Computers will someday be that simple to operate. The question is: will it be a proprietary OS that gets us there or a free one. Linux is getting easier, but it will be a race all the way. |
| Tsela May 02, 2005 11:49 PM EDT |
mdl: Your comparison is wrong. Saying that people should be able to use a computer without understanding anything about it is like saying people should be able to drive cars without having to get a driver's license. r_a_trip is not asking that everyone knows how to recompile their kernel. He asks that people take the responsibility of their computer like they take responsibility of their car. Your reply is like saying that it's unreasonable to expect that people will understand that a diesel motor cannot work with unleaded gasoline, or that checking the oil level is far too complicated a deed for most people. This culture of irresponsibility is not specific to computers, and it's beginning to damage other domains as well. It's time we stop this evolution. It is *not* too much to ask for people to understand how the tools they have work, just like it is *not* too much to ask for people to have at least an idea what is happening inside the motor of their car, so that they don't look surprised when they're told that their car broke down because they forgot to check the oil level. mdl, *you* are the one that strikes me as elitist, claiming that only 2% of the population would ever be able to get any understanding of their computer. r_a_trip is exactly the contrary, and it looks like like me he thinks that most people can get the needed understanding of computers. I personally think that if you're intelligent enough to get a driver's license, you can learn enough (and quickly) of a computer to accomplish most maintenance tasks without help. And it's *wrong* for people to demand that they shouldn't have to learn those things, just like it's wrong to ask to be allowed to drive a car without a driver's license. |
| helios May 03, 2005 4:16 AM EDT |
Hey youse guys... There are valid points to each arguement presented here and I think individually given, either one will stand on its own merits. Yeah, I know...who the frick asked you helios....pardon my 2 cents. Until just a short time ago, I agreed that "the luxury of ignorance" was a given right and that our developers needed to steer linux into that realm. I have since changed my mind. Doing so would only recreate the windows phenomenon of lazy, spoiled users. Let natural selection take its course here. We will educate the new user to understand he must learn a few things in order to use a superior system. If that's a probem, little billy gates has his arms wide open and awaits your return. helios |
| mdl May 03, 2005 5:48 AM EDT |
Let me try to clarify my position one more time: I do think users should take responsibility for their computers, at least to the degree that they take responsibility for their automobiles. On a ease of use scale scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being getting out of bed in the morning and 10 being a sysadmin for a large company), I would guess that driving a car would be a 3, using a store bought Windows computer a 4 and installing and using a Linux computer (repartition hard drive, etc.) about a 7. (Please don't quibble over the numbers, I am just trying to illustrate a point, and who knows... I might be using a log scale) People like my mother-in-law, who loves her email and photos, should be able to operate at a 3 level, and does (more or less) on Windows. My skill level would be more like a 6 or 7. I do more with a computer and need a higher skill level. I just think Linux can be most things to most people, in time. It can be as simple as can be for those with minimal requirements... and as complex as desired by those with very high level requirements. I know some would like to keep Linux for the geeks, but we need the masses too. Otherwise Windows will rule and all the drivers will be written for Windows and all web pages will be designed to only work with IE. Telsa: Tesla, that is *not* what I said. What I said (referring to r_a_trip's original post suggesting that we " write off the current generation of Windows "clickants") was "If Linux were only available to the people you describe, 2% of the population would be able to use Linux and the other 98% would be permanently ceded to Microsoft Windows." I think it is elitist to write off anybody, *especially* current Windows users. I would suggest that it is both possible and desirable to have a range of solutions available in Linux... from Linux "clickants" to the geekiest of Linux geeks. I may well be wrong in my approach, but I don't see how anyone can think it is "elitist". |
| ajt May 03, 2005 10:08 AM EDT |
My father uses Debian, I set it up and he just points and clicks. He doesn't have root acces, and it does exactly what he wants, it's almost a no-user serviceable parts appliance. Many current windows don't want to or know how to administer their boxes, hence they get infected. Instead of paying money to MS for the software, they should pay it to an administrator, and then only use the box themseves, never actually administering anything. Some people will want to learn and do it them selves, but most will probably be happy to let someone else do the work. Given the choice of administering Windows or GNU/Linux or BSD remotly, I know Windows isn't a viable option. The same inane problems that Windows users generate would still be generated if they ran Linux/BSD, but they wouldn't be allowed to hose the system...! |
| r_a_trip May 04, 2005 4:29 AM EDT |
OK, r_a_trip, I think I am starting to understand your point of view. You are a "geek elitist" who thinks nobody should be allowed to operate a computer unless they can recompile their own kernel, etc. Wrong. Knowing how to manage a kernel is not essential to operating a computer. I am not advocating a "fascistic computing order" here. But my hairs tend to raise when I experience people brushing someone more knowledgeable off, if that person is telling the other something about basic operation of a computer. Like what a task-bar is and what can be done with it. The default response is that they don't need to know how to use the computer (mostly meaning the GUI), because there are others that can do that for them. So how minimal should the knowledge be to operate a multipurpose machine? One button on the screen? All I think people should know is the basic workings of day to day applications, including the GUI. That means knowing what a task-bar is when they see one, knowing what an attachment is on a basic level, knowing the difference between a network location and a local file. It would already be great if they had a basic understanding of the filesystem, so that they could at least grasp where they just put that text document, instead of panicking and saying they don't know where their report went. You won't hear me saying that all people should be able to do systems diagnostics on the CLI. Or recompile kernels. Or setup their machines with Linux from Scratch. It's just that the general attitude of computer illiterates is particularly vexing. They seem to be born stupid and unwilling to learn just a shred more. The basic consensus in this group is that other more knowledgeable people live to serve them and clean up their mess after them for free. If an icon shifts three centimeters, they are unable to work, because the word-processor isn't there anymore. This is not the exception. I don't know if it is a disinterest or a genuine lack of understanding, but in my opinion, if they can successfully drive in a car, why can't they operate a computer? I'm dealing with Europeans over here and we don't drive automatics, so we have to watch the traffic here and simultaneously get the car in the right gear. That seems to go flawlessly. So why is it so hard to get these people to understand the desktop metaphore? They have no problems whatsoever with traffic signs... p.s. Thank you Tsela, you've gotten my drift completely. All I want to see is a basic level of knowledge and currently this basic knowledge is turned down by the majority of Windows users. p.p.s Mdl, don't worry, you won't find me running around with a little mustache, marking people with penguins and Windows logo's. When I said, write off the current Windows generation, I meant that we should focus attention on the new generation. Get GNU/Linux into schooling. Then the current generation of Windows users will fade gradually. I won't say no to a Windows user that honestly wants to switch. I will help that person gladly and if s/he return to Windows, no ill will whatsoever. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!