Not to start another round, but ...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
> I know this is likely to start another flamefest, but then replying to
> Richard's postings normally has that effect. Still...
>
The reason for that is that we have very different but very firmly established
opinions. That doesn't mean either of us is stupid or crazy, but that we have
different views of what's probably the same thing.
>
> >
> > It's pretty clear that all the various hardware/software combinations,
i.e.
> > computer+OS, that get any air time in this forum, seem to have a place.
There
> > are several reasons, for example, why I don't use UNIX in my work, but,
aside
> > from overall cost, it's mainly that I've never had to do so. I've used
UNIX
>
> Eh? Windows costs $$$ (unless you regard piracy as acceptable -- I do
> not) whereas I can get a Unix-like OS, compilers, text formatters,
> editors, and just about anything else I need totally free....
>
...but you can't get someting easy to use, meaning easy for a pre-med student,
who should, but doesn't yet, know how or need to flex all the computer's
muscle, to use to do the "standard" sorts of things. Moreover, Windows isn't
that expensive. The updates cost about $85US.
I've heard lots about what "you can get" but all I ever hear from the guys who
use Linux every day is that they "don't have that." Some of them use Windows
as well, however. The two are not mutually exclusive. I think it comes down
to using the "path of least resistance."
>
> > workstations but only when no alternative existed. I understand why
people
> > complain about Windows, and why they gripe that it's too this or that,
but,
> > for the price, you really can't go out and buy a system, set an average
> > college graduate in front of it, and expect him to do anything meaningful
the
> > first day if you install LINUX.
>
> If I was going to employ a 'college graduate', I'd not even consider one
> who couldn't use linux. Because
>
> If they were a computer scientist (or similar) then they'd missed a major
> part of computer science....
>
Not all college graduates are in computer science. Most, in fact, are not,
and a computer is just a tool, like a screwdriver, not a deity. Most folks
just want to get their work done, and don't care to worship at the shrine of
M$ or *nix.
>
> If they were a physicist/engineer/similar then I'd assume that they were
> not curious enough to have discovered linux, and thue they were not
> likely to be the sort of person who was going to be able to find
> unusual/useful solutions to any other problems.
If I tell someone who's never done it before, at lunchtime, to obtain a
computer, install an OS, and be generating printable properly formatted
documents by close of business, and give him $500 to do it with, he'll be done
by 3:30 and have $100 in his pocket, still, if he does the obvious. If he
tries something else, what does that say about his ability to get the job
done? (see what I mean about disparate views of the same thing?)
> People who can actually
> think about a problem (rather than just trot out the 'standard solution'
> to a similar problem) are fairly rare, and you can bet most of them will
> have come across linux....
>
The thing about the "standard solution" is that it's a solution.
>
> > I've also got some *nix experience, and, frankly, anything that requires I
> > recompile the OS just to install a driver is too much trouble. I've done
> > that, but hopefully never will again.
>
> Oh, not this worn-out argument again....
>
Well, I found it a damned nuissance to have all the trouble, when I was trying
to do something else. The fact is that most people don't want to muck about
with the OS. They want to type their letters and print them, send email,
browse the web, and play their games. Some may want to program, but that's
probably only one in 100K.
>
> Firstly, some unices have 'loadable modules' which can include device
> drivers. In other words you can load a device driver at the shell prompt
> on a running system with no problems
>
> Secondly, what's the big deal with recompiling the kernel. It's generally
> just a matter of running a configuration script (to include your new
> deveice driver) and typing 'make'. If your machine doesn't have a
> makefile for the kernel sources, then you've got one seriously broken
> version of unix...
>
I used the default makefile that came with LINUX, (I tried four different
versions) and the prompts indicated, in one case, that, as I wanted, the MARS
NWE was installed, yet it didn't appear, didn't work, and just generally let
me down. The documents were not at all clear as to what was going on, so I
added the file and print services for Netware networks module to NT4, and was
done with it. My RedHat CD's are used as coasters. (Newer versions are
available gratis now, so it's no big loss.)
> >
> > People's needs are different, but their use of various products is
> > needs-driven. Some people need to get a job done, and if they can do it
with
> > something cheap and easy, that's the route they pursue, while others, in
need
> > of personal validation of one sort or another, prefer the extensive
sophistry
> > of *nix. Now, there ARE things that *nix can do better, in some ways than
can
> > be done under DOS/Windows, but it costs more, requires considerable
learning
> > either at school or at home, and takes a lot of time to do. Until
somebody
>
> I've never understood why people expect to be able to use a computer --
> probably one of the most complicated and powerful devices they are likely
> to use -- without having to learn to use it.
>
That's a different problem. I don't understand it either. People, in
general want to do as little as they can "get by with," saying nothing about
doing a creditable job.
>
> For just about everything I own (calculator, computer, lathe, 'scope,
> camera, etc) I've had to spend some time learning the basic principles of
> the operation of that generic type of device and then a little more time
> learning the specifics of the particular item I've chosen. I don't regard
> this as wasting time either.
>
as any sensible owner would do. Not all are sensible, though.
>
> People expect to have to spend a few months learning to drive a car. And
> a computer is much more complicated than that.
>
That's not where we want things to be headed. An automobile is pretty
complicated and the process of driving one is too. The consequences of doing
it badly are much more serious and far-reaching than driving your computer.
I'll admit it can be frustrating if you make a mistake, but it's unlikely
you'll kill someone if you mistype at your home computer. There are things
the designers have decided it's best not to let you control about your
microwave oven, automobile, and electric range, too.
>
> To be honest, if you're using a computer without learning a little bit
> about it, then you're certainly not doing everything that computer is
> capable of doing,
If someone gives you a Lear Jet and all you want is to use the installed
flashlight, why should you have to learn to fly?
> and you're probably wasting a lot of time as
a result.
> Computers are there to automate jobs for you. To have to do the same task
> time-and-again by hand (as some OSes seem to expect you to do) should
> indicate you're doing something wrong.
>
(1) Windows would not be one of those, and (2) most of the *nix users I know
enjoy the long cryptic command lines more than anything else.
>
Received on Mon May 06 2002 - 19:14:17 BST