Long windy email which took me a while to type and then probably dosnt make much sense:
Brief Summary: I dont believe Open Source software has to be userfriendly. I feel **VERY** strongly that the programmer has the right to be "free" in their programming and make non-user friendly interfaces IF THEY SO WISH, and that the dicussion over "they SHOULD" make userfriendly or "people should" is at basically wrong, because they are getting a free ride out of the software that the programmer probbably has a lot more better stuff to be doing. This is not a(nother) personal attack at Ben, but just the statement that his argument "I dont have time to learn something to do something like that because I have "more important" stuff to do" (where more important is whatever his or her REAL job, school work, etc) I am reversing to use against him. "Programmers dont have time to cope with the "whims" of those people who make a preference to do non-really harsh techinal stuff, becasue we have something "more important" to do" (where more important is whatever new toy we've just bought is). Did I stress that I feel VERY strongly about this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And for the full bloated boring bit:
I should first admit here and now that I winge when a config file is ... wierd or difficult to understand, and I also admit that I ask for help in it.... Knowing when to ask for help is always a brilliant trait in my opinion.
Im going to assume here that I was in the IRC discussion. I think I was, I think I stormed out of it to Cambridge. Hell, I had to go...
I think the discussion went along the lines of:
ben: "theres no gui, this is too hard because i dont understand it/dont have time to understand it/dont want to understand it" (note this is not a dig at ben, all three options are perfectly acceptable. I dont understand the XWidget functions.... i dont want to understand them, so dont want to waste time learning them) us: "There isnt a function because no-ones written one... everyone who has needed one just learnt how to do it, and then couldnt bearsed to write a gui, becasue they could do it and didnt need a gui after that" ben: "but thats wrong" us: "no, its not, because we know how to do it"... and so on
The fact that I had written another (command line) script which did this function, and tied it into a webpage was irrelavant, no one had "released" and "packaged" one for "simple" and "easy" installer.
So perhaps we where being pigheaded. But that dosnt stop us being wrong. The title of this discussion is "Linux for everyone". But I disagree. Thats not what people mean in this discussion at all. The arguement is really about what do the people who are actually programming have to do, and what the people are gettng the free ride want them to do. Becasue we're not talking about Linux here. We where talking about Fluxbox. Flux box isnt linux. You dont need linux to run fluxbox. So perhaps im just nitpicking the title of the topic, but I dont think so, I think im nitpicking at OpenSource programmers and advogatoists in general.
I support Open Source as is the solution to a lot of my problems. Im happy and proud to release the majority of my source code into the public domain, I really do like the idea of open specifications and industry wide standards that are kept to and maintained. But I dont like the idea that people can turn around and tell me that im doing something "wrong". If I want to pass data between two computers in a completly propietry way, then I should be allowed to, open source or not. What has that got to do with GUI? well its just another thing being "difficult" or should i really say "unknown".
Thats freedom isnt it? Sure, you might say I have to have freedom to do things with connection and making it easy for people to connect, but perhaps I dont want to make life easier for you programmers. Perhaps my methods provide abetter service in terms of processor speed, or memory allocation or whatever argument I'm using. Im allowed to, its my program after all.
And perhaps at this time, I cant expect people to conform to my propietry standards. But then again, perhaps I can, I can point to several case examples where a client turns round to us and says we'll offer you this data in an electronic fomat in this formatt "blat" and we have to parse it. Its either that or type it all in by hand (which is what we do before we set up the electronic link).
We dont get any choice, we just get down and do it. - but we're techis. And thats what we're paid to do.
Perhaps Open Source is just too policial. Perhaps you're stuck between a bunch of idealistics who would kill people who defie the GPL license and a bunch of programmers who just couldnt care less as long as you can use the code to solve your problem. At the end of the day. If my boss comes in and says "I need to do ... **THIS** then I will automatically look at how its done now, and how it works. If my program I write for him infringes a patent established four years ago, how would I know? Would I care? no. Nobody else would know about it, I wouldnt ever get into trouble unless I started distributing the code."
You people who are sitting there saying "its hard to use, and therefore people wont use it, Do I care? No. I am not one of those people, I do not benifit by them using my code. if they WISH to use my code and they dont know how, then they cancontact me and I might help them, or they could pay a local person to install it for them and configure it.
You dont do your own car servicing do you (ignore that comment those people in here that do (iDunno for starters))? And you guys are probably the techincal elite.
Why expect non-techincal people who dont [want] to understand to be able to do it. Even if you give them a "gui". Its not my problem, i dont have to solve it.
And thats what OS is all about isnt it. You solve your problems and release the fixes so other people dont have them. You dont go hunting out problems to solve. (this is only in a specific bug sense - all of us do go "hm i wonder if i can....", but we dont go "oh lets just see what the latest bug report for EVERY package is and then fix it").
Open Source does **NOT** have to be for everyone. Anyone suggesting that it should, completly, without reservation, dosnt have any idea of the scale of the system and should run back to the saftey of their management course.
Sure, write your gui if you want. But noone should ever start going round saying "you have to write a gui otherwise im not going to use it" because we'll just say "... ouch im hurting inside, ... no really"
Remember, we're effectivly getting a free ride - **NOBODY** will stop you making a GUI for anything. **ALL** of us will support you. **MOST** of us would help you. We'll be happy to help solve the little naggliy bugs like "why dosnt this bit of regex work" and soon. HEll, if you start, you'll probably be the momentum to get a couple of us to finish it off for you, which is what you really want.
I for one, will not be changing the way I program to be more userfriendly. I dont write user friendly programs. I dont really write programs which have users to interface into. Installing them are long ardious tasks. 99.9% of the population or more will not benifit from it. But for a user, any user, who dosnt *WANT* and i emphasise want here because if you did want to understand you wouldnt *MIND* can start an arugment that its not userfriendly. Sure, the guy who wrote it could ask for comments, or ask for ideas for improvements, but for people to comelong and say "no, thats pants becuase it is difficult" is (in my opinion) selfrighteous and pigheaded.
On Sunday 03 Aug 2003 11:57 am, James Edward John Taylor wrote:
Long windy email which took me a while to type and then probably dosnt make much sense:
Brief Summary: I dont believe Open Source software has to be userfriendly. I feel **VERY** strongly that the programmer has the right to be "free" in their programming and make non-user friendly interfaces IF THEY SO WISH, and that the dicussion over "they SHOULD" make userfriendly or "people should" is at basically wrong, because they are getting a free ride out of the software that the programmer probbably has a lot more better stuff to be doing. This is not a(nother) personal attack at Ben, but just the statement that his argument "I dont have time to learn something to do something like that because I have "more important" stuff to do" (where more important is whatever his or her REAL job, school work, etc) I am reversing to use against him. "Programmers dont have time to cope with the "whims" of those people who make a preference to do non-really harsh techinal stuff, becasue we have something "more important" to do" (where more important is whatever new toy we've just bought is). Did I stress that I feel VERY strongly about this.
You have the right to your beliefs just as everyone else does. of course you will not be surprised that other people have different beliefs and feel very strongly about them too.
I do not think there is any real argument in this topic. I think it is necessary to differentiate between the creators and the users of linux. Most questions on groups like this end up being answered by other linux users and they naturaly suggest what they would do. That is not to say there are not alternatives, only that the replies depend on the users who happen to respond.
The situation for the creators is different. They either have a desire only to satisfy their own needs and those of others like them or they are more broadly evangelistic and want Linux to be usable by *everyone*. Either way, they have some sort of target *market* in mind for their efforts.
As I think I said in another post, these target markets seem to be reflected in the offerings of the various distros, ranging from geeky command line thru to no intervention full on GUI.
As many have said before, Linux is about choice and freedom: the freedom to choose the distro and the tools that suit you.
Ian
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, James Edward John Taylor wrote:
Brief Summary: I dont believe Open Source software has to be userfriendly. I feel **VERY** strongly that the programmer has the right to be "free" in their programming and make non-user friendly interfaces IF THEY SO WISH, and that the dicussion over "they SHOULD" make userfriendly or "people should" is at basically wrong, because they are getting a free ride out of the software
I quite agree that no-one should try and oblige volunteer developers to write anything they don't want to. However, it's rather unfair to describe non-developers as partaking of a "free ride." There are well-documented (for example, in _The Cathedral and the Bazaar_) examples of their contributions like writing formal documentation, and well-crafted bug reports. I can think of two less well-documented, but more widespread examples:
Some of the best documentation Google can find is the informal kind, in the form of end-user questions, and corresponding answers, in mailing list archives. I'm sure even "real hackers" make significant use of this resource.
Everyone who goes to the trouble of installing a Linux distro increases the incentive for hardware manufacturers to open up their drivers, or at least their specifications. That makes life easier and more comfortable for all of us.
Dan Hatton dan.hatton@btinternet.com wrote: [...]
examples of their contributions like writing formal documentation, and well-crafted bug reports. [...]
Well, yes, I'm sure that if people are doing useful things like good bug reports (or helping sort out some of the messes that get entered into reports that the developers can understand) and writing docs, then even James wouldn't accuse them of taking a "free ride". This is the new world and you can pay for your ticket with barter.
Some of the best documentation Google can find is the informal [...]
It would help me more if people actually built their web sites to link useful things instead of expecting the world to use search engines, but I'm probably at least as bad. I do try to copy things out of my bookmarks onto my web site regularly, though... time to go do that again.
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Dan Hatton wrote:
I quite agree that no-one should try and oblige volunteer developers to write anything they don't want to. However, it's rather unfair to describe non-developers as partaking of a "free ride." There are well-documented (for example, in _The Cathedral and the Bazaar_) examples of their contributions like writing formal documentation, and well-crafted bug reports. I can think of two less well-documented, but more widespread examples:
Why is it unfair? I wasnt jsut desciribing non-developers. I was descirbing pritty much everyone.
I cant really be arsed to sit here and write a kernel for my computer. I probably could - that is I dont know yet, Im writing a process manager for Taurus for my third year project, which is quite a difficult part of the kernel really, so I reckon if I could do that, then I could write a kernel.
I cant be arsed, Im using Linus's kernel, :. , i am getting a free ride...
The downside is perhaps it dosnt suit me perfectly, OR I have to do something to it to make it suit me (for example one email program dosnt do precisly what I want so i write a bit of code to make it suit my purpouses exactly.) those are my two options at this point.
[the rest of your email i am in agreement with]
J
From: James Edward John Taylor on Monday, August 04, 2003 11:44 AM
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Dan Hatton wrote:
I quite agree that no-one should try and oblige volunteer developers to write anything they don't want to. However, it's rather unfair to describe non-developers as partaking of a "free ride." There are well-documented (for example, in _The Cathedral and the Bazaar_) examples of their contributions like writing formal documentation, and well-crafted bug reports. I can think of two less well-documented, but more widespread examples:
Why is it unfair? I wasn't just describing non-developers. I was describing pretty much everyone.
I agree with James, "free ride" is exactly what we're getting. It does sound rather prejudicial but is accurate in it's own way (you're not from Yorkshire by any chance are you James! :o) ).
Personally I feel a moral obligation to contribute something back to the Open Source community in exchange for being able to use the results of their efforts.
However anyone can contribute just by using it and then feeding back their experiences. As a developer I've often found the most useful feedback I've got is from non-technical end-users (where it's something a bit more than "This software stinks!" :o) ).
Actually the whole area of providing feedback and bug reports can be a bit obscure. As someone with a little knowledge of the way Open Source development works I'm not always sure how to go about doing this.
Regards,
Keith ____________ Carpe Diem, quam minimum credula postero. (Seize today, and put no trust in tomorrow.) Horace
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 12:29:10 +0100 "Keith Watson" kpwatson@ukfsn.org wrote:
Actually the whole area of providing feedback and bug reports can be a bit obscure. As someone with a little knowledge of the way Open Source development works I'm not always sure how to go about doing this.
Regards,
Keith
I recomend either reporting bugs to mailinglists for applications or using thier web interfaces, such as available on source forge or Bugzilla.
Bugtracking systems are best to use as these allow bugs to be assigned between the developers but many projects just do this informally
Regards
Owen
On Monday 04 Aug 2003 12:29 pm, Keith Watson wrote:
Actually the whole area of providing feedback and bug reports can be a bit obscure. As someone with a little knowledge of the way Open Source development works I'm not always sure how to go about doing this.
Most linux apps will have email details for the author(s0 and/or bug reports in the tarball, documentatiion, man page or help about of the app itself. it think one of the most powerful features of OS is that you can contact the author direct.
Ian
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, James Edward John Taylor wrote:
Why is it unfair? I wasnt jsut desciribing non-developers. I was descirbing pritty much everyone.
My point was that, even if someone just installs a Linux distro then never interacts with the rest of the open-source community again, they do something that
1 requires an effort; I don't think anyone will disagree that installation sometimes turns out to be a real hassle, and
2 benefits the rest of the community, including Linus himself, through the effect on hardware manufacturers of increased demand for Linux-compatibility.
That's not a free ride. Of course, it might be a very cheap ride, because both effects might be pretty small. If the person in question then goes on through the stages
1 Write questions, and receive answers, in mailing lists, which others can use as documentation later, through the archives.
2 Write well-crafted, useful bug reports, which make it easier for developers to identify and fix the bugs.
3 Write formal open-content documentation.
4 Write open-source code.
Then the ride gets gradually less cheap (and more comfortable) for them.
Ok, those points are fair, that you can contribute. But as you pointed out, they are becomming more and more techincally capable as they procede (through asking questions, recieving answers and so on).
I dont disagree, Everyone starts off knowing nothing and learning/making it up as they go along, and its a brilliant way of learning.
But wasnt the point that this would be linux for everyone? that you would make your systems lovely and nice, so that people who didnt want to learn more could use them.
Im not saying people who are non-techincally minded cant come to learn stuff, im saying that some systems can not be used/installed (delete as apropiate) by non-techincal people, and that it is not nessicarrly "good" for them to use these systems.
And Im not saying that these non-techincal people cant BECOME techincal people (even if it is just specifically trained for that particluar peice of techincal stuff) - ive seen countless shopfloor warehouse assitants trained to be able to program power control units.
But what if they dont want to. I mean lets face it, thats a fair thing isnt it? some lovely old dear whos a much loved primary school teacher probably dosnt want to learn or become techincally aquanted / spend so much time learning, but they also shouldnt expect to beable to do sometimes quite techincal realated things on computers.
J
Sometime today I will stop digging myself a hole.....
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, James Edward John Taylor wrote:
But wasnt the point that this would be linux for everyone? that you would make your systems lovely and nice, so that people who didnt want to learn more could use them.
I don't think these are quite the people Ben had in mind: I understand he works in a school, and if it's anything like the schools I went to, not wanting to learn is severely frowned upon.
Nevertheless, I'm contending (probably rather controversially) that even Linux users who aren't willing to learn any new techniques beyond installing and occasionally running the OS (if such people exist) are making a positive (albeit small) contribution to the wellbeing of the open source community as a whole. As I said, the mechanism for this is
Increased demand for Linux-compatible hardware
-> More incentive for hardware vendors to open up drivers and/or specifications
-> Greater choice of hardware, and fewer disappointments when stuff doesn't work, for Linux users
On Monday 04 Aug 2003 3:52 pm, James Edward John Taylor wrote:
Ok, those points are fair, that you can contribute. But as you pointed out, they are becomming more and more techincally capable as they procede (through asking questions, recieving answers and so on).
I dont disagree, Everyone starts off knowing nothing and learning/making it up as they go along, and its a brilliant way of learning.
But wasnt the point that this would be linux for everyone? that you would make your systems lovely and nice, so that people who didnt want to learn more could use them.
Im not saying people who are non-techincally minded cant come to learn stuff, im saying that some systems can not be used/installed (delete as apropiate) by non-techincal people, and that it is not nessicarrly "good" for them to use these systems.
And Im not saying that these non-techincal people cant BECOME techincal people (even if it is just specifically trained for that particluar peice of techincal stuff) - ive seen countless shopfloor warehouse assitants trained to be able to program power control units.
But what if they dont want to. I mean lets face it, thats a fair thing isnt it? some lovely old dear whos a much loved primary school teacher probably dosnt want to learn or become techincally aquanted / spend so much time learning, but they also shouldnt expect to beable to do sometimes quite techincal realated things on computers.
There are some intersting points here but some strange misconceptions. There are lots of products that Joe public does not fully understand; his car, his TV and his VCR to name but a few. It is reasonable for Joe public to expect his PC to work when he plugs it in and to do the basic things he bought it for - which is why I think some Linux distros are moving this way and why companies like Evesham micros supply preisntalled Linux. However, Joe public does not expaect his car to last forever or for it to cost nothing to run other than fuel costs. He expects to pay for it to be serviced/maintained and the same should be true of his computer. If he decides to have air conditioning fitted to his car he may decide to fit it himself if he has the skills but if not he expects to pay someone who can. The same should be true of his PC.
In this area Linux is no different to any other OS.
Ian
On Monday 04 August 2003 21:07, Ian Bell wrote:
. However, Joe public does not expaect his car to last forever or for it to cost nothing to run other than fuel costs. He expects to pay for it to be serviced/maintained and the same should be true of his computer. If he decides to have air conditioning fitted to his car he may decide to fit it himself if he has the skills but if not he expects to pay someone who can. The same should be true of his PC.
In this area Linux is no different to any other OS.
Actually this is a really good point.
It also demonstrates a point where Linux is actually stronger than Windows.
Once a Linux machine is set up as long as the tasks it performs and the hardware connected to it doesn't change, there is very little that needs to be maintained.
Windows machines on the other hand, break for no apparent reason, require constant updates for even the lowest degree of secure computing, suffer fragmentation, registry corruption, DLL hell, Virus updates, Virus's themselves, Worms, Pop-ups and ad/spyware.
A reasonable proportion of my business comes from dealing with home users having one of the above problems. However I think more people are willing to have a go at fixing their computer themselves, than start ripping their engine to bits. Not so sure why this is.
Maybe it's because computer people are viewed as expensive, maybe it's the lack of muck and grease thing or maybe it's because you can tinker with a computer without going to halfords and buying a socket set first :o)
However I think more people are willing to have a go at fixing their computer themselves, than start ripping their engine to bits. Not so sure why this is.
Maybe it's because computer people are viewed as expensive, maybe it's the lack of muck and grease thing or maybe it's because you can tinker with a computer without going to halfords and buying a socket set first :o) <<<<
If you break it you can start over at no cost other than your own time. Not so easy with a car.
-- GT
On Tuesday 05 August 2003 07:29, Graham Trott wrote:
However I think more people are willing to have a go at fixing their computer themselves, than start ripping their engine to bits. Not so sure why this is.
Actually I think I have it. Linux is not (currently) for everyone, it's for people who care how things work and like fixing things for themselves.
Taking myself as an example.
Since I can remember I have to know how almost everything works, Up to 3 years ago (when I started buying new cars) the only time my car went to the garage was for the MOT, everything else was done by me (with engine rebuilds I had a bit of help from an engineering shop).
When I can't afford the latest gadget, I get someone else's broken one and fix it (was actually doing that as a job in the early 90's) and almost every appliance, electrical or mechanical item in my house has been to bits at least once (even if it was just for curious tinkering).
This is why I think I use Linux, I can pull it apart and see how it works, better still I can modify it and put it back together again. It's not that I do this frequently it's that I CAN do this if I want.
Is that just me or are all Linux people like that ?
From: Wayne Stallwood on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:30 AM
On Tuesday 05 August 2003 07:29, Graham Trott wrote:
However I think more people are willing to have a go at fixing their computer themselves, than start ripping their engine to bits. Not so sure why this is.
Actually I think I have it. Linux is not (currently) for everyone, it's for
isn't this were we started? ;o)
[snip]
This is why I think I use Linux, I can pull it apart and see how it works, better still I can modify it and put it back together again. It's not that I do this frequently it's that I CAN do this if I want.
Is that just me or are all Linux people like that ?
hmm.. you might have something there. When faced with the choice last night of either compiling with the safer 2.95 release of gcc or hacking the source code and getting it to work with gcc 3.3, I choose the latter. Didn't have to think about it much either. :o)
At the time I justified it by telling myself that taking the safe 2.95 route would have been one of James' Free Ride's (sorry, looks like your stuck with that one James :o) ) and that by compiling with 3.3 I was contributing in a small way by trying out the newer software, but, in reality, I was just having fun.
Regards,
Keith ____________ The best use of your mind is to distrust it. François Fénelon
Wayne Stallwood wayne.stallwood@btinternet.com wrote:
Actually I think I have it. Linux is not (currently) for everyone, it's for people who care how things work and like fixing things for themselves.
The variant you use may be like that (and the same may be true for most of the people on this list), but I don't think they all are. Fixers may be earlier adopters, as you can actually fix this when it breaks.
We are heading very very fast into a circular argument.
The main bit is, Linux (or rather OS software (again I strive to differentiate)) is at times, and in places, difficult [for your average user] to install, configure or run, and this is due to its design, having not been designed to be "user friendly".
This is mainly because the majority of people have not had any training or previous experience with "non-user friendly" computers.
They can either a) get training/experience b) pester and wait for a devloper to make a gui (either official or privatly) or c) pay/persuade someone with skills to fix/work for them.
Perhaps, even with the mass of schools now having "nice" and "comprehensive" computer training, but these computer training being mostly Windows based, "Office" skills (not nessicarilly Microsoft Office but text editors, spreadsheets, basic database) they will continue to be coddled into a "userfriendly good, console bad" mind set.
And the other problem, perhaps we all stop developing programs RIGHT NOW ok, and everyone wirtes a gui interface for them (of some sort) so EVERYTHING in the OS domain has a gui.... then tommorrow when we start programming agin, its all going to have no-guis.
There will always be a slection of code which dosnt have a gui, and that stuff is going to be the most recent releases.
Who wants to install an old version of software? i mean the new ones where written for a purpose.
Should we be pestering examination boards to put "installation and configuring and familiariastion of different platforms" onto their sylabus.
J
James Edward John Taylor J.E.Taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
[...] they will continue to be coddled into a "userfriendly good, console bad" mind set.
Do you agree with this?
[...]
And the other problem, perhaps we all stop developing programs RIGHT NOW ok, and everyone wirtes a gui interface for them (of some sort) so EVERYTHING in the OS domain has a gui.... then tommorrow when we start programming agin, its all going to have no-guis.
Why? Surely only some subset of the new features will not have a GUI, unless you're suggesting some way of building a GUI layer that is amazingly brittle.
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
James Edward John Taylor J.E.Taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
[...] they will continue to be coddled into a "userfriendly good, console bad" mind set.
Do you agree with this?
me or the rest of Alug?
[...]
And the other problem, perhaps we all stop developing programs RIGHT NOW ok, and everyone wirtes a gui interface for them (of some sort) so EVERYTHING in the OS domain has a gui.... then tommorrow when we start programming agin, its all going to have no-guis.
Why? Surely only some subset of the new features will not have a GUI, unless you're suggesting some way of building a GUI layer that is amazingly brittle.
Ok, so a large proportion of the software is GUI based, and perhaps it is better to keep gui's packaged seperately to the actual "primary" software, which is what happens for most of the software (For instance postgress and something like pgmyadmin).
And I suppose I misunderestimage several things in termms of version 1.01 of softaware foo will use the config file from 1.00 hapilly.
J
On 05-Aug-03 James Edward John Taylor wrote:
Should we be pestering examination boards to put "installation and configuring and familiariastion of different platforms" onto their sylabus.
J
Not a hope, I fear. ICT ("Information and Communications Technology") at school level means "learning how to do stuff by pointing and clicking in Windows", in practice. It's basically the equivalent of teaching ironing in "Domestic Science" (whatever that's called these days, oh, yes, "Home Economics" comes to mind).
Decent Computer Science courses at University expose students to Unix systems and teach how to use and manage them. This is advantageous in studying Computing scientifically because you can get into the system and actually see what's going on, and play with it. You can learn the principles of how computers work better on Unix systems precisely because the bottom level is accesible and you can see where you are.
However much you "pester examination boards" you won't get them to listen because they won't know what you're talking about. You only have to look at QCA and the National Curriculum to see what these agencies think it's about, and neither schools nor exam boards are going to break ranks in the face of expected attainments for Key Stages.
Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972 Date: 05-Aug-03 Time: 12:32:24 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
Should we be pestering examination boards to put "installation and configuring and familiariastion of different platforms" onto their sylabus.
Not a hope, I fear. ICT ("Information and Communications Technology") at school level means "learning how to do stuff by pointing and clicking in Windows", in practice. It's basically the equivalent of teaching ironing in "Domestic Science" (whatever that's called these days, oh, yes, "Home Economics" comes to mind).
But dont we produce people who at 16 years old can actually surivive in the real world? I mean I learnt how to cook in those lessons, my mother didnt teach me, i went to uni armed with only what I had learnt in those lessons which i hadnt used for four years (through gcse and alevels) and i survived (only just) but i survived.
Decent Computer Science courses at University expose students to Unix systems and teach how to use and manage them. This is advantageous in studying Computing scientifically because you can get into the system and actually see what's going on, and play with it. You can learn the principles of how computers work better on Unix systems precisely because the bottom level is accesible and you can see where you are.
hahaha computer science at university hahahaha hahaha decent computer science at university hahaha (it was mentioned recently that the eningeers of UEA : Sys where ... elitist at times - im not going to disagree when one of my lecturers on giving me an assingment (im only on a bsc in CSE) said "the current system isnt very good... the guy who wrote is only on a masters of computing...you're an ENGINEER))
However much you "pester examination boards" you won't get them to listen because they won't know what you're talking about. You only have to look at QCA and the National Curriculum to see what these agencies think it's about, and neither schools nor exam boards are going to break ranks in the face of expected attainments for Key Stages.
no sorry, my bad.. but Im not conivced that creating highelr evelves of standards for eductaion is good in this area - im not sure that people can meet them.
I went to both Bourne Grammar School and Robert Manning (the comprehensive in the town). We have a selective netrance into the Grammar to get the top 25% of the people, and **most** of them dont do brilliantly at computing. They're gtting better, a lot better, which is a mixture of better resources and more timetabled lessons, but unless you are going to amke a real commitement to do better and learn more (like tola, myself, kaz and the other "it assitants" you really dont learn more then just "office" skills).
And if you want to have a "real" life at the same time - for examble play football at luncthime with the other kids, then you cant.
J
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:58:25 +0100 (BST) James Edward John Taylor J.E.Taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Should we be pestering examination boards to put "installation and configuring and familiariastion of different platforms" onto their sylabus.
Not a hope, I fear. ICT ("Information and Communications Technology") at school level means "learning how to do stuff by pointing and clicking in Windows", in practice. It's basically the equivalent of teaching ironing in "Domestic Science" (whatever that's called these days, oh, yes, "Home Economics" comes to mind).
But dont we produce people who at 16 years old can actually surivive in the real world? I mean I learnt how to cook in those lessons, my mother didnt teach me, i went to uni armed with only what I had learnt in those lessons which i hadnt used for four years (through gcse and alevels) and i survived (only just) but i survived.
I have always liked Ted`s perspective that education is about learning transferable skills. I guess its the mathematician in him. After all this is one of the MOST transferable skills. ICT will I expect not be worth a penny in 10 years time but my Maths at GCSE, A level has been invaluable in science, and in life.
I feel a better thing to do in ICT classes would be the history of computing, how a program works in conventional languages and some information on the theory behind a computer.
Feynman Lectures on Computation would be a good place to start for anyone creating the sylabus as that information has not changed in years.
Feynman Lectures on Computation by Richard P. Feynman, Robin W. Allen, Tony Hey, Anthony J. G. Hey
And this book also as the basis of what they should teach
Structured Computer Organization, A. S. Tanenbaum,
As this has not changed in years either. Computers are in many ways unchanged in the past 20-30 years, Its just the user interfaces which keep changing, and that is annoying as you have to learn the new interface. I advocate teaching children lessons at school that will serve them for the rest of their lives.
Decent Computer Science courses at University expose students to Unix systems and teach how to use and manage them. This is advantageous in studying Computing scientifically because you can get into the system and actually see what's going on, and play with it. You can learn the principles of how computers work better on Unix systems precisely because the bottom level is accesible and you can see where you are.
hahaha computer science at university hahahaha
I have found my computer science education invaluable and has helped me talk the same language as my colleagues. It really shows when people haven't trained at University in computer science, if they design big projects.
<snip>
I strongly advocate user mode Linux as a great learning tool as breaking a Virtual Machine, still leaves you with editing facilities. eg cut and paste.
Regards
Owen
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Windows machines on the other hand, break for no apparent reason, require constant updates for even the lowest degree of secure computing, suffer fragmentation, registry corruption, DLL hell, Virus updates, Virus's themselves, Worms, Pop-ups and ad/spyware.
If we went back in time toooo around 95 and changed the way a couple of companies dealt with the internet, and lets suppose microsoft went south bigtime, so becomes only a small "bit" player...
All those people writing that sort of thing would now be writing that sort of thing to attack linux systems, wouldnt it be conceivable there would be more linux viruses then there currnetly are?
A second issue with this is would your (avarage user again) know how to deal with these things. How many of them dig deeper holes by accepting spyware onto their computer, how many of them dont know where the stop js button is in their current browser?
A reasonable proportion of my business comes from dealing with home users having one of the above problems. However I think more people are willing to have a go at fixing their computer themselves, than start ripping their engine to bits. Not so sure why this is.
Maybe it's because computer people are viewed as expensive, maybe it's the lack of muck and grease thing or maybe it's because you can tinker with a computer without going to halfords and buying a socket set first :o)
Hrm - Im not sure, a lot ofpeople see computers as a big expense, and really arnt willing to deal with them, but will just get the bright kid from school to fix em cause thats cheaper.
Dont you ever go to parties - "what are you doing" "Computers" "oh, i have a problem with"... its why I just say "engineering" these days.
J
On Tuesday 05 August 2003 10:45, James Edward John Taylor wrote:
If we went back in time toooo around 95 and changed the way a couple of companies dealt with the internet, and lets suppose microsoft went south bigtime, so becomes only a small "bit" player...
All those people writing that sort of thing would now be writing that sort of thing to attack linux systems, wouldnt it be conceivable there would be more linux viruses then there currnetly are?
I suppose you have a point, but
In all consumer orientated versions of Windows the desktop user has ultimate privileges on the machine, all software they run has similar access.
Up until recently there was no packet filtering, no concept of file permissions or user permissions in Windows, holes in the security model are fixed not when they are discovered but when they are public enough to cause a major concern, Any user executed program (intentionally or otherwise) can open up any network port or access any file on the machine without the user even being aware.
Plus the diversity of the Linux system makes it hard to get software running even with the users help sometimes :o)
So my response to this would have to be yes there would be more Linux viruses etc... But I suspect not as many as there have been for Windows.
James Edward John Taylor wrote:
If we went back in time toooo around 95 and changed the way a couple of companies dealt with the internet, and lets suppose microsoft went south bigtime, so becomes only a small "bit" player...
All those people writing that sort of thing would now be writing that sort of thing to attack linux systems, wouldnt it be conceivable there would be more linux viruses then there currnetly are?
A second issue with this is would your (avarage user again) know how to deal with these things. How many of them dig deeper holes by accepting spyware onto their computer, how many of them dont know where the stop js button is in their current browser?
Perhaps I read this wrong, but are you actually saying that it's good that MS Windows is around because it keeps Joe Public away from Linux - because if Linux was the mainstream OS for desktops then it would suffer from more viruses/viri (whatever the correct plural is)?
-- Ben "tola" Francis
Perhaps I read this wrong, but are you actually saying that it's good that MS Windows is around because it keeps Joe Public away from Linux - because if Linux was the mainstream OS for desktops then it would suffer from more viruses/viri (whatever the correct plural is)?
No. Im suggesting that there will be more programs for the mainstream OS - in all respects. There will be more exploits and more virus as well as more text editors and games.
J
Going back to where this all started, I wonder if we aren't all talking out of our collective backsides. We all seem to be implicitly accepting that GNU/Linux is in some way inferior to Windows WRT the average non-technical user.
When the average non-computer literate person buys a PC from PC World (spit!), etc., it comes off the shelf, set up and ready to run. They take it home plug it in and start the painful process of leaning what it's all about (or not, as the case may be).
Now I suspect that if these systems where preloaded with Knoppix, Morphix or something similar then it wouldn't make a jot of difference to them. Remember they are starting from a position of very little or no knowledge anyway.
Having spent the last 2 days setting up a W2K based computer from scratch I am now of the opinion that setting up say Debian is no more difficult and requires about the same amount of technical knowledge, in fact, in some respects for an experienced technical person I think a reasonable GNU/Linux distro would be easier.
If someone runs into an installation problem when loading either a Windows or GNU/Linux application IME it's no easier or harder to resolve for the average non-techie user.
The bonus for a technical person is that if they need to diagnose such a problem then, with GNU/Linux, they can look under the covers at the code.
So I would say, the next time someone tells you that GNU/Linux is inherently more complex or harder to use or set up and maintain than Windows or is simply a command line system, your reply should be "Bollocks!, Prove it!".
Regards,
Keith ____________ A bump in the road is either an obstacle to be fought or an opportunity to be enjoyed... it is all up to you.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Keith Watson wrote:
Going back to where this all started, I wonder if we aren't all talking out of our collective backsides. We all seem to be implicitly accepting that GNU/Linux is in some way inferior to Windows WRT the average non-technical user.
I don't think many of us would be here if we believed that. But I think the discussion could be based on the following assumptions, and I think that maybe many on the mailing list would find some or all of them plausible. Anyone?
1 We live in a context where most computer users have had more practice with GUIs, than with command lines or text config files.
1.1 In such a context, GUIs are easier and more user-friendly than command lines or text config files.
2 LUG mailing lists, which are the primary means of interactive tech support for Linux, tend to suggest text config file or command-line solutions to problems, rather than GUI solutions.
3 For some tasks, especially sysadmin tasks, the command line or text config file is the only solution, i.e. there is no GUI.
3.1 GUI-less tasks are more common in Linux than in Windows.
3.2 The ubiety of home computers forces every computer user to become a sysadmin, highlighting the existence of the GUI-less tasks.
From: Dan Hatton on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:01 PM
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Keith Watson wrote:
Going back to where this all started, I wonder if we aren't all talking out of our collective backsides. We all seem to be implicitly accepting that GNU/Linux is in some way inferior to Windows WRT the average non-technical user.
I don't think many of us would be here if we believed that. But I think the discussion could be based on the following assumptions, and I think that maybe many on the mailing list would find some or all of them plausible. Anyone?
1 We live in a context where most computer users have had more practice with GUIs, than with command lines or text config files.
Yes, I'd accept that (magnanimous of me eh? :o) ) if you mean in the context of the average home, office or educational PC user.
1.1 In such a context, GUIs are easier and more user-friendly than command lines or text config files.
In such a context they're irrelevant. This sort of user, whatever OS is installed on their PC, would never have to touch one.
2 LUG mailing lists, which are the primary means of interactive tech support for Linux, tend to suggest text config file or command-line solutions to problems, rather than GUI solutions.
Only for technically minded computer literate people like ourselves, the sort of users we are talking about would not go near one anyway, they'd find someone like us and let us do it. I'm not being facetious here, as soon as word get out that you know a bit about PCs you instantly become the neighbourhood PC quack.
3 For some tasks, especially sysadmin tasks, the command line or text config file is the only solution, i.e. there is no GUI.
Yes, but this can also apply to Windows and I wouldn't see the sort of user we're talking about having (or wanting) to do this sort of task.
3.1 GUI-less tasks are more common in Linux than in Windows.
I'm not convinced about this. I would say, because of its ancedents, GNU/Linux gives you more options for driving things by hacking a config file but for most of the simple configuration tasks that the average non-techie user wants to do there's also a GUI somewhere.
3.2 The ubiety of home computers forces every computer user to become a sysadmin, highlighting the existence of the GUI-less tasks.
No sorry Dan don't agree with this at all. The sort of users we're talking about probably use a standard office application suite (e.g. word-processing, spreadsheet, graphics/presentation), a browser and an e-mail reader and half a dozen games. The nearest thing to sysadmin they might have to do is set up their ISP details, but mostly this will have been done for them. If they install new software they may get into difficulties, but then see my comment against 2 above.
Regards,
Keith ____________ Sushi! - its not fresh, its raw.
Dan Hatton dan.hatton@btinternet.com wrote:
1.1 In such a context, GUIs are easier and more user-friendly than command lines or text config files.
Surely this only holds if the GUI is *exactly* the one that they previously used for the same task and are familiar with? IME, it's the terminology which trips more people up than having to use a text editor.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Keith Watson wrote:
Going back to where this all started, I wonder if we aren't all talking out of our collective backsides. We all seem to be implicitly accepting that GNU/Linux is in some way inferior to Windows WRT the average non-technical user.
That's a bit harsh, but not without some justification. My experience of Linux so far has been almost all for server use, but I've just upgraded my laptop hard drive, demoted Windows to 10GB and in the process of putting SuSE 8.2 on the rest. Now it seems that some folks here think SuSE, Mandrake and Red Hat are little beter than Windows, but I just don't have the knowledge to answer the kind of questions Gentoo throws at me on installation.
But even with one of the latest GUI-based distros, things are not as easy as on Windows. I'll use three unrelated examples:
1 Sharing files on Windows is a matter of right-clicking the drive letter and answering a few dumb questions. On Linux you have the choice of NFS or Samba (and probably dozens more) which don't come installed by default. With Samba you have to edit the conf file and then create users, a process I'm still not clear about as there seem to be several commands with overlapping functions. The manual talks about swat, but I've not yet got that to reveal its promised GUI. So far the local Windows machines can see my laptop but not connect to it. Passwords get refused or don't even get asked for. The clients also seem to be hugely confused about whether the machine is publishing its Windows or Linux directories, but I guess that's a Windows cacheing problem.
2 If I plug my Canon Digital IXUS into Windows, up pops a box asking me to choose an installed application. On Linux, I enabled digital camera support (somewhere, can't remember where and can't find it again) but nothing happens when the camera is plugged in. Presumably I've done somethng wrong; maybe I'll find out why before I die of old age.
3 On a recent working trip to China I found free broadband in the hotel room, so to save international mobile charges I signed up with IConnectHere, chosen because all the others had such god-awful sign-up forms that take about a week to complete. Unfortunately, it's Windows only. For Linux all I've found is something called GnomeMeeting (does that work with KDE?). Installation is not simply a matter of running an executable over the Internet, as it is for Windows
I'm not complaining; most Linux stuff is free so who am I to bitch about it? There's heaps of stuff around for Linux, but it wouldn't be fair to say it's as easy to install and use as on Windows. I find myself in a similar position to when I moved from the Mac to DOS/Windows about ten years ago. On the Mac, everything works the same way. The control keys and gestures are the same no matter what the application. (Why? Because Apple published a book and arm-twisted all the developers to follow it.) On Windows they were all different. Over the years style guidelines have gradually been agreed and adhered to, to the point that if you've used a handful of Windows applications you can be pretty sure how to use others.
My point being...
Linux is still at that point where nobody agrees about style guidelines and there are relatively few conventions. Look at Gimp, for example. Fantastic program but the interface is quirky to say the least. Text config files are open and powerful, but wouldn't a little more consistency be nice? Are there any conventions as to where to put Java or OpenOffice so that all users can get at them? I know these are beginner questions but that's what us would-be converts from Windows are; beginners. We're pissed off with unreliable crap that keeps needing reinstalling or patching and we'd like better. But as soon as you go beyond what comes out of the distro box you need a lot of knowledge, and frankly anyone who tells me to read 10,000 lines of C or Perl to find out how something works has little understanding of normal human beings and is reinforcing the popular belief that Linux is only for an exclusive geek club.
-- GT
P.S. If that sounds heated, maybe it's 'cos this is the hottest day in living memory.
From: Graham Trott on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:29 PM
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Keith Watson wrote:
Going back to where this all started, I wonder if we aren't all talking out of our collective backsides. We all seem to be implicitly accepting that GNU/Linux is in some way inferior to Windows WRT the average non-technical user.
That's a bit harsh, but not without some justification. My experience of Linux so far has been almost all for server use, but I've just upgraded my laptop hard drive, demoted Windows to 10GB and in the process of putting SuSE 8.2 on the rest. Now it seems that some folks here think SuSE, Mandrake and Red Hat are little beter than Windows, but I just don't have the knowledge to answer the kind of questions Gentoo throws at me on installation.
But even with one of the latest GUI-based distros, things are not as easy as on Windows.
For whom and in what context?
1 Sharing files on Windows is a matter of right-clicking the drive letter and answering a few dumb questions. On Linux you have the choice of NFS or Samba (and probably dozens more) which don't come installed by default.
In our context of someone new to home computing this isn't relevant, if they've got to the point of wanting to share drives across machines then they've moved beyond the novice user stage. But 10 years ago when I was a sysadmin on a Sun network (Solaris), I was using NFS to share drives via a simple GUI utility.
2 If I plug my Canon Digital IXUS into Windows, up pops a box asking me to choose an installed application. On Linux, I enabled digital camera support (somewhere, can't remember where and can't find it again) but nothing happens when the camera is plugged in. Presumably I've done somethng wrong; maybe I'll find out why before I die of old age.
I think either you may be doing something wrong. I've just spoken to 2 colleagues who use GNU/Linux (Mandrake and Knoppix), they both have digital cameras that plug in via the USB port. They've told me that as soon as they do up pops a new drive icon containing the digital images.
3 On a recent working trip to China I found free broadband in the hotel room, so to save international mobile charges I signed up with IConnectHere, chosen because all the others had such god-awful sign-up forms that take about a week to complete. Unfortunately, it's Windows only.
Yes, but again for the group of average PC users this doesn't apply. It's not relevant for them
I'm not complaining;
Could've fooled me! :o)
Linux is still at that point where nobody agrees about style guidelines and there are relatively few conventions.
Yes, that's a very good point. Anyone know of any style guidelines for Gnome or KDE applications?
P.S. If that sounds heated, maybe it's 'cos this is the hottest day in living memory.
Well that depends on how old you are. :o) (but I do agree that it's f-hot!).
BTW have you seen http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,83708,00.html?nas=AM-83708 or (OK maybe Lindows is borderline but, good grief, it's a start) http://www.lindows.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_archives.php?id=70
Regards,
Keith ____________ Those are my opinions, if you don't like them, I have others. Groucho Marx.
Keith Watson kpwatson@ukfsn.org wrote:
Anyone know of any style guidelines for Gnome or KDE applications?
Gnome definitely has interface guidelines. GNUstep works from the NeXTstep 3.3 user interface manual. Presumably XFCE works from the CDE ones. I don't know about KDE.
That's not answering what was asked, though. There are style guidelines for the above, but users want (need?) to mix applications from these platforms. That's something powerful that you can't do on most other systems which only have one desktop layer. Expecting "Linux" to have style guidelines is like expecting a common interface to your car engine, to re-use an earlier analogy.
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 17:50, MJ Ray wrote:
Expecting "Linux" to have style guidelines is like expecting a common interface to your car engine, to re-use an earlier analogy.
Honestly I'm not trying to be argumentive here....but Isn't the interface to a car engine a weak analogy.
Regardless of whether I am driving an 8 cylinder V8 or a Mini from the end user's point of view the interface is reasonably common. To start the engine requires the same procedure and the major controls are in the same place. Likewise to control the output of the engine.
If I learn how to repair the Mini when it breaks then I stand a more than reasonable chance with the V8 as most of the major components are in the same place.
If I learnt how to drive in the Mini I should be able to jump straight into the V8 and drive it equally well (getting used to the extra power non-withstanding)
I agree with the rest of your points, but I was just curious about that particular analogy.
(thinking about it this weakens my previous post somewhat) :o)
Driving the analogy a little further... One is normally expected to receive training before using a car, so shouldn't one also be trained to use a computer ?
Regards, Paul.
On Thursday 07 August 2003 12:20 am, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
If I learnt how to drive in the Mini I should be able to jump straight into the V8 and drive it equally well (getting used to the extra power non-withstanding)
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Paul wrote:
Driving the analogy a little further... One is normally expected to receive training before using a car, so shouldn't one also be trained to use a computer ?
Surley this depends on where you come from. In England you have to pass a reasonably good Driving Test to prove [basic] compitance at being able to not-kill everyone.
In Egypt (?) I thought the only requist to driving was being over 14...
J
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:03:26AM +0100, James Edward John Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Paul wrote:
Driving the analogy a little further... One is normally expected to receive training before using a car, so shouldn't one also be trained to use a computer ?
Surley this depends on where you come from. In England you have to pass a reasonably good Driving Test to prove [basic] compitance at being able to not-kill everyone.
In Egypt (?) I thought the only requist to driving was being over 14...
....and it seems that the only requirement to being a car mechanic is being able to inhale air over clenched teeth and then say "ooooh, thats going to cost you" shortly followed by "it will be next week before we can get the parts and you can't drive the car as its dangerous" then using a lumphammer to attempt to fix the problem...
I hate analogies with cars <> computers, although judging by the amount of computers in modern cars and wiring systems that use buses (no not the big red double decker ones) to pass information and operate things around the car perhaps we are nearly there already.
30 years in the future...
mechanic: (inhales air through teeth) "oooh, thats going to cost you" "you need an upgrade to windows 2033 car edition, you see the gear box api changed with that hotfix you applied and the old clutch driver isn't compatible it really would be quicker to upgrade. you also get the benefit of the new fuel injection 7.71 which is more efficient and loads faster"
Can you imagine driving a car down the motorway in the future to have the OS decide to crash, which then deploys the airbags, disables the brakes and steering while turning the stereo up to full volume and playing a cheesy hits of the 80s station while you await the fire brigade to cut you out of the resultant mess!
Adam
On Thursday 07 Aug 2003 10:30 am, abower@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:03:26AM +0100, James Edward John Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Paul wrote:
Driving the analogy a little further... One is normally expected to receive training before using a car, so shouldn't one also be trained to use a computer ?
Surley this depends on where you come from. In England you have to pass a reasonably good Driving Test to prove [basic] compitance at being able to not-kill everyone.
In Egypt (?) I thought the only requist to driving was being over 14...
Which is fine because in Egypt you need a very special set of skills just to survive to the age of 14 so driving a car is a piece of piss.
Ian
On Thursday 07 August 2003 09:30, abower@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
Can you imagine driving a car down the motorway in the future to have the OS decide to crash, which then deploys the airbags, disables the brakes and steering while turning the stereo up to full volume and playing a cheesy hits of the 80s station while you await the fire brigade to cut you out of the resultant mess!
Have you experienced the new high end BMW's, your future scenario is here today (nearly) The new 7 series is running Microsoft, and they are having problems.
Fortunately, nothing essential to the cars safety is controlled by Microsoft. But bugs like the stereo getting stuck on one volume or one channel, and the heating setting itself to full are happening....the big problem IMO is that these ARE STILL safety issues as if the Stereo goes to full the driver becomes distracted while they try and correct it.
There are some videos here of "i-drive" (the MS Windows CE based system that the BMW runs) doing some of it's crashes, unfortunately they are in Windows media format so I haven't looked at them yet.
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Thursday 07 August 2003 09:30, abower@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
Can you imagine driving a car down the motorway in the future to have the OS decide to crash, which then deploys the airbags, disables the brakes and steering while turning the stereo up to full volume and playing a cheesy hits of the 80s station while you await the fire brigade to cut you out of the resultant mess!
Have you experienced the new high end BMW's, your future scenario is here today (nearly) The new 7 series is running Microsoft, and they are having problems.
Now that, in all sincerity, is REALLY scarey...
Cheers, Laurie.
On 2003-08-07 00:20:42 +0100 Wayne Stallwood wayne.stallwood@btinternet.com wrote:
Regardless of whether I am driving an 8 cylinder V8 or a Mini from the end user's point of view the interface is reasonably common.
The interface to the *car* is similar. The interface to the engine is not. Generally, I dislike analogies, but this one seems to hold OKish.
On Wednesday 06 Aug 2003 9:52 am, Keith Watson wrote:
Going back to where this all started, I wonder if we aren't all talking out of our collective backsides. We all seem to be implicitly accepting that GNU/Linux is in some way inferior to Windows WRT the average non-technical user.
I certainly never said that. I stated I thought the different distros reflected the different target users from newbie thru to geek, which IMHO makes it a whole lot better than windosw.
Ian
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
It also demonstrates a point where Linux is actually stronger than Windows.
Once a Linux machine is set up as long as the tasks it performs and the hardware connected to it doesn't change, there is very little that needs to be maintained.
Windows machines on the other hand, require <snip> constant updates for even the lowest degree of secure computing<more snip>
I'm not at all sure Linux has that big an advantage here. The last three or four evenings, I've had apt-get busily downloading some insane number of megabytes of kernel images that have been updated due to security flaws. Admittedly, this problem is partly of my own making (I decided hard drive space was not a scarce resource, and installed some kernels, and a lot of other stuff, that I don't use,) but I have a very complete Windows install too, and can't recall Windows update ever clogging up my dial-up connection quite that much.
Incidentally, the updated kernels are expected to take up far less space on my hard drive than they're using on the network connection; perhaps the compression on the .debs is less than optimal?
Dan Hatton wrote:
I'm not at all sure Linux has that big an advantage here. The last three or four evenings, I've had apt-get busily downloading some insane number of megabytes of kernel images that have been updated due to security flaws. Admittedly, this problem is partly of my own making (I decided hard drive space was not a scarce resource, and installed some kernels, and a lot of other stuff, that I don't use,) but I have a very complete Windows install too, and can't recall Windows update ever clogging up my dial-up connection quite that much. <<<
I reinstalled my three-year-old copy of W2k on Monday (well you have to every few months, doncha?). By the time I'd done updating IE6, SP4, Media Player and all the other gumph I was well over 200MB. That's only a guess, mind, as I wasn't really counting; thanks to broadband.
-- GT
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:20:37PM +0100, Dan Hatton wrote:
I'm not at all sure Linux has that big an advantage here. The last three or four evenings, I've had apt-get busily downloading some insane number of megabytes of kernel images that have been updated due to security flaws. Admittedly, this problem is partly of my own making (I decided hard drive space was not a scarce resource, and installed some kernels, and a lot of other stuff, that I don't use,) but I have a very complete Windows install too, and can't recall Windows update ever clogging up my dial-up connection quite that much.
We have 2 issues here, one is if you have lots of unused kernel images (you can only have one kernel booted at a time right?) then you would be best off removing the unused ones rather than the upgrading them. (also they are possibly taking up space because of the modules directories check /lib/modules/$kernel-name).
The second thing is that I setup a windows software update services server recently for just windows 2000 and that insisted on downloading around 1.5GB of updates (and that was only the security updates, I didn't get hold of the recommended updates due to the time i had available). I am not sure how big the debian security archive is but I am sure it is not that much!
Adam
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 abower@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
The second thing is that I setup a windows software update services server recently for just windows 2000 and that insisted on downloading around 1.5GB of updates (and that was only the security updates, I didn't get hold of the recommended updates due to the time i had available). I am not sure how big the debian security archive is but I am sure it is not that much! Adam
OK. I guess I've just been lucky on the MS side then (have 98, not 2000.)
Linux is based on Unix, which is not user friendly. Though some may argue that the shrinking user of base of Mac OS, who are now using a "friendly" clone of Unix. Linux market share=1.7% M$ Windows=96% in the PC market. If free software wants to hit the big time then it needs a friendly OS, perhaps a free version of Windows.
James Edward John Taylor wrote:
Sure, write your GUI if you want. But no one should ever start going round saying "you have to write a GUI otherwise im not going to use it"
I like CLI apps, but in the mainstream PC world if does not have a pretty GUI forget it, no one will use it.
because they are getting a free ride out of the software
This highlights one of the problems of free software.
While we can hope that users use their computer in more intelligent ways, like in the past, people can only go so far. Programmers can ignores users if they want, but if they want their applications to be popular it helps if they listen to users. If they don't someone else will.
[snip]
While we can hope that users use their computer in more intelligent ways, like in the past, people can only go so far. Programmers can ignores users if they want, but if they want their applications to be popular it helps if they listen to users. If they don't someone else will.
yeaaargh yes and no. Sure I agree with that, I cant disagree without being incredably stupid, but...
Im not convinced that people are even aware of what software they are using, especially on a system like the posix systems. By the time that you get to run an actual application (where everything everyone has been saying is completly valid about guis and so on) then you are allready running ten other programs let alone whatever interupts are set by the kernel at any point in time....
Hell, even software developers IGNORE 99% of what your computer is doing most of the time - its the very essence of abstraction in the first place.
J
[dig dig dig]
On Monday 04 August 2003 12:48, Tarquin Mills wrote:
Though some may argue that the shrinking user of base of Mac OS [snip]
Does anyone have data to support this, are users really migrating away from Mac ? I find that hard to believe considering the rather nifty new G5's, the very popular Powerbooks plus OS X is getting better with every release.
I have meet a few Mac users who were anti OS X, but generally once they have actually used it for a month or so and have got used to the differences they end up prefering it.
If free software wants to hit the big time then it needs a friendly OS, perhaps a free version of Windows.
A free version of Windows, to home users Windows is free ! Those that didn't get forced into buying it when they bought their PC end up with a pirate copy, Piracy made MS what they are today.
To business users if it came from one vendor (rather than a community) then they would never go for it, too worried that MS would eat up that vendor and they'd be left out in the cold damp hell of an unsupported properitary product.
-
abower＠thebowery.co.uk -
Ben Francis -
Dan Hatton -
Graham Trott -
Ian Bell -
James Edward John Taylor -
Keith Watson -
Laurie Brown -
MJ Ray -
owen.churchcowley -
Paul -
Tarquin Mills -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Wayne Stallwood