Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 3:52:51 PM, Kevin wrote:
> No, not as valid a reason as "I don't want to work in two different
> word processors, I want to be able to transfer stuff from work to
> home", etc.  So it's not as valid a reason as any others.

Those are no more valid at all when you start working with formats that
are open and free instead of being locked into proprietary formats.  Gee,
using something more efficient at home, what a concept!
>> No, all it takes is a little common sense.

> You really believe that?  You really believe all those years of
> experience mean nothing when it comes to being able to figure out why
> things are happening?   You think common sense alone will make someone
> that is not technically oriented, be able to understand all that
> technically oriented stuff?  OK.  :-\

Yes, I do.  My years of experience with computers doesn't help me
understand how my car works, or does it?  Understanding how my car works
doesn't help me understand how electricity in my house works, or does it?
Understanding how my house works doesn't help me understand basic economic
theory, or does it?

The one commonality to them all are the four things I described.

1: Observation
2: Reasoning
3: Memorization
4: Logic

AKA, common sense.  Computers are easy because not because I've worked
with them for years and years and YEARS...  They were easy when I first
started!  They were easy when I was *9* and my parents bought their first
computer.  They are as easy as understanding my car; understanding
electricity; understanding basic economic theory (imagine following a dollar
some day).  It is that basic level of understanding that most people *refuse*
to get to.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to be able to whip out perl code off
the top of their head to have a basic understanding.  I do think, though, that
they should know that a RMB click is different than a LMB and that a RMB will,
most likely, bring up a menu whereas a LMB will perform some operation.  Why?
Because a RMB click did it on that object over there, and that one up there,
and that one down there, so chances are it will do something *HERE*.  Most
people, though, need to be told to do that instead of doing it to see what
happens.

They fail to recognize, through common sense, that a RMB does something
pretty damned consistent.  So the vast majority, when faced with a new
program, will muddle along instead of a simple *click* "Hey, that works!"

Amazing, though, that the same people can sit down in a new car and will
set out to see what does what on a fairly consistent interface.  HR.

> I call it reality.  You're not going to change the users.  They don't
> care what you expect of them and they are paying the bills.

They're not paying the bills.  They're causing the problems.

> A little intelligence and judgement goes into what actually ends up
> going in.

Well, so far no-one has gotten it right who has tried to cater to the
lowest common denominator.

>> This isn't just M$, it is M$ and Mac and, as you pointed out,
>> yourself.

> I don't think I pointed that out at all.

Yes, you did.  The people wanted more hits, then they wanted less.  Think
it over for a moment and remember what I said about 35,000 hits.

> This is YOUR opinion and is typically the case for a lot of power
> users, not for occasional users. Most users are the latter.  Again,
> they don't care if the support guy expects them to read up on things.
> There's nothing that's going to make them.

No, that is fact.  It is the people who use certain software all the time
that I listen to, not the occasional user for they don't do squat.

> Bashing NT has nothing to do with this mailing list or what this
> thread started out about (though about 90% of your messages seem to
> end up going in that direction).

It wasn't bashing NT.  It was pointing out a very *VALID* argument that is
circulating around.  It would be bashing NT if it weren't true.  The point is
that IT managers love NT because they think it is simple yet the IT
professionals roll their eyes and hate it every step of the way because it is
*NOT*.  Why?  Because it was designed for idiots and newbies.  We were all
newbies at one time.  Everything is "hard" at first.  The real difference is
what makes our jobs and lives easier when we're not newbies.

News flash, a lot of what is catered to newbies doesn't make my job or my
life easier.  Nor does it anyone else who uses a little common sense.

> If they add a new feature, convenience or not, doesn't mean The Bat! will
> all of a sudden turn into NT, or Oriffice, or anything else M$ as long as
> they do it right.

So far people who listen to "the market" and the newbies haven't done it
right.  Not a one.  It has been the people who have stuck to their guns and
didn't listen to every whim and fancy that got it right and that means
ignoring a grand majority of the people making "suggestions."

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 12:11:59 PM, Kevin wrote:
>> Actually, it would be better to have a variety.  Makes viruses kind of
>> hard to propagate, doesn't it?

> Probably, but I wouldn't make my choice of OS at home based on that. :-)

No, but it is about as valid a reason as any other.  IE... not all that
valid.

> I would *guess*, that most of what you know about Unix too, you learned
> through experience, not though formal training.

O-Bing.  I just happen to have more formal training on Unix and I've
actually read books (O'Reilly) about it compared to Unix and Mac which I have
done neither of those.

> I would tend to disagree. If you live, eat, and breath computers all day,
> every day like some of us do, it becomes easy at some point to instinctively
> understand things and know what's going on behind the scenes.

No, all it takes is a little common sense.  I understand computers at
about the same level that I understand my car.  Granted, I can't build a car
from component parts, but then that is just a difference of scale.  I
understand my VCR at the same level.  I understand a lot of things at that
same conceptual level.  All it takes is some basic observation, reasoning,
memorization and logic.  Computers are no different than anything else in that
regard.

> Now... you guessed it, they complain because they have to wade through so
> many hits.  They want only the hits that they can use right then and they
> and want the software to weed out the rest, but how in the &*#^ is the
> software supposed to know?

Exactly.  And people wonder why I prefer Yahoo! to Altavista or Excite.
35,000 hits looks impressive but it is exactly as useful as 0 hits.  Try
telling that to a lot of people, however.

> So, we try to modify and enhance software, not necessarily to coddle these
> people, but maybe to make life easier for those of us who have to do the
> support.

No, it is coddling, plain and simple.  Call it what it is.

> If we gets calls about something enough times, we figure we'd get less calls
> if we make a change (if it makes sense). Now I guess M$ has tried to do this
> but they seem to have made a mess when they did it. That doesn't mean that
> everyone has to make a mess when they do it though.

No, it does.  By playing that game, by catering to every little newbie
whim you end up with a system that is not internally consistent and is
annoying to the majority of people.  This isn't just M$, it is M$ and Mac and,
as you pointed out, yourself.  It doesn't happen only in technology, either,
it is just in technology people equate it to magic.  "Why can't it do it?  I
can imagine it!"

> Those developers that finally do it the right way... maybe by having good
> judgement and not trying to put in everything including the kitchen sink,
> but, instead, putting in the things that make the most sense... are the ones
> that have the best software.

Amazingly enough, that best software happens to be the ones that started
this whole discussion.  The ones that are "hard to learn" and "cryptic."

I can boil down this down to a statement I heard a while ago.  "NT is
designed so an idiot can administer the server.  Make it so an idiot can do
that and only idiot's will."

NT is the laughing stock of IT, trust me on this.  It is the baby of
managers because they figure if *they* could do it, surely their techs would
appreciate something so "simple."  What they don't realize is that something
"simple" is really complex.  Sure, setting it up may be "easier" (I don't
agree, actually, after using Debian) but to do complex things means a *lot*
more work.

"So simple and idiot could do it" and "powerful" is a holy grail that will
never, *EVER* be found.  Ever.  Yet we still try to cater to that idea instead
of putting our foot down and saying, "Look, it does the job.  Get off your
fat, chicken-wing-eating-ass, *READ* a little bit, try engaging your *BRAIN*
for once and find out that with a little effort you will be *more* productive
with things the way they are now than if we tried to make it jump through
every hoop your 2-neuron brain can come up with to avoid work!"

"All I want to do is turn it on and do work."

Tough, you need to learn a little bit.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 10:04:58 AM, Kevin wrote:
> machine at home that they do at work for obvious reasons. (Yes I know that
> is technically a choice, but it wouldn't be a good choice to use totally
> different OS's and applications at work and home in most cases)

Actually, it would be better to have a variety.  Makes viruses kind of
hard to propagate, doesn't it?

> There are many degrees of "knowing what you are doing" and so I would hope
> that you, being an expert, would know how to *avoid* the problems that
> others might experience. But surely you can't possibly expect everyone to
> have the same amount of training and experience as yourself when you earn a
> living off of "knowing".

I make my living off of Unix, not Windows.  My training and experience on
Windows is self-taught, 100%.  I've not read any of the books nor have I read
the manuals.  Most of my formal training and experience is on the Unix (and
variants) platform.

I expect people to have the same basic understanding of Windows I do.  In
fact, maybe more so since supposedly the dummies series of books is so damned
popular.  While my experience and knowledge may be vast, I do not think that
people need even a fraction of it to use computers in a sensible manner.  They
just need some common sense, which, despite its name, isn't very common.

I'd love it if people would attempt to understand what they are reading
instead of pull a hamster and just call tech support when the smallest thing
breaks.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Ali Martin]

Hi all,

On Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 12:48:38 PM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:

>> And yes it does become a problem FOR them. But I think the point was that it
>> isn't the fault of the "end user" that experiences the crash in many to most
>> of the situations.

> I still do not think that is the case.  If it were the case then I would
> be experiencing constant problems on the many Windows machines I have used
> both at work and at home.  Simply put, I do not experience even remotely the
> amount of problems I hear others complaining about.

I can attest to this experience as well. There's no way I would
tolerate what I am hearing others tolerate with windows. Be that as it
may, the experience isn't perfect and totally frustration free in
terms of unexpected behavior.

> Now, given the numerous machines and flavors of Windows I've used on those
> machines I think we can rule out "luck" as a factor.  What is left is that,
> clearly, I am doing something right and they are doing something wrong.

:)  I am convinced of this in most instances but certainly not all. My
2 days ago faxing mishap is a prime example.

-- 
Regards,
 -=Ali=-   

   >>> Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget. <<<
*---*
  Running The Bat! v1.36 in Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6)
*---*

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Ali Martin]

Hi all,

On Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 11:54:54 AM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:



>> Exactly. It's windows. It's therefore not the users fault when that
>> frustrating crash occurs. :)

> They chose to use it, didn't they?

No. By and large, NO. :)


-- 
Regards,
 -=Ali=-   

   >>> It's easier to obtain forgiveness than permission. <<<
*---*
  Running The Bat! v1.36 in Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 6)
*---*

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 9:33:41 AM, Kevin wrote:
> OK, so 99.9% of the people don't have a choice.

Isn't that a little high given the amount of home PCs and number of
businesses that do allow users to chose?


> And yes it does become a problem FOR them. But I think the point was that it
> isn't the fault of the "end user" that experiences the crash in many to most
> of the situations.

I still do not think that is the case.  If it were the case then I would
be experiencing constant problems on the many Windows machines I have used
both at work and at home.  Simply put, I do not experience even remotely the
amount of problems I hear others complaining about.

Now, given the numerous machines and flavors of Windows I've used on those
machines I think we can rule out "luck" as a factor.  What is left is that,
clearly, I am doing something right and they are doing something wrong.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 9:06:50 AM, Kevin wrote:
>> They chose to use it, didn't they?

> I honestly don't know very many people who have a choice of what OS they
> use in their jobs.

I honestly don't know of very many IT managers that don't have a choice.
It is still a (l)user's problem.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Monday, November 01, 1999, 11:28:35 AM, Ali wrote:
> Many OSS programmers chimed in at that point to say that they get paid to
> develop OSS. That's the funding I'm speaking about. If this type of funding
> doesn't in anyway apply to GNOME and KDE development, then I stand
> corrected.

The point, though, is that since the code is put into Open Source to be
accepted and/or rejected on the technical merits, it is not subject to the
same manipulation as close source.  These programmers are getting paid to
code, not for the code.  There is a subtle difference.

> Exactly. It's windows. It's therefore not the users fault when that
> frustrating crash occurs. :)

They chose to use it, didn't they?

>> I'd wager that if they weren't imposed with Word and PowerPoint that the
>> grand total with Bash would be less.  :P

> They still need to do their wordprocessing and make slides for their
> boss's next presentation after learning Bash. :)

My point was that if they weren't saddled with piece of shit software to
do those two tasks they would have a lot more free time.  IE...

Time&Effort(Word + Powerpoint) > Time&Effort(Other, better applications +
associated support programs)

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Alexander V. Kiselev]

Hi there!

On 2 Nov 99, at 0:59, Christopher J. Trybowski wrote
about "Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: R":

> > Before  the  crash  he  had  1  primary  and 1 extended partition, 2
> > logicals on the latter. After the crash, he had only *one* (primary)
> > partition.  The rest of the partitions just perished. The data lost.
> > On  the  primary  partition that seemed to survive all the data *but
> > windows  and office* was trashed, too.
> 
> Did  he  really lost everything? AFAIK Windows sometimes messes up the
> partition table, but it is reversible (after longer or shorter time of
> calculating new one manually)...

He's a dumb, I told you:-) He couldn't see his data, *then* the 
second thing he did was formatting his HDD. If *i* were there, I 
would save (at least, almost) all he had their. Windows never 
wipes what it deletes. Direct disk editing could help, of course:-)

BTW, I'm not sure this message will be ever distributed to the 
list: I'm getting some odd problems with my subscription 
recently:-((


SY, Alex
(St.Petersburg, Russia)
-- 
Thought for the day:
  Trouble strikes in series of threes, but when working around
  the house the next job after a series of three is not
  the fourth job -- it's the start of a brand new series of three.

--- 
PGP public keys on keyservers:
0xA2194BF9 (RSA);   0x214135A2 (DH/DSS)
fingerprints:
F222 4AEF EC9F 5FA6  7515 910A 2429 9CB1 (RSA)
A677 81C9 48CF 16D1 B589  9D33 E7D5 675F 2141 35A2 (DH/DSS) 
--- 

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Christopher J. Trybowski]

On Monday, November 01, 1999 Alexander V. Kiselev wrote:

> Before  the  crash  he  had  1  primary  and 1 extended partition, 2
> logicals on the latter. After the crash, he had only *one* (primary)
> partition.  The rest of the partitions just perished. The data lost.
> On  the  primary  partition that seemed to survive all the data *but
> windows  and office* was trashed, too.

Did  he  really lost everything? AFAIK Windows sometimes messes up the
partition table, but it is reversible (after longer or shorter time of
calculating new one manually)...

Regards,

-- 
Christopher J. Trybowski 
~~~
=== [EMAIL PROTECTED] === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === uin: 4350719 ===
== http://wil.linux.krakow.pl/~trybik == pgp-keys: 0xB92EEE69 0x9382700B ==
( get-pgp-key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=send_key )

Using The Bat! 1.36 [reg] under Windows 98 4.10 build 1998.



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Paula Ford]

On Monday, November 01, 1999, tracer wrote:

Paula>> Thanks for your offer of help, though.

> No problem, just intrigued, were they running NT4 or NT5???
> It has some very lousy driver support for some printers...

The printer is HP's top of the line network laser, the 8000. The network
runs on Netware 5.x. The desktops run WIN95. The source of the printing
problems, however, probably originates with the office suite, Corel.
WordPerfect and HP printers have a long history of not getting along
real well, although I've found that HP printers, especially their
drivers, are not what they used to be. (I'm the disgruntled personal
owner of the notorious HP5L ($500), which has also colored my views.)
The irony is that an HP4000, purchased for half the cost of the 8000,
works beautifully using the 6E drivers.

> Besides, its always useful to know what doesnt work as nothing is more
> frustrating to tell a customer it will all work and then it doesnt..
> After all guess who gets blamed!

Yup. :) BTW, you often advocate buying from local shops. Just have to
say that I bought my first 3 computers for home from local shops,
largely for the reasons you cite. Each shop had been in business for a
number of years and seemed well-established. Each was out of business
before the warranties had even expired. Then, I bought my current
computer for home direct from a smaller company, but one that had also
been around for a good number of years, as measured in the computer
world. They also closed the doors, with no forwarding address, before
the warranty had expired. (Love the computer, though.) My next computer
I'll buy from whoever gives me the configuration I want for the best
price with no expectation that the company is going to outlive the
warranty. 

-- 
Paula Ford
The Bat! 1.35 (reg)
Windows 95 4.0 Build 950

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Steve Lamb]

Monday, November 01, 1999, 12:05:36 PM, Steve wrote:
>> It's a snowball effect which will eventually lead to
>> the computer exploding against our will. 

> Yes, you're finally getting it.  For example, some schmuck in a tie

I also forgot to mention that most people now use not what does the job,
but what is *there*.  What is *there* on the machine, is determined by
corporate deals, not the needs and desires of the individual user.  Anyone who
bought a modem in the pre-28.8k days knows of the ever-present "terminal"
program "Bitcom."  The first thing that people suggested to new modem users or
that they did when they bought a new modem was shred the bitcom disk and get a
real terminal client like Telnet, Terminate, Telemate, Procomm, etc.

IE, an inept user doesn't look beyond what is given and, more often than
not, what is given is complete and utter crap.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Steve Lamb]

Monday, November 01, 1999, 11:54:15 AM, Ali wrote:
> Oho, *now* I understanding the reasoning. In an effort to deal with
> the users ineptitude, faulty OS's are developed that do silly things
> which frustrate the clue-full and further frustrate the inept as well.

> It's a snowball effect which will eventually lead to
> the computer exploding against our will. 

Yes, you're finally getting it.  For example, some schmuck in a tie
deletes a file that he didn't want to delete.  Instead of doing the sane thing
(backups) we now have prompts asking us if we want to delete the file, that it
is a program, do we want to delete it, then we have to finally *really* delete
it from the trashcan.

Yes, I want to delete it.  Yes, I want to delete it.  YES, I WANT TO
DELETE IT

Because most users don't want to learn how to do several simple
operations, we now have a overly complex and convoluted way of installing and
removing programs.  I have had more problems than I ever care to think about
because of the registry and the un/install procedure then I *EVER* did in the
days when I could simply unarchive something into a separate directory,
include that directory in the path and be done with it.

In the drive to appease those who who are inept, clueless and whiny the
manufacturers have come up with systems that defy its own internal logic, are
bloated, mediocre, annoying and difficult to use as a result.

Yeah, some people may find the Open Source Unix (Linux, et al) interfaces
a pain to learn but they are so easy to use because they do have consistent
internal logic, are thin, excell at what they do and aren't annoying in the
wrong ways.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Ali Martin]

Hi all,

On Monday, November 01, 1999, 2:42:37 PM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:


>> That's irrelevant. Remember that her scenarios were put forward to
>> refute the sweeping statement made by Marck.

MDPVery  true!  Computers  are  not  the  source of frustration.
MDPIt is an individual's own ineptitude that provides it.

> It is relevant.  It is the user's own ineptitude which prompts the
> companies to do stupid things.  PT Barnum at its best.  :P

Oho, *now* I understanding the reasoning. In an effort to deal with
the users ineptitude, faulty OS's are developed that do silly things
which frustrate the clue-full and further frustrate the inept as well.

It's a snowball effect which will eventually lead to
the computer exploding against our will. 

So no one is happy!! Great!!! :-b

 This reminds me of trying to rationalize the plot to 'The
Terminator'.

-- 
Regards,
 -=Ali=-   

   >>> 1200 bps used to seem so fast <<<
*---*
  Running The Bat! v1.36 in Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 5)
*---*

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Steve Lamb]

Monday, November 01, 1999, 11:38:33 AM, Ali wrote:
> Hi all,

> On Monday, November 01, 1999, 1:45:35 PM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:

>>> All these examples are from real life. Want more? I could fill a
>>> volume. How are any of these problems the result of the ineptitude
>>> of the users?

>> Yet for each of those stories there are thousands, literally thousands
>> where everything works fine for months and years at a time.  Furthermore, for
>> each example you toss out I can toss out dozens of idiot users who cause many
>> of those problems in the first place.

>> Furthermore, a lot of those problems are caused by the pressures the same
>> idiot users place upon the market.  They want it all and they want it *NOW*.

> That's irrelevant. Remember that her scenarios were put forward to
> refute the sweeping statement made by Marck.

MDP>>>Very  true!  Computers  are  not  the  source of frustration.
MDP>>>It is an individual's own ineptitude that provides it.

It is relevant.  It is the user's own ineptitude which prompts the
companies to do stupid things.  PT Barnum at its best.  :P


-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Ali Martin]

Hi all,

On Monday, November 01, 1999, 1:45:35 PM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:

>> All these examples are from real life. Want more? I could fill a
>> volume. How are any of these problems the result of the ineptitude
>> of the users?

> Yet for each of those stories there are thousands, literally thousands
> where everything works fine for months and years at a time.  Furthermore, for
> each example you toss out I can toss out dozens of idiot users who cause many
> of those problems in the first place.

> Furthermore, a lot of those problems are caused by the pressures the same
> idiot users place upon the market.  They want it all and they want it *NOW*.

That's irrelevant. Remember that her scenarios were put forward to
refute the sweeping statement made by Marck.

MDP>>Very  true!  Computers  are  not  the  source of frustration.
MDP>>It is an individual's own ineptitude that provides it.


-- 
Regards,
 -=Ali=-   

   >>> Don't thank me for insulting you. It was my pleasure... <<<
*---*
  Running The Bat! v1.36 in Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 5)
*---*

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Ali Martin]

Hi all,

On Monday, November 01, 1999, 12:12:57 PM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:

>> The Desktop environments KDE and Gnome are significantly driven by this open
>> market. This is where most of the funding is coming from isn't it?

> What funding?  Both projects were started and are heavily developed for
> nothing.  Let me put it this way, If all the corporations in the world dropped
> support for Linux this instant, development would continue as it is now.  I
> know this because Linux, while the media's current Open Source baby, had
> development before the attention.  Other projects outside the big two (Linux
> and Apache) still get development.  FreeBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi (for OSs), mutt,
> slang, slrn, joe, vim, emacs, etc, etc, etc...  All of those were developed
> before the media and market attention and will be developed if such attention
> were dropped.  I don't see "funding" anywhere in there at all.

Well, there have been OSS skeptics who state that OSS will not become
dominant because programmers need to put food on the table and
therefore wish monetary rewards for their efforts. Many OSS
programmers chimed in at that point to say that they get paid to
develop OSS. That's the funding I'm speaking about. If this type of
funding doesn't in anyway apply to GNOME and KDE development, then I
stand corrected.

>> I think they already know that. This is why when they see the popup
>> box in win98 that says, "this program has performed an illegal action
>> ...blah blah", they jump back wondering what they were doing wrong. :)

> Well, that is Windows, isn't it.  Go ahead, guess how many times I see
> that with Linux.  ;)

Exactly. It's windows. It's therefore not the users fault when that
frustrating crash occurs. :)

> As I said, ever notice how the "easier" they get, the more training they
> require?  Quotes around the easier denote mockery or ironic intent in case
> you're not familiar with that bit of online notation.

Yes, I know what you meant and I agree.

> It is not hard.

I didn't mean very hard in the sense you interpreted. I meant it from
the point of view that you have to actively seek these apps out. You
won't see banner adds about them in your computer store at the nearest
corner or see them shrink-wrapped on shelves. This is what I meant.
There are in fact a whole lot of specialized apps for windows if you
look.

>   Just don't look on that particular OS.  Also means people
> need to learn instead of just floating along.  I posted my list of software in
> reply to someone else's list.  The fun part with my list is that most of them
> are free (beer, mostly speech) programs which work quite well.

I always try the free apps first, but I only use a few for windows. I
always tend to find a shareware app, similarly specialized that I
prefer, either in terms of superior functionality or just better
polish.

>> This is why the secretary has her hands full learning Word and
>> PowerPoint much less having Bash imposed on her as well.

> I'd wager that if they weren't imposed with Word and PowerPoint that the
> grand total with Bash would be less.  :P

They still need to do their wordprocessing and make slides for their
boss's next presentation after learning Bash. :)

>> Incorrect. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. They just
>> don't expect to have to learn what *you* expect them to.

> *snort*  Uhm, no.  The statements that followed that one bore out the
> truth.

>>>   Just look at the number of computer stores that boast that you
>>> can take their computer home, plug it in and turn it on.  Viola', it
>>> works!

>> But it does just that doesn't it?

> Apparently not.  You just spend 4-5 paragraphs complaining on how
> computers don't work.

I never complain that they don't work. A computer that doesn't work,
to me, is totally non-functional. I, however, do claim that computers
often don't work as expected, especially since we interact with our
computers with an OS, that is written by imperfect humans and hence is
prone to unexpected errors. This is what bugs are about.

Take for example, I decided to send one of my e-mail messages as a fax
today from The Bat!. When I printed to Fax, nothing happened. I hadn't
sent a fax in a long time but the last time I did, it had worked
flawlessly. I looked around and my fax program claimed that I didn't
have a modem configured. Hmmm  I then reconfigured it which was
problematic as well, but I did it with not much pain and sent the fax.
I lost about 15 minutes there. Was I to blame for that mishap. Was I
inept?

>> Well, a lot buy them to take them home to have fun from the very
>> start. That's the misconception.

> As I said, they want to use it with no training.  They pick up the hammer,
> swing it, and when they clock themselves in the head, blame the hammer.

Funny, in my limited experience, since I did not professionally do
tech support, I have helped many who ask for help because something
will not work and th

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Sunday, October 31, 1999, 10:09:38 AM, Paula wrote:
> a computer with a problem, which wants to waste my time trying to
> interpret its pouting silence or irritatingly cryptic outbursts. Rather
> like men.

Rather like women, actually.  Most of the men I know will state flat out
what the problem is.  Women, on the other hand, are the ones who go silent,
pout and pull out that lovely line, "You know what's wrong!"  Sure, uh-huh.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Steve Lamb]

Sunday, October 31, 1999, 9:55:31 AM, Paula wrote:
[Mucho snippage]
> All these examples are from real life. Want more? I could fill a volume.
> How are any of these problems the result of the ineptitude of the users?

Yet for each of those stories there are thousands, literally thousands
where everything works fine for months and years at a time.  Furthermore, for
each example you toss out I can toss out dozens of idiot users who cause many
of those problems in the first place.

Furthermore, a lot of those problems are caused by the pressures the same
idiot users place upon the market.  They want it all and they want it *NOW*.

> When you have to spend nearly as much time understanding the obscure
> elements of how a tool works, diddling with it, fixing unexpected
> errors, etc., as you do trying to use it for what you want and need to
> use it for, then in my book that tool is frustrating.

Well then, what is your problem.  It has *NEVER* been my experience that
this is the case.  *NEVER*.  Not even on any of the remote calls I've gone on.
10 years of experience with computing in general and I get more use out of my
equipment and have been in many different environments where the machines were
infinitely more reliable than the individuals.

> And, when the quality standard of an industry is 'well, it works OK for most
> people', then in my book that industry is still in the primitive stages of
> developing.

The quality standard of the industry isn't even that.  It is, "It
compiles, ship it."  Why?  Because the market demands new, better, "easier"
products *NOW*.  Instead of doing the sane thing and sitting down and LEARNING
what they have.

> Yes, there are the users whose first response when they encounter anything
> they don't know how to do or fix is to call support (or yell across the
> office), and obviously when you are doing support, this is going to be your
> picture of users.

It is reality.  I've sat on the phone reading the instructions we sent out
to people word for word.  Somehow when they read it it didn't make sense.
When I read it, magically it made sense.  Go fig.

> And, I can match every story that a support person can tell about the
> clueless user with one about the clueless support person.

I seriously doubt that.  The office I was in.  10 techs.  We'd get 10-12
calls a *week* from people who had an incorrect password, cussing us out,
because their *CAPSLOCK KEY WAS ON*.  That was at a small ISP.  Capslock key.
Think loong and hard before replying to that one because we stopped
counting after a while once our curiosity was satisfied.

Inept techs didn't last long there.  Inept customers just kept on coming.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Saturday, October 30, 1999, 9:35:22 PM, Thomas wrote:
> A niche market is still a market, but I agree with you in principle.

A niche market, when the target isn't the lowest common denominator, does
not much resemble the "bad" influences the general market exudes on products.

> I'm thinking about those who would buy the support to go with it, e.g. from
> Red Hat.

Red Hat sells support.  The OS development is not tied to the cash.

> define software only as "applications"? What then is the OS? Nowadays
> not hardwired any more. (Is that a news flash for you? ;-))

Basically, yes.  After having my OS die only because of hardware failure I
don't pay it much mind anymore.

> I confess, my Pascal experience is about 15 years old, so someone
> might have a solution in the meantime. What you write further down
> about Perl, that's neat.

A, yes.  I remember Pascal from those days.  Borland's Turbo Pascal 3
was what I started on.  I find it ironic that TP3 didn't have an IDE and I was
upset that I had to use the command line to get things done.  I jumped on TP4
so fast because of its IDE.  How-a-days I'm happy with Perl and working
outside an IDE.

> mistake. That's what I find frustrating. I think it's a definition of
> the word "frustrating".

Nah, the definition is the same.  It is where people place the blame that
causes the problem.  When I saw the output in the file was what I was asking
the debugger to print I knew instantly what was going on.  I hadn't expected
it, really, but once I recognized what was going on I just did a V-8 headslap
because it was logical and staring me right in the face.

OTOH, a lot of programs which are designed for the "masses" and to be
"easy-to-use" do some really strange things which are not logically
consistent.  I have to spend more time learning the quirks as they come up
than learning the logic and being able to make the assumptions from there.

> associated with the machine. People make mistakes yeah: and who do you
> think programmes the computer? Builds the computer? My friend got a
> phone bill for 13,000.-DM - "Computers don't make mistakes"? So should
> he just have paid up?

No, because obviously there was an error made by a human along the line.
Was the computer incorrect in billing him because some tech somewhere opened a
line and left it open that got billed to him?  No.  The tech was incorrect.

I will grant that there are times (Pentium bug, anyone?) when the machine
is not correct.  However, considering the number of operations that a computer
does such instances stick out like a sore thumb (Pentium bug, anyone?) and you
can obviously spot it.

What that statement was meant to refute was the entire notion that the
general public seems to exude that whenever there is a mistake, ever, it is
the computer's fault.  They fail to see that of the machine as a while the
part that is most apt to "make a mistake" is the interface between chair and
keyboard.

> You seem to have a faster connection than I, logging in from Asia to
> Europe will you admit that voice control would be a simplication?

Nope.  Logging in is separate of banking.  You can log in and not bank,
for example.  For the record I have a cablemodem so my connection never goes
down.

> Or at least a neat luxury?

Nope.

> I could tell you about some bedroom computer that turned on the music upon
> the voice command "music" and closed the curtains etc, but that might go too
> far. If you prefer your keyboard over voice control, I don't think anybody
> will take it away from you. "Darling, let me just press a few keys:
> clickadi-clakc, clackerioclick..." translation: opening CD Programme,
> selecting options, press "go" [whatever] - really romantic :-D

I could also tell you about something called a "remote control" for
another things called a "stereo".  Now, let's compare your method to mine.

Yours:
While kissing your lover you mumbled into her mouth, "mrmrmrrmmmph."  The
computer steadfastly does nothing as it does not speak tongue-twisted
mumbling.  So you break the kiss and breathlessly call out, "Music."  However,
since the computer is thrown off by the different in how you said it, it does
nothing.  So now you can either extract yourself from your lover's arms and do
it manually or calm down so you can say the word close enough to what the
computer has been programmed to hear.

Mine:
While kissing my lover I reach around her back.  By touch I pick up my
remote, point it towards the stereo, press play, toss the remote over my back
and attack her to the smth rhythms of Barry White (Oh, yeah, baby, can you
feel it?).

Sure, voice control is a peachy keen geek toy.  This geek, however, is not
impressed enough with it to give it up for all but a select few things.  About
the only one is games because I think it would be much easier for me to call
out "Shields!" than to look for the key on my keyboard to perform that
function.

   

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Saturday, October 30, 1999, 6:03:50 AM, Ali wrote:
> stumbled upon it at www.winfiles.com in search of a decent e-mail
> client. I guess that's what happened to most of use here?

Yes, that is how I found it.

> However, not even linux is escaping the market influence. Distro makers who
> wish to make some money off packaging and supporting their distros are
> 'enhancing' linux to make it easier to install and use.

Distributions are not Linux.  Furthermore, not all distributions are doing
it.  In fact, outside of Red Hat, Caldera and SUSE most distros are just
watching what is going on, shrugging their shoulders and moving on.  The 2nd
most popular distro, Debian, is not being influenced at all.

> The Desktop environments KDE and Gnome are significantly driven by this open
> market. This is where most of the funding is coming from isn't it?

What funding?  Both projects were started and are heavily developed for
nothing.  Let me put it this way, If all the corporations in the world dropped
support for Linux this instant, development would continue as it is now.  I
know this because Linux, while the media's current Open Source baby, had
development before the attention.  Other projects outside the big two (Linux
and Apache) still get development.  FreeBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi (for OSs), mutt,
slang, slrn, joe, vim, emacs, etc, etc, etc...  All of those were developed
before the media and market attention and will be developed if such attention
were dropped.  I don't see "funding" anywhere in there at all.

> I myself hate automation, especially those which bypass situations
> where there is a choice to be made, and in so doing making the choice
> for you. This is done to help the clueless but I think it does more
> harm than good.

Bingo!  That is why I argue against some of the suggestions made for TB!
because they delve into that type of "automation."  Furthermore, without this
Mac style automation some training is required.

> I think they already know that. This is why when they see the popup
> box in win98 that says, "this program has performed an illegal action
> ...blah blah", they jump back wondering what they were doing wrong. :)

Well, that is Windows, isn't it.  Go ahead, guess how many times I see
that with Linux.  ;)

> I don't think they are becoming easier at all. Windows applications
> are becoming more and more complex because of their monolithic nature.

As I said, ever notice how the "easier" they get, the more training they
require?  Quotes around the easier denote mockery or ironic intent in case
you're not familiar with that bit of online notation.

> It's hard to find a mainstream app that does the one thing that it's
> advertised to do. They usually are able to do a myriad of other tasks
> (the jack of all trades syndrome) with buttons and menu items to
> invoke all these tasks. They clutter the interface, complicating it
> and making things harder to learn.

It is not hard.  Just don't look on that particular OS.  Also means people
need to learn instead of just floating along.  I posted my list of software in
reply to someone else's list.  The fun part with my list is that most of them
are free (beer, mostly speech) programs which work quite well.

> This is why the secretary has her hands full learning Word and
> PowerPoint much less having Bash imposed on her as well.

I'd wager that if they weren't imposed with Word and PowerPoint that the
grand total with Bash would be less.  :P

>> Incorrect, they do expect to use a computer with no training at
>> all.

> Incorrect. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. They just
> don't expect to have to learn what *you* expect them to.

*snort*  Uhm, no.  The statements that followed that one bore out the
truth.

>>   Just look at the number of computer stores that boast that you
>> can take their computer home, plug it in and turn it on.  Viola', it
>> works!

> But it does just that doesn't it?

Apparently not.  You just spend 4-5 paragraphs complaining on how
computers don't work.

> Well, a lot buy them to take them home to have fun from the very
> start. That's the misconception.

As I said, they want to use it with no training.  They pick up the hammer,
swing it, and when they clock themselves in the head, blame the hammer.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
 ICQ: 5107343  | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Alexander V. Kiselev]

Hi there! 

On 31 Oct 99, at 13:35, Thomas Fernandez wrote about 
"Re[3]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was": 

> MDP> Completely  and  utterly  true. It *is* a just small percentage of the
> MDP> millions  of  computer  owners  and  users  that have actually put any
> MDP> effort or time into training, let alone bothered to RTFM!
> 
> I disagree with you very much. You live in the computer world, both of
> you, and don't see what is going on "out here". In our office, we
> have two kinds of regular training for the staff: 1.) Sales Training,
> 2.) Computer Training (which is centered around MS Office ). No

"Those who can't do, teach":-)) The results of all this training is 
less then zero, from my own experience. I've just installed TeX 
and WinEdt and all that regular "TeX office" like GhostScript 
etc. to a economics professor here. It worked all right. The next 
day he phoned me in despair just to tell me that his windows'98 
crashed (actually, he installed office'2000 and *then* it 
crashed). Before the crash he had 1 primary and 1 extended 
partition, 2 logicals on the latter. After the crash, he had only 
*one* (primary) partition. The rest of the partitions just 
perished. The data lost. On the primary partition that seemed to 
survive all the data *but windows and office* was trashed, too. 
That's what Billy calls "more robust OS", I presume:-). 

All in all, God bless fools! I was just short in money *before* the 
accident described above --- but the next day I was almost 
rich! 

You might tell me that I shouldn't have called that professor an 
idiot --- WRONG you are. Idiot he is! In his book one can read, 
for example: 

"3.02*2=6.03" (from which it apparently follows, that 2*2=3), 
and: 

"let's write exp(x) as (1+x)^2" () 

Having typesetted that book, I no longer wonder *why* our 
native economics is in that ass:-) 

> secretary will be employed unless she has "sufficient" computer
> knowledge, and computer schools open up like crazy. And on it goes.

Just plain idiotism. It's pretty simple to teach a monkey to ride a 
car, it's much more complicated to teach a dumb to use a 
computer. It reminds me of that excellent and refreshing story 
of e tech. support guy and of his words "Go to the shop and tell 
them, that you've got a serious problem with computer they've 
sold you. This problem is: such IDIOTS cannot have 
computers!" 

Well, a dumb sitting in front of a PC thinks that the PC should 
be as dumb as he is, that's the crux of the matter... 



SY, Alex
(St.Petersburg, Russia)
-- 
Thought for the day:
  The safest seat in a aeroplane is within the black box.

--- 
PGP public keys on keyservers:
0xA2194BF9 (RSA);   0x214135A2 (DH/DSS)
fingerprints:
F222 4AEF EC9F 5FA6  7515 910A 2429 9CB1 (RSA)
A677 81C9 48CF 16D1 B589  9D33 E7D5 675F 2141 35A2 (DH/DSS) 
--- 



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Paula Ford]

tracer, you are way too literal. :)

All the problems were solved one way or another. They were just examples
of what the "inept" users deal with.

Thanks for your offer of help, though.

-- 
Paula Ford
The Bat! 1.35 (reg)
Windows 95 4.0 Build 950

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Ali Martin]

Hi all,

On Sunday, October 31, 1999, 1:09:38 PM (-5 GMT), Paula scribbled:

SL>>> Computers are *NOT* complicated.  Women, now that is a
SL>>> complicated piece of equipment!

> Oh, puhleeze. Women are not equipment and I'd much rather deal with a
> woman with a problem, who only wants me to listen and sympathsize, than
> a computer with a problem, which wants to waste my time trying to
> interpret its pouting silence or irritatingly cryptic outbursts. Rather
> like men.

Ouch!!

Let the games begin!!! :)))

-- 
Regards,
 -=Ali=-   

   >>> Proofread carefully to see if you any words out. <<<
*---*
  Running The Bat! v1.36 in Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 5)
*---*

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Ali Martin]

Hi all,

On Sunday, October 31, 1999, 12:55:31 PM (-5 GMT), Paula scribbled:

MDP>>> Very  true!  Computers  are  not  the  source of frustration.
MDP>>> It is an individual's own ineptitude that provides it.

>> You are both right, but still I am human and I get frustrated when the
>> programme does something else than I want it to do. See my other mail.

> A user upgrades to Windows 98, carefully following all the instructions.

[beautiful examples of how computers can frustrate even though the
user is making more than a reasonable effort snipped]

> All these examples are from real life. Want more? I could fill a volume.
> How are any of these problems the result of the ineptitude of the users?

Definitely not. I find the implication of the statement most offensive
and clueless in it's own way.

> When you have to spend nearly as much time understanding the obscure
> elements of how a tool works, diddling with it, fixing unexpected
> errors, etc., as you do trying to use it for what you want and need
> to use it for, then in my book that tool is frustrating. And, when
> the quality standard of an industry is 'well, it works OK for most
> people', then in my book that industry is still in the primitive
> stages of developing.

> As for RTFM - as someone who always RTFM, or more often the online help,
> which is the only written help one gets with most software these days, I
> can only say that if the people who wrote these things knew the first
> thing about clear writing, or if software companies would invest in
> hiring people whose business it is to write good manuals or help files,
> then users might be more inclined to read them.

I agree that generally this is so. A lot give you 'Yoda type'
guidelines where you are given hint type info and then you figure it
out when you fiddle. I find it fun as a hobbyist but I can understand
the frustrations of someone who needs to learn quickly, through
effective and clear help files, what to do so they can get on with it.
My latest acquired software is a nice little file manager called
'enriva voyager' (explorer isn't enough for me, yet I don't need Bash
:)). The documentation is really the pits. You learn by
experimentation and the website doesn't help either. I had to write to
the developers about the file synchronization utility after giving up
trying to figure it out.

> Yes, there are the users whose first response when they encounter
> anything they don't know how to do or fix is to call support (or
> yell across the office), and obviously when you are doing support,
> this is going to be your picture of users. But, if this were most
> users, there wouldn't be enough phone lines in the world to handle
> the flood of calls.

Amen to that

> And, I can match every story that a support person can tell about
> the clueless user with one about the clueless support person. But,
> users don't bother circulating these stories around the internet to
> the condescending chuckles of those who revel in their in-the-know
> status. Computing is not the center of their lives. Should it be?

I couldn't agree more. Why can't I. I agree more. :)

> My apologies to those on the list who could care less for this long
> message.

I found it most refreshing actually. Great post. It's off topic but at
least you have one appreciative reader. :)

-- 
Regards,
 -=Ali=-   

   >>> I'm fascinated by the way memory diffuses fact. <<<
*---*
  Running The Bat! v1.36 in Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 5)
*---*

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Paula Ford]

> On Saturday, October 30, 1999, 3:51:35 PM (GMT+0800), Steve Lamb wrote:

SL>> Computers are *NOT* complicated.  Women, now that is a complicated piece
SL>> of equipment!

Oh, puhleeze. Women are not equipment and I'd much rather deal with a
woman with a problem, who only wants me to listen and sympathsize, than
a computer with a problem, which wants to waste my time trying to
interpret its pouting silence or irritatingly cryptic outbursts. Rather
like men.

-- 
Paula Ford
The Bat! 1.35 (reg)
Windows 95 4.0 Build 950

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy

[Paula Ford]

On Sunday, October 31, 1999, Thomas Fernandez wrote:

MDP>> Very  true!  Computers  are  not  the  source of frustration. It is an
MDP>> individual's own ineptitude that provides it.

> You are both right, but still I am human and I get frustrated when the
> programme does something else than I want it to do. See my other mail.

A user upgrades to Windows 98, carefully following all the instructions.
All seems to go well. But he finds later, when rushed to get a report
done that he brought home from the office, that his word processor keeps
crashing with a very helpful error message about modules and registers
and stack dumps that may or may not actually point to the source of the
problem. His report is late and he spends the next week trying to figure
out what the problem is. He checks the Web sites of the software
companies and finds nothing that specifically addresses his problem, but
tries a few things that don't help. He downloads 4000+ posts from a
users news group. After a couple of hours of sifting through the posts,
he finds other users with the same problem, who have discovered on their
own that the Windows 98 upgrade replaced some system dll with a version
dating from the early days of WIN95.

A user installs a small software program to help keep track of things to
do that was recommended in a review she read, following all the
instructions carefully and even using an uninstaller program. Everything
seems fine and she likes the program, but then her e-mail program
suddenly develops problems. She e-mails support for the e-mail software
company, who can only suggest reinstalling it. She does, first
reinstalling over the existing installation, then uninstalling with her
uninstaller and trying to clean out every trace of the program. It
doesn't help. Then, being a bit more savvy than many users, she recalls
that the problem started after she installed the other program. She
e-mails support for that company. The developer replies, as it's a 2-man
shop, and is very nice, but says he hasn't had any problems like this
reported and he's not familiar with her e-mail program. She uninstalls
the program, but her e-mail program still has problems. She re-installs
the e-mail program to no avail. Finally, as a last resort, she spends a
weekend wiping her hard drive and reinstalling all her software. The
e-mail program works. Was it the little software program? Who knows?

An office spends over $4,000 for a new laser network printer, which is
installed by experienced systems staff. They run a couple test prints;
all seems well. But, the staff then discover all sorts of printing
anomalies when printing simple word processing documents. The printer
company and the software company point fingers at each other. The only
solution found is to use old printer drivers, which make unavailable the
nice, new features that were among the reasons that the office bought
the expensive printer in the first place.

A user is installing some software upgrade from a major software company
that deals with DUN connections. She is confronted with an installation
screen that asks which chipset her modem uses. Chipset? She pulls out
the documentation that came with her computer. In this case, she
actually happens to have a 'manual' that indentifies the modem in the
computer. The 'manual' is a 4-page brochure. It includes a list of the
modem specifications, filled with esoteric data, but nowhere does it say
what chipset the modem uses. She visits the modem manufacturer's Web
site. Nada. Top secret information apparently. Finally, she has to call
the manufacturer at long-distance charges, wait on hold for 20 minutes
on her dime, then talk to a support person who says he'll have to check
and get back to her. He never calls back. She calls again a couple weeks
later, goes through the same routine, but this time happens to get
someone who knows. He tells her politely, but is probably rolling his
eyes and thinking "another idiot user".

All these examples are from real life. Want more? I could fill a volume.
How are any of these problems the result of the ineptitude of the users?

When you have to spend nearly as much time understanding the obscure
elements of how a tool works, diddling with it, fixing unexpected
errors, etc., as you do trying to use it for what you want and need to
use it for, then in my book that tool is frustrating. And, when the
quality standard of an industry is 'well, it works OK for most people',
then in my book that industry is still in the primitive stages of
developing.

As for RTFM - as someone who always RTFM, or more often the online help,
which is the only written help one gets with most software these days, I
can only say that if the people who wrote these things knew the first
thing about clear writing, or if software companies would invest in
hiring people whose business it is to write good manuals or help files,
then users might be more inclined to read them. Yes, there are the users
whose first response 

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Ali Martin]

Hi all,

On Saturday, October 30, 1999, 2:51:35 AM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:

> That's just it, we don't have to go to the market, either.  There is
> enough of a "market" out there to go for a niche, not the general market.  In
> the goo-goo eyed craze to get the large numbers one misses the very real point
> that the competition is too high for those numbers and that they can take a
> different angle make better money.

I agree on this one. They just have to find ways of getting their
product known about by this niche group. I happened to literally
stumbled upon it at www.winfiles.com in search of a decent e-mail
client. I guess that's what happened to most of use here?

> Besides, the bone does walk the dog.  Look at Linux.  It was built the way
> "we" wanted it built and now the market is breaking down Linux' door.
> Furthermore, it was built with *NO* regard to "the market" because it is free.
> "The market" is not the end-all, be-all barometer of success.

That's a statement on foundation, which applies only at that level and
to specific developers in the linux community.

However, not even linux is escaping the market influence. Distro
makers who wish to make some money off packaging and supporting their
distros are 'enhancing' linux to make it easier to install and use.
It's all back to money again. In the case of linux, it's money made
off tech support at all levels. If you wish your customers to continue
using linux so you can give them tech support and charge for it, then
you can't ignore their cries for enhancements. The Desktop
environments KDE and Gnome are significantly driven by this open
market. This is where most of the funding is coming from isn't it?

> Ah, well, get the authors to make a better parser, then.  I miss
> semicolons all the time in Perl and it tells me right where to look.  OTOH,
> miss a closing bracket and it tells you were it is missing it, but not where
> to look to find the opening one.  My solution there is vim since vim has a
> function (%) that will find the matching pair to any open/close icon for the
> language it is in.  So when I am missing a } I simply start where perl tells
> me I missed one, press %, and see if it matches.  When it doesn't, I know
> basically where to add one.  Same for those pesky ()s when you do things like
> foreach $domain (sort(keys(%domains))) or some funky regexp where you have a
> lot of parens for multiple keys and backreferences.  ;)

Ah, the world of a computing professional. You know, a computer is a
unique tool. It's a complex machine which is quite polar in it's role.
A machine will be in Steve's office being used by him to make money.
He's using it for programming in Perl among other things. The funny
thing about it is that another user, myself for example, who may have
a machine, even more powerful than Steve's in their bedroom or study
at home, will be surfing the internet, writing leisure e-mail,
balancing their home financing with Quicken, creating MP3's, doing
sound sampling and other simple things alone. There are others who
just surf and write e-mail mainly. What level of learning do you
expect from users like that who happen to outnumber the professionals
by far? I can't think of any tool which is used by such polar user
types. Their demands must therefore be radically different and users
sympathetic to either group will always be fussing, especially where
their needs overlap which is on the OS level and with some software
types. Fascinating isn't it?

> Now, would I want the computer to somehow have programming to try to
> second guess me in this regard?  No.  Never, ever, ever, EVER, would I want
> that.  Sure, I lost an hour of headbanging but that was because of my
> stupidity.  Meanwhile, if there was some second-guessing programmed in, I
> would have to defeat it each time I meant to (which would be often, IMHO) and
> that would get me to be frustrated at the computer.

Yeah, from my relatively ignorant POV, with respect to wordprocessors,
I generally switch off these second guess tools. The most annoying
being the one that automatically places a capital letter after a
period. It's infuriating.

> People are frustrated at the computer when they should not be.  They
> should be frustrated at *themselves* for a great many things they misplace to
> the computer.  As a result, the computer industry has decided to try to
> program "intelligence" into the computer which, guess what, frustrates people
> because now the computer won't let them do what they did tell it to do.

I installed Office 2000 just the other day and MS Photoeditor was
automatically associated with all the filetypes it could handle. Now
why does a thing like that have to happen without my permission?!!!
Going through the filetypes applet and manually redoing the
associations for some amazing reason didn't work. That was a first for
me which had me suspecting MS. Anyway, I had to reinstall my preferred
image viewer, which by the

Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Steve Lamb]

Friday, October 29, 1999, 1:37:24 AM, Thomas wrote:
> They have to breath, wehtehr they want to or not. They don't have to
> use comptuers - "we" want them to. For commercial, political, or other
> reasons. The bone won't walk to the dog. (German saying, meaning if
> you want to sell something, you have to go to the market, not tell
> the market to come and see you).

That's just it, we don't have to go to the market, either.  There is
enough of a "market" out there to go for a niche, not the general market.  In
the goo-goo eyed craze to get the large numbers one misses the very real point
that the competition is too high for those numbers and that they can take a
different angle make better money.

Besides, the bone does walk the dog.  Look at Linux.  It was built the way
"we" wanted it built and now the market is breaking down Linux' door.
Furthermore, it was built with *NO* regard to "the market" because it is free.
"The market" is not the end-all, be-all barometer of success.

> Well, the OS is software in my vocabulary, so you are actually saying
> you agree with me? :-

   No, OS does not equal software.  The same software on 6 different OSs could
yield 6 different levels of performance based on the OS.  Software runs on an
OS.

> Because they detect the smallest mistake I make. I missing semicolon in
> a Pascal freaks up your programme and you look somewhere completely
> different, for example. Unforgiving beast. ;-)

Ah, well, get the authors to make a better parser, then.  I miss
semicolons all the time in Perl and it tells me right where to look.  OTOH,
miss a closing bracket and it tells you were it is missing it, but not where
to look to find the opening one.  My solution there is vim since vim has a
function (%) that will find the matching pair to any open/close icon for the
language it is in.  So when I am missing a } I simply start where perl tells
me I missed one, press %, and see if it matches.  When it doesn't, I know
basically where to add one.  Same for those pesky ()s when you do things like
foreach $domain (sort(keys(%domains))) or some funky regexp where you have a
lot of parens for multiple keys and backreferences.  ;)

> I agree with you here. But that does not prevent me from being
> frustrated at times. Even in Windows, a wrong click and I lost my card
> game.

It worked as expected.  For me I would be frustrated at *me*.  Here's a
fine example of me being frustrated at a computer.  I was coding in perl today
on a project that had to get done.  We had crossed-logs from our web server
and I needed to get a good sampling of how many hits were actually crossed.
During the course of programming this script I needed to debug it.  Now, the
command-line was as follows:
cat crossed.logs.orig | perl foo.pl > realcount

I just placed a -d after perl to get it to go into debug mode.  While
debugging I was telling it to print different variables so I could see what
was going on.  Each time I told it to print, however, it would print nothing.
I knew the variables contained data, the flow of the program told me as much.
I spent a good hour or so on that problem, why the debugger was failing.  Mind
you, I was dead tired, no sleep, had a hell of a headache and everyone was
busy being festive around me.

Answer, the debugger wasn't failing.  All of the print statements I was
issuing in the debugger were going right were I told it to, into the file
named "realcount".  Once I took off that redirection it worked fine.  My
frustration went from me being tweaked at the computer to me being *REALLY*
tweaked at me.

Now, would I want the computer to somehow have programming to try to
second guess me in this regard?  No.  Never, ever, ever, EVER, would I want
that.  Sure, I lost an hour of headbanging but that was because of my
stupidity.  Meanwhile, if there was some second-guessing programmed in, I
would have to defeat it each time I meant to (which would be often, IMHO) and
that would get me to be frustrated at the computer.

People are frustrated at the computer when they should not be.  They
should be frustrated at *themselves* for a great many things they misplace to
the computer.  As a result, the computer industry has decided to try to
program "intelligence" into the computer which, guess what, frustrates people
because now the computer won't let them do what they did tell it to do.

Computers don't make mistakes, people do.  The general public needs to
learn that.

> courses. However, the amount of training that is necessary can be
> "reasonably" reduced - so why insist on leaving it the way it is?

Do you realize that as the "easier" computers become, the time of training
has increased?

> That *would* be unreasonable, but people don't expect that. People
> don't expect that any new member of mankind can go to toilet without
> training.

Incorrect, they do expect to use a computer with no training at all.  Just
look at the number of computer stor