[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thursday 20 January 2005 10:44 pm, Julian Hall wrote:
As far as I am concerned as a 9 year Winblows user converting to Linux, I am much more concerned with a reliable easy-to-use alternative than what it is called.
So am I, honestly. That's why I'm writing code - I'm trying to do my bit to make GNU easier to use. You do your bit by answering some of the questions on here that would otherwise need to be answered by someone else. Note that I'm not making Linux any easier to use - my emphasis is almost entirely on inter-operability and portability. If a library doesn't run without Linux, I won't use it. The effect will be that *all* GNU environments will be a tad easier to use, including MacOSX, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, BSD and GNU/Linux. In effect, Linux is only one of many targets for my code - there is more outside Linux than within.
There is a time and place for discussions about licensing and correct terminology. With the greatest respect to those more expert in such areas, I think the dual aims of educating people about the nature of various licenses, and converting them from other OSs to Linux are mutually exclusive, at least to a certain extent.
Whilst true, the group is diverse. There are new users, yes, but there are also old hands here who appreciate the finer points. Separating the old hands onto an experts list is daft - I would not be writing code now if I hadn't had the chance to lurk and learn from the likes of Theo, Simon, Alex, Pete (H) and Neil S. Go back to the 2001 archives and see some of the daft questions I raised - you'll see I'm not that long out of being a newbie myself!
A two stage process is more appropriate IMHO, first get them using Linux, *then* teach them what the different licenses and ethos are.
But who are we to say when someone has graduated from one to the other? How will they know themselves unless the topics are discussed and questions answered?
I'm generalising, but I suspect the vast majority of contributors and lurkers on this (and other) LUG mailing lists are fairly technically adept.
And we have an obligation to encourage everyone to continue learning so that they can teach others.
If we want Joe/Jane Bloggs in the street to convert to Linux we can't be scaring him/her off with insistence on correct terminology all the time.
This topic has come back again and again over recent months. It started with a Debian masterclass that was deemed unwelcoming to newbies. From time to time, there will be discussions and meetings that are not to everyone's taste. Some will be too basic, some going over people's heads. The important thing is that it *doesn't matter* - people can make their own choices about which threads to join, which threads to ignore. (As long as people change the subject lines!)
The number of customers I've spoken to in the last few years who referred to "Uploading" information from their CD-ROM or floppy disk could make you tear your hair out. The average computer user does not care what the correct terms for what they do are, they just want it to work.
Fine - once that user gets a little experience and a little knowledge, they need something more. People need to find their place and their role, there is a need to advance and grow.
Windows, why does Linux have to be different?" Some people don't want to know the technical terms, they just want to use their computer.
You know, this is trotted out all the time. Stop and think about it. When someone says that, do they mean that someone can use a computer with absolutely zero knowledge? Every task starts somewhere - using a mouse is unfamiliar and needs to be learnt. Using a keyboard is not natural or instinctive to most. The nebulous term "People who just want to use their computer" includes ME! I just want it to work so that I can get on with what I'm doing, writing new code. I don't want to be fiddling around in X config or /etc/httpd/httpd.conf when what I need is QofSession and strtotime(). I wasted half a morning because ViewCVS wouldn't setup properly - that was *really* annoying. I just wanted it to work. All that differs is the starting point and if everyone is condemned to stay at the start, how is anyone going to progress?
On a side issue I just thought of. The average user is familiar with the terms Linux and *Linux User Group* or LUG. So if they want help on Linux in their area they will go to Mr Google and type in, for example "Devon LUG". If the group name is changed to GLUG the chances are Google will miss the group entirely, or even if the helpful query says "Did you mean Devon GLUG?" the user will say No not knowing a GLUG from a hole in the wall.
That's one reason why the names will run side by side. The website is heavily indexed and regularly spidered by Google and there will be no end of references, particularly to archive messages. All through my time as webmaster for this group, I've concentrated on maintaining that infrastructure. When Alex had to re-organise the archive, I wrote a HTTP404 script that calculates the new location of the message and offers to re-direct the enquirer to that message, complete with a little abstract of the content so that they know where they are going. With the next re-organisation of the website, I'm taking pains to retain the old directory structure even though it is almost completely redundant. Symlinks will operate to allow existing bookmarks and indices to find the original page. Links on the page will then take any interested user into the new locations. A lot of hard work goes into making something 'just work'!!! I appreciate how much because I'm writing some of it, it is annoying to find that some don't realise how much hard work is needed before it will 'just work'. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.dcglug.org.uk/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/ http://www.williamsleesmill.me.uk/ http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=0x8801094A28BCB3E3
Attachment:
pgp00056.pgp
Description: PGP signature