On Saturday 10 November 2001 03:21, Bob Tanner wrote:
> One of the problem with computers (but Linux and Windows, heck all other
> OSs) is that they are simple things that people can "just plug in" and it
> works. I blame MS for this. And frankly, it's not true.

But should it be?  I mean, in an ideal world, should artists and politicians 
and teachers and other non-techies have to learn to think like computers in 
order to get their work done, or should the computers be made to think like 
people?  Is it good for society for all our artists and politicians and 
teachers and other non-techies to have to take time out of their workdays to 
attend training classes or puzzle over why Netscape won't print?  At the end 
of the day, are they really better off for knowing the difference between 
TCP/IP and PPP, or how to kill a runaway process?  Does that knowledge make 
them better artists, politicians, teachers, etc.?

> I like to use the car analogy. It's pretty "simple". Almost everyone has
> one. But how many people work on their cars? Not many.

How many people have cars because they want to own a 1000-pound artifact, and 
how many just want the transportation the cars provide?  If you could get 
from point A to point B in the same amount of time as with a car, and with no 
more cost and inconvenience than a car requires, but without actually owning 
a bomb on wheels with thousands of parts to break, would you still choose the 
bomb on wheels?

(If you could watch any movie or TV show on request at minimal cost without 
owning a VCR, would you still choose to own a VCR?  If your house got 
sufficient heat from the sun or the ground, would you still want a furnace?)

It seems to me after 20 years of user support (I started in elementary 
school...) that most people -- and companies -- couldn't care less about 
owning computers.  They don't want the hardware or software (or training); 
they don't even want a "low- to medium-complexity electronic appliance that 
always works" (Dave Sherman's words); they just want the services the 
hardware and software provide, and buying crap (and learning to think like a 
computer) is currently the simplest way to obtain the services.  Besides, 
everyone else is doing it.

I've become convinced that most users would not only prefer to have someone 
else fix their computers, they'd also prefer to have someone else make the 
buying decisions, take care of backups and upgrades, attend the training 
classes, and basically do ALL the computer stuff so that they can just think 
about their own jobs and interests.  We geeks can scoff at that, but we want 
to drive without becoming mechanics, vote without learning politics, and 
eat without farming.

I don't think Linux has a future on the desktop of the non-techie user 
because it's designed around the structure of the computer instead of the 
structure of the brain.  It's an excellent framework for computing, but 
average users don't give a hoot about computing.  To create computers that 
work well with humans, we need to start with psychology and work backward to 
electrical engineering, not the other way around.  --Ben