On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:05:43 +0000, Graham Lee
<***@wadham.oxford.ac.invalid.uk> wrote:
>Josh McKee wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:13:50 +0000, Graham Lee
>> <***@wadham.oxford.ac.invalid.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> You bet...I haven't been shown a reason why Chris is calling his users
>>>> losers.
>>>
>>>He doesn't; he refers to users as lusers.
>>
>> Which, as far as I can tell, are equivalent.
>>
>
>Only should you decide not to take on board the [at least] 2 explicit
>explanations otherwise provided in this group, and the presumably many more
>available freely on the Internet.
I've read an explicit explanation. And as far as I can tell it didn't
say anything other than "luser" being a compromise. Perhaps I missed
something?
>>>> Not at all. But if I were to sit down an average person in front of a
>>>> UNIX system and a Windows system I would be willing to bet that the
>>>> majority of them would prefer the Windows system due to it's much more
>>>> user friendly interface.
>>>
>>>[first point: due to it *is* much more user friendly interface? Danger
>>>[Will
>>>Robinson, spurious apostrophe overload!]
>>
>> Pedantic. Do you really have to flame someone for having made such an
>> trivial mistake? So I used a contraction where one wasn't warranted.
>> Don't you have a better argument?
>
>It's not a flame, it's a point of correction.
It certainly is. One that had absolutely no bearing on the topic being
discussed.
>One of the skills required in systems administration is effective communication
>with the users. If your correspondence contains errors of grammar, then this
>communication is obfuscated.
Only if you want to nit pick instead of arguing the point.
>And, as you said, the user shouldn't have to adapt to the system. They shouldn't
>be forced to correct for the administrator's errors.
This has nothing to do with that point.
>Yes, I did have a better argument, all 113 lines of it.
Then how about leaving the pedantic nit picking out of the discussion?
>>>Except that, as you semi-point out later, NEXTSTEP->Mac OS X have great
>>>user interfaces.
>>
>> Since I already said this your point would be?
>
>NEXTSTEP is a UNIX. It has a good user interface. Better, IMHO, than that
>of Windows. So the argument 'Windows has a better user interface than
>UNIX' is flawed.
I clearly indicated that OS X was probably an exception:
"The only exception may be Mac OS X."
You were well aware of this. So your statement "Windows has a better
user interface than UNIX' is flawed." is nothing more than a straw
man.
>>>KDE and GNOME are 'not bad', and most people I've exposed them
>>>to think they're perfectly usable. OK, so CDE is a bit rubbish, but at
>>>least it isn't BrokenWindows ;).
>>
>> Most people prefer Windows of KDE and Gnome. It all goes back to
>> giving the users what *they*, not you or I, want. And it appears that
>> Windows is offering them what they want.
>
>As I said, in my experience, many Windows users are after something more in
>terms of stability and security.
Uh huh...you just keep believing that. While I'm certain that they
want more stability and security they're not willing to forego
useability to obtain it. Otherwise I think that they'd have dropped
Windows a long time ago.
>I personally have assisted four people this academic year in trying out GNU/Linux
>systems on their PCs. One has switched completely, the other three are still trying it out.
>None has said that they doesn't give them as much of what they want as Windows does.
Four whole people! Well you've certainly put me in my place.
>I'm not the only administrator around here (in fact, I am a mere PFY). I
>would expect similar stories from other admins in the area, because I doubt
>that my experiences are special. I can think off the top of my head of six
>people who have switched to Mac recently from Windows PCs. Obviously
>Windows was not giving these people what they wanted.
Windows may have been giving them what they wanted...until something
better came along. This is no different than the MS-DOS example. Maybe
in the future UNIX (i.e. non-OS X systems) may be a better fit for
users. But I would be willing to bet that system will look a lot more
like Windows (for example letting the user choose whatever user ID
they want to use instead of limiting it to eight characters).
>>>Interestingly, a large number of Windows users have come up to me asking
>>>for alternatives, because their computers are unstable, which leads to
>>>annoying freezes and loss of data.
>>
>> What alternatives do you provide to them?
>
>I usually ask about their system, and then try and determine a suitable
>alternative. After all, I wouldn't want to be advising on a machine I had
>no knowledge of. Where possible I try to tune their Windows machine, to
>see if the stability can be improved without new software being deployed.
>Otherwise, my most frequent recommendation is to try out Knoppix, so that
>they can get an idea of how a GNU/Linux+X+KDE system feels without having
>to mess about with their hard drives' slices (which is often beyond the ken
>of the average user).
Why not just switch them to Linux and be done with it? Why waste time
with trying to tune Windows and deal with Knoppix? Just install it and
be done with it.
>>>People who use work machines[*] respect their
>>>admin more if the machines stay running, so that they can get their jobs
>>>done. UNIX helps my colleagues to love me :). ANd 'Joe Avergae'-type
>>>users are realising that there's more to life than animated paper clips.
>>
>> That's interesting because the average user appears to prefer Windows'
>> useability over the stability of UNIX operating systems.
>
>On what do you base that statement?
The fact that I have tried to migrate people from Windows to Linux.
You can pretend all you want that people like Linux. When it comes
down to it they prefer Windows' ease of use. Why are three of the four
people you mentioned above still trying it out? Why haven't they just
made the switch? What are there only four out of how many people
trying Linux?
While my "evidence" certainly won't count as scientific there's a lot
to be said that people aren't switching in droves to Linux.
>I would be tempted to use the value W-U, where W is the number of people
>who have switched from UNIX to Windows
>and U is the number of people who have switched from Windows to UNIX,
>integrated over a suitable time. However, I don't know where to get
>(unbiased) values for either W or U. Especially as you can't consider
>"number of Linux distros sold", when some are not paid for.
>
>>>
>>>The average user in my experience seems to value both user-friendliness
>>>and functionality.
>>
>> When the functionality comes at a cost of user-friendliness the
>> functionality will take a back seat.
>>
>
>Do you have evidence for that?
Certainly. Take the current Linux distributions for example. Haven't
their user interfaces improved over the years? They've become a lot
more user friendly. And as the UI improves people are more have
adopted them. But the stability of Linux has been present in Linux
since the beginning. So which do you think has contributed more to
Linux's current success? The UI, which has improved steadily over
time, of the stability, which has been present almost from the
beginning?
>It seems like a bit of a blazé statement to give without qualification.
It certainly would...to someone who wants to bury their head in the
sand. There's a lot of empirical evidence to suggest that ease of use
is more of a priority to the average user than is stability.
>>>Mac OS X is only an 'exception' in that it is the only
>>>system on the market to satisfactorily deliver both. That is, unless you
>>>count some GNU/Linux distro that comes bundled with a decent UI and a
>>>stable system, but I don't because of the 'KDOME' problem[**].
>>
>> I don't consider Linux ready for the average user quite yet. It still
>> has a way to go before the average user will adopt it. And when the
>> average user adopts it you'll find that it will essentially offer the
>> same ease of use that Windows does.
>
>Some of the 'average users' are already toying with Linux, from what I have
>seen. Those that do seem to get on with it well.
Toying? Why only toying? What not using? Most of the average users I
know are not toying with Windows...they're using it.
But my above point remains. I would be that most of these average
users who are toying with it are doing so because of the improvements
to the user interface...not the stability of the system
>>>> I've got a great sense of humor.
>>>
>>>I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that you're allowed to decide
>>>that ;).
>>
>> Why shouldn't I be allowed to decide?
>>
>
>Because humour can only be determined through interaction with a second
>party. I would suggest that the decision on the quality of a person's
>humour should rest with the majority of those second parties.
Since you don't know me you're in no position to comment if I have a
sense of humor.
>>>Really? The fact that the word 'luser' is a pun (or play on words) seemed
>>>to imply humour.
>>
>> It's a combination of the word loser and user. I see nothing that
>> implies that it is humor. Do you think that a user would find it funny
>> that you're labeling them "lusers" instead if "losers"?
>
>Maybe not. But if they didn't, the majority of people here would probably
>suggest that they didn't have a good sense of humour, as use of the word
>'luser' is supposed to be humourous.
I would bet that if you continuously called them lusers that they
would get tired of it...no matter how good humored they were.
>>>And we're UNIX people around here; "IMPLICIT NONE" is
>>>definitely not an option :). Chris' reply to your post definitely did
>>>have a reek of 'tongue-in-cheek' about it; I'd say that humour was very
>>>strongly suggested.
>>
>> Chris has yet to answer a number of questions. He got called on
>> something and now he's trying to weasel his way out of it.
>
>For your part you also either decided not to, or could not, find out what he
>meant for yourself.
It was obvious what he meant. He even stated so...and it wasn't humor
(even though he did try and weasel out of it with the humor angle).
>The word 'luser' is well documented on the internet
>and has been part of sysadmin folklore since around 1975.
>
>>
>>>> I asked why he called them lusers and what response did I
>>>> get? It certainly wasn't "it was humor and here's why..." Perhaps if
>>>> Chris would be so good as to answer a question when asked he may not be
>>>> challenged.
>>>
>>>See above.
>>
>> For?
>
>My assertion that his response *did* indicate humour. OK, there wasn't a
>big pink neon sign with the word "FUNNY" attached, but it was still at
>least mildly obvious.
Looks like he failed to effectively communicate with the user and as a
result his communication was obfuscated. Perhaps that's why I *asked*
why he called them lusers? And how did he respond:
"Patience, young grasshopper.
Enlightenment will come with experience."
To which I responded:
"I fail to see how this answered the question. Do you have an answer?"
And Chris subsequently answered:
"The clue has been imparted - 8 characters is the maximum.
This is a hard limit, resistance is futile.
The enlightened sysadmin does not mess with the standards.
On that path lies danger.
Do you wish to absorb the clue as a step on your path to
enlightenment or are you waiting for someone to impart it
with a cluebat after you screw something up ?."
His responses did not indicate that humor but rather a foolish user
who was trying to break standards.
Spin it as you like it seems obvious to me that Chris was insulting
the user for trying to break the standard. Otherwise why didn't he
just say that he was joking?
>>>> Some of you guys are really
>>>> thinned skinned. I don't see what I've written as insulting towards
>>>> anyone yet you're acting as if I had. Your behavior is more of children
>>>> throwing a tantrum.
>>>
>>>I hope the irony here was intentional :).
>>
>> What irony?
>>
>> Josh
>>
>
>Indeed. I had hoped that wouldn't be the case.
Hoped that what wouldn't be the case?
Josh