[PLUG-TALK] What Windows Is _Really_ Like
Michael M.
nixlists at writemoore.net
Fri Jun 2 09:12:35 UTC 2006
Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Michael M. wrote:
>
>> Well, one reason is "a look at Task Manager" vs. running "ps ax | wc
>> -l".
>> Average Joe User can just about manage launching Task Manager on
>> those rare
>> occasions he might need to; he can probably even remember, two months
>> later, that the thing he needs to find again is called "Task
>> Manager." How
>> likely is he, two days later let alone two months later, to remember
>> 'ps ax
>> | wc -l'?
>
> Michael,
>
> If the author is Average Joe User, then perhaps he ought not to be
> writing
> an IT column.
No, but I wasn't referring to the author ... I meant the people who
would trust their computing to software they don't really understand and
can't really control.
>
> It's all a matter of training and learning. Nothing is "intuitive",
> but it
> becomes second nature once we know it. Consider, for example, driving a
> vehicle with a manual transmission. That's all I've ever had (except
> for my
> diesel pickup), and I don't need to think about shifting gears or look to
> know in what gear I am. In the recent past there have been a couple of
> news
> articles of punks who've highjacked cars at gunpoint, and are still
> sitting
> there when the cops arrive because they cannot drive a vehicle with a
> manual
> transmission.
There are degrees of training and learning that run the spectrum from
someone who knows no more than what he learned in driver's ed. (and
consequently relies on professional mechanics and greasemonkeys for all
but possibly the simplest maintenance) to someone who can take apart and
rebuild his car's engine piece by piece. Both of them can drive to the
supermarket and back -- beyond that, it just depends upon interests and
capabilities.
An awful lot of people don't want to do much more with their computer
than the equivalent of driving it to the supermarket and back, and as
long as they can do that, they're indifferent to whatever happens under
the hood. For many, even many small business owners -- dare I say, the
*majority*? -- computers are an appliance. If it turns on and does what
they need it to do, they're happy, like they're happy when the
refrigerator keeps the food cold and the TV shows the program they
expect on the channel they expect. It's only when things go wrong than
people have to start mucking about with Task Manager, and generally they
aren't too happy about that. Enough of that, and maybe people will start
looking for alternatives. But is Linux really a suitable alternative
yet, for the type of user who doesn't really want to spend any more time
than the minimum actually administering a computer? The GUIs are
certainly there, I think, but you still need to keep the machine
updated. When you realize how many millions of people are running
unpatched Windows systems because they never bother automating Windows
Update and never bother visiting it on their own, you can see the challenge.
I bought my Mom an iMac a few years back because I thought it would be
safer than buying her a Windows box. I knew she wouldn't deal well with
anti-virus software and would generally be at risk for contracting all
sorts of malware. So when I came home for a visit after she'd had the
machine for several months, I had a look and found she had months of
updates (including security updates) from Apple she hadn't downloaded.
Apple could not make this easier for end-users -- out of the box, OS X
is configured to check for updates weekly, and it installs them with one
click (often requiring a reboot after installation, but it does that for
you as well). I asked her why she hadn't installed the updates and she
said she didn't know what they were and she thought she'd have to pay
for them! She thought Apple was trying to sell her something.
Ok, so my Mom was an example of a *particularly* clueless user, and most
people aren't quite that bad -- and presumably business owners would
take more of interest in finding the right tools for the job than an
elderly lady who didn't do much more than trade emails with her friends.
But it's still a matter of degree, and for most people Windows seems
good enough, except when they have big problems. And then they just hire
someone to fix it, like they take their cars to the garage, and write it
off as a cost of doing business. I think they will change only when
those costs become too great, or when it somehow becomes crystal clear
to them that there's a better, easier, cheaper way to do things. They
won't change just because they don't know what all the running processes
on their machines do.
Certainly, that not even *Microsoft* engineers could fix a compromised
Windows box is an indictment of Microsoft's lax approach to basic
security, not to mention an indication of just how deep a legacy hole MS
has dug for itself. But is it deep enough to drive away millions of
people who need to do word processing, inventory control, accounting,
email, web browsing, and so on? More to the point, is Linux a suitable
alternative to be driven to, for the people who won't want to do more
than the most basic of system administration tasks?
>
>> I don't think it's so much an issue of trust as it is of taking the
>> path of
>> least resistance.
>
> Do you think companies take the path of least resistance on everything
> they
> do? I don't think so; I could easily be mistaken.
>
>
Not in everything, but often in things that they view as tangential to
their main business. Computers are often just tools, as far as many
companies are concerned, and they probably aren't going to spend a lot
of time blazing their own trails when the road they're on is getting
them where they want to go, maybe with a few bumps here and there.
--
Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream." --S. Jackson
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list