From: trucken@exa.cs.umn.edu (David Truckenmiller) Subject: Re: Tractatus Linuxicus Newbius Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 14:29:09 GMT
In <CCDB06.7t1@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> jkowalik@gandalf (Yarek Kowalik / LGS) writes:
>ksh@prl.ufl.edu (Kevin S Ho) writes:
>: In article <trucken.746023366@milli>, trucken@milli.cs.umn.edu (David Truckenmiller) writes:
>: |>
>: |> > I am a philosopher myself, and I really think no one should be allowed
>: |> >to wield power over technology who cannot pass a course in literary
>: |> >criticism.
>: |> OK.
>: I don't know if I can pass a course, but since when does literary
>: criticism have anything to to with operating systems?
>Hear, hear... The pre-previous poster is saying that those who cannot
>pass the course in literary criticism should not be allowed to "wield power"
>over technology. I would rather argue that those who *do not understand*
>technology should *not* wield power over it, and my belief is that there are
>more of the later than those of the first.
Yes. It is far more dangerous to wield power over that which you don't
understand. Worse, those that know a little, are far more dangerous
than those who know nothing. My personal belief is that this is why
lots of things are screwed up. Before limiting technolgy, it might be
wise for "leaders" to try and understand it first. (Soapbox mode off now.)
>: |> The point is, this stuff is complicated, and there should be a step-by-
>: |> step guide, and mostly there already is for Linux. The techincal jargon
>: |> creeps in because that is how we talk. What is needed now is for people
>: |> like you that have learned the hard way, but can speak in non-jargonese,
>: |> to write manuals.
>: The point being that if we don't speak like ourselves, we get really wordy.
>: Try learning a foreign language and writing a book in it.......That's hard.
>:
>I understood from your reply that you cannot communicate ideas about computer
>in English without using technical jargon, and so it would be hard for you to
>"write a book" in layman English... I don't think it is so difficult. After
>all you did write most of your response in tech-less English. And it was about
>computers, and it was not too difficult, was it?
No, not anymore, but I have been practicing for a very long time. Writing
_anything_ takes time, and patience. I'm more and more in awe of anyone
who can write an entire book on a subject. It is _much_ easier to simply
speak in jargon. Even then, clearly writing something down, even in
jargon, is much harder than simply telling someone how it works. Writing
is a noble act, and we should encourage those that do it well.
>I think that most books for
>non-initiated in the Computer Wisardry lack a certain progressive teaching
>of the terminology.. Once that terminology is taught, one can get very
>precise in their books, and be fairly certain that the reader would
>understand... but maybe Computer Science is too young to have a stable
>terminology, and besides who would want to read an OS manual for the first
>to last page? It is a complex matter, and there are many things that should
>be done. Like, why not teach some of the jargon to kids, so when they grow up
>it would become an integrated in their language (if it is not already) and
>understood that a hard disk is not a floppy in a hard case.
Well, I think that kids already know more than we suspect. :-)
>If things continue progressing as thy are, which they most likely will, the
>gap between those who understand computers and those who do not will become
>wider.
Yes.
>And even in the new generation that gap will remain, even though
>people will not be as scared to use them (due to more powerful and easier
>to use Operating Sytems), because there will be relatively few people in the
>society who will be taught to understand them.
Yes, again. Look at radio and televison. Could you tell me precisely
how they work? Probably not, (unless you're an EE type), but you use
them and their "software" anyway. If you wanted to know more about
how a TV set worked, you'd never think of calling up Larry King and
complaining that the techies at the TV station speak in too much jargon.
You'd go to the library, read a book, maybe take a few courses, and
educate yourself about the technology of broadcasting. This doesn't
mean that you'll stop using the software, (who could give up the
Simpson's? :-/), or that you'd start building a TV set, (though before
Heathkit went under, people did), but rather, you'll know more about
how it works, and gain new understanding about things you hear about,
(like why the Fed's are selling off frequencies).
>Personally I look at Linux
>as an excercise, a very good one, that will teach me (and many other people)
>how to run, make and operate a good system. I will probably teach a lot of us
>how to make OS user friendly, be it through good manuals, or other important
>ways.
Yes. And this is why I like it so much.
>Because I think of Linux as being an excercise on a large scale
>I think its accessablity to "outsiders" will be limited for a while ( I am
>not excluding a possibility that Linux will not go beyond that). Advances
>in technology always lag in real life applicatons.
Part of the inaccessability to "outsiders", IMHO, is desirable. I mean,
after all, we are NOT Larry King. :-)! This is not to say that all
outsiders are bad, or that we should hate them. Rather, they have very
important things to say, and many times their comments will shape the
way we view things, increase our own understanding of a topic, and
prod us into productive change. (Not to mention maybe inviting us to
a party.)
I merely bristle when someone else blames me for not letting
me into "our club". I'll point them in the right direction for the
knowledge they need to learn. And I'll answer their questions, and
get really excited with them when the light bulb clicks on. But I'll
never accept the blame that they can't understand because of me.
Well, I feel better now. :-) Sorry about all that. Let's see, the
sun is shining outside, and it is the first day of the State Fair.
Later, I'm outta here!
-Dave