Re: Gresham's Law (or: a decent respect for the opinions of all)

[Dorothy Day day@xxxxxxxx]

On Sat, 20 Apr 1996 09:56 Harmon F Seaver  wrote:

>> :	 I assume that those who use windoz are
>> :	 essentially incapable of navigating the linux morass.
>>
>> In other words, anyone who wants to do graphics on the 80x86, Windows
>> being the only gui with any apps. Why am I unsurprised that you share
>> the same assessment of the computing public as The Megacorp That Sized Up
>> the PC Market and Visited PCJr and Warp on Us. People are a good deal
>> smarter and better informed as what you post assumes us to be.

>   If you take a look at most windoz users in either a corporate or
> academic setting, you will quickly realize that most of them, despite the
> fact of having used windoz for years, day in and day out on the job, are
> incapable of even installing or configuring even windows, let alone anything
> else. I'm not saying they are dumb -- the people I work with are certainly
> not dumb -- they all have at least a BA, most a MLS, yet most cannot do the
> simplest windoz configuration. Like figure out how to change screen colors,
> resolution, etc. Some cannot even figure out what to do when they accidently
> maximize a window.
>

The attitude reflected in these remarks toward the users being "helped" is
incredibly condescending. I am appalled to hear a person in a support position
publicly express such contempt for those he is supposedly helping. Users
(often faculty or staff with quite compelling obligations apart from tweaking
their machines) are painfully aware of gaps in their technical knowledge; to
be treated so dismissively does not increase the likelihood that they will
learn more. Patience and a keen sense of having once been in their shoes goes
much further in ensuring that whatever expertise one has will be shared and
accepted with grace. Otherwise, you may well drive people to *any* other OS or
software product than the one you profess.

>
>  These people *must* have their computers totally configured for them by
> the sysadmin -- and, since that is the case, it is far better to have the
> sysadmin set up OS/2 or Linux/Solaris, since they are vastly more powerful
> and robust, and from the point of view of the least knowledgable end user,
> essentially the same anyway. And any sysadmin who is only capable of setting
> up a windoz or w95 system isn't worth their salt, although presently that is
> the case in most libraries, at least.
>

These are highly opinionated views, and inaccurate at that. A great many lans
are being installed in university departments and libraries using Windows NT,
and even Windows 95, for quite valid reasons. Unix systems of various flavors
are being used where that is the best solution to a particular need, but that
is by no means always the case. The cost and complexity of installation and
support are hard to defend when budgets are tight. See the library literature
for what's actually happening, instead of following your own assumptions.

>
> At any rate, most windoz *users* are
> simply incapable of installing any system, even windoz. And those that do
> accrue some semblance of skill in windoz often fail miserably when they
> attempt to install a better platform like OS/2, as Leslie commented. If
> their hardware is a good enough clone of the PC standard, they might luck
> out. Likewise if they try to install a version of Linux like the Caldera
> one, but if there is the slightest glitch, they are lost, and thus you have
> these complaints with which we are all familiar.
>

More contempt for those who do not spend all their waking hours learning
"alternative" systems. Life is short and there are far more "real" demands
on many people's time to expect them to share one's personal obsessions with
OS's.

>
>  So I stand by my statement -- most windoz users are just plain incapable
> of installing Linux, not becuase they are dumb, but simply because they
> aren't bothering to learn the basic skills. Most car drivers don't fix their
> own cars either, although if they knew enough about it to realize how badly
> they were being ripped off, they would do so.
>

Please. People make choices in how they spend their time, energies, and
fiscal resources. Don't condemn them for not making the same choices you do.

>
> It's the same reason most
> secretaries never took to XY, they barely could deal with wordstar or wp,
> and up until XY3+ there was just this frightening command line. Probably
> more laziness than stupidity.
>

Sigh. And further misinformation follows (from a later posting, same day)...

>
>>   Well, look: Any magazine whose ads are targeted toward people who do
>> the purchasing for their organzations is bound to go with the "installed
>> base" majority, and will _never_ do anything to offend the big
>> advertisers.
>
>  Uuhhh, Leslie -- Gates *owns* ZD, does he not?
>
>> page.) Dvorak, however, seems to be given free rein. He has often been
>> skeptical of Gatesland in his pieces and is clearly _not_ on their
>> payroll.
>
>   I think he clearly *is* on Gates' payroll, since Gates owns the
> magazine.
>

A little checking could easily reveal the simple fact that ZD is not (nor
ever was) owned by Bill Gates or Microsoft. For example,

>
> "Less than a year after being outbid by investment firm Forstmann Little
> & Co., Softbank -- Japan's largest software distributor -- has negotiated
> a deal to buy Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. for $2.1 billion. Forstmann paid
> $1.4 billion 11 months ago." (Investor's Business Daily 10 Nov, 1995)
>

The story was reported repeatedly in the PC press, the Wall Street Journal,
and other financial sources from last November through at least March of this
year. Any index to business periodicals or any Lexis-Nexis or Web search could
turn up numerous references. *Assuming* Bill Gates owns everything,
fortunately, doesn't make it so. Using the search tools taught in any library
school and made available in any library could prevent such embarrassing mis-
statements.


I raise these objections reluctantly, but this kind of constant spewing of
personal opinion and contempt for the opinions of others does grate. Surely
a little tolerance for comments offered by others on a list like xywrite
would permit more fruitful discussion of topics, and keep the discussion from
being plunged into wars over OS's or whatever other latest enthusiasm takes
the place of OS's (java coming to mind most recently). As others have pointed
out, when it comes to a debate over which OS or programming language or web
tool is "best" (with hardly a thread to tie it to xywrite), perhaps it's time
to move those remarks to the appropriate usenet forum. Suggestions for
directions one would like to see TTG take could well raise the one idea the
company never thought of but eventually may take--but if responses jump on
the suggestion as an excuse to grind yet one more ax, there goes the
discussion. If a brawl is all that holds the interest of some, there are
far more satisfying venues for that than a stodgy listserv.


---
Dorothy Day			
School of Library and Information Science
Indiana University
day@xxxxxxxx