On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 01:11:01PM -0600, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > Of course, getting companies to send their employees to software > > training classes can be like pulling teeth, especially in the current > > market -- why is it always the training budget that is first to be cut > > when money is tight? <snip> > especially when you get to the bottom-end users (secretaries and the like); Carl, that's a comment that is dangerous enough to warrant a rebuttal. Placement on an org chart does not correlate too well to rating as a user. More often, it is executives and management who are unwilling to learn techniques or details. My wife is an executive assistant and you could describe a large part of her job as running as computer *FOR* her boss. She and some of the other "clerical" types are the ones who are *MOST* frustrated by redundant data entry, people printing e-mail to distribute messages (rather than forward), requirement to use inappropriate software (confusing when to use database vs. spreadsheet), and the litany goes on and on. There are two problems here: 1: The computer illiterate often approve or set MIS policy at many companies. 2: A person who isn't thinking about how to use the tools at their disposal will do just as bad a job with Linux as anything else. > the user desire to actually *learn* anything is very low. at my last job, I > had users who outright told me that they didn't want to learn how to use > their computer better. at my current job, I've seen cases where users > outright refused to help the sysadmin troubleshoot a problem, when he asked > them to try things a different way for a few days. Part of a performance review for persons using computers to do their job should include a "computer skills" test -- that would help provide a motivation to learn, as well as help weed out those people who were so stubborn that they wouldn't work on it. > I think Linux can benefit these users quite a bit as well... you give them a > simple desktop (a 'kindergarten interface' as someone called it), with a few > fat icons for the tools they need to do their job, and a taskbar. that's it. > no customizing tools, no tools they don't need, not even a local HDD for > them to screw up. (NFS-mount stuff, or do remote X displays). Linux offers > much more customizability for things like that, than Windows does (at least > it's easier to do so, and much cheaper). Frankly, Linux wouldn't solve the problem -- it's a human problem not a machine problem. But if they're going to have to start to think, they might as well do it using tools that look pretty on the inside as well as on the outside. I think Linux avoids a lot of the cumbersome-ness<!> of other OS's, works right a truly reasonable amount of time, and has real I/O redirection. Plus the software cost isn't an issue. But the training part is, always has been, and probably almost always will be. Too bad you can't teach common sense. > this goes along with what someone was saying about the future of > computing trending towards appliances... this makes your > terminal/workstation into an appliance. if a user needs more flexibility; > then we give them a more functional desktop environment. I agree -- productivity comes from making a tool that does what someone needs it to do, and doesn't distract with lots of useless options. Desktops in the corporate world should be like a Model-T: you can have any color you like, as long as it's black. But then I think a text terminal with ncurses menus is perfectly fine for most actual work. If they need more flexibility, give them a compiler! Just another county heard from. -- I used to like HP before computers, and once I even liked Compaq, but I liked DEC better than HP and Compaq put together.