I've been screaming this for years. Information technology is designed by programmers for end users whom they assume are also programmers, or at least think like programmers. They don't understand that the overwhelming majority of the residents of this planet do not have the combined aptitude, interest, desire, and resources to learn how to be software mechanics.
Almost everyone outside of this industry expects their computer to be just another appliance. Something that will do what they want, when they want it, without them having to understand how it works, much less having to fiddle with it several times a week.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I still contend that asking a computer to be another appliance is unreasonable, though. It's possible, but I don't think it's really what folks outside of IT want. Most of my clients would keel over dead if their computers were "just another appliance". They want something functional that can do more than just one thing, and that can be expanded, at minimal cost (i.e., not buy a new appliance) to do more stuff later.
You can build a single-purpose machine that does nothing but what you want it to do. You can lock it down and, effectively, get it to be just that. Servers in large companies are good examples (if they're built right) - they do what they're supposed to do (most of the time) with a little routine maintenance here and there and replacing parts that go bad. But do users really want a desktop that only lets them balance their checkbook? Or one that only lets them type e-mail? I don't think they do.
I don't disagree with the premise that computers should be simpler than they are or that software should work together better than it does. But I don't think computers (specifically desktops) will, or should, ever be "just another appliance."
You can build a single-purpose machine that does nothing but what you want it to do. You can lock it down and, effectively, get it to be just that. Servers in large companies are good examples (if they're built right) - they do what they're supposed to do (most of the time) with a little routine maintenance here and there and replacing parts that go bad. But do users really want a desktop that only lets them balance their checkbook? Or one that only lets them type e-mail? I don't think they do.
I don't disagree with the premise that computers should be simpler than they are or that software should work together better than it does. But I don't think computers (specifically desktops) will, or should, ever be "just another appliance."
I'm not asking for a computer that's as simple as a washing machine--although if you handed me one I'd probably love it. But a car is a good example. To everyone but enthusiasts cars are appliances, and they deliver a stunning range of functionality. It even takes some training to learn how to use one adeptly and safely -- ONCE in your life! From then on you only need routine maintenance. You have a problem that requires the services of an expert only once or twice a year. The rest of the time you literally don't have to think about your car. You just turn the key and it does what you need.
There's no reason computers couldn't be at least that user-friendly.
Loading applications isn't the hard part of owning a PC, most installations are no-brainers. And if you want an income tax package bad enough to buy it, you're probably motivated enough to read the manual and learn how to use it.
What I'm talking about is the counterintuitive, user-hostile interface (clicking "Start" to stop is a cliche but it is still the epitome of PC technology and the fact that they refuse to fix it is the epitome of the IT profession's attitude toward the people who pay its salaries) and the total lack of QA--by the standards of ANY other engineering discipline.
There's no reason computers couldn't be at least that user-friendly.
Loading applications isn't the hard part of owning a PC, most installations are no-brainers. And if you want an income tax package bad enough to buy it, you're probably motivated enough to read the manual and learn how to use it.
What I'm talking about is the counterintuitive, user-hostile interface (clicking "Start" to stop is a cliche but it is still the epitome of PC technology and the fact that they refuse to fix it is the epitome of the IT profession's attitude toward the people who pay its salaries) and the total lack of QA--by the standards of ANY other engineering discipline.
Clicking start to stop was definitely a mistake, not fixing it was decision. Quality has not been a driver in the IT industry for many years. It's an added extra dropped by business to make sales/marketing deadlines and to reduce costs. Business's are starting to want quality to come back, but theres a lot of furrowed brows at how much it costs. You need people who are capable of it, you need resources to do it, and above all buy in from management that there are risks and these risks have to accepted and managed. Without that nothing gets improved because no one will pay the price for achieving it.
Writing crappy software is a conscious decision, selling it is and buying it is. It's quick, got a good margin and cheap.
The fact that it costs more in the long run is of no concern to the bean counters in charge, that's next period.
Writing crappy software is a conscious decision, selling it is and buying it is. It's quick, got a good margin and cheap.
The fact that it costs more in the long run is of no concern to the bean counters in charge, that's next period.
What you're complaining about is outside the control of the programmers. From what you're saying, it's clear that you don't just mean "computers", you mean "Windows computers". News flash: Microsoft's software design is dictated by executives and marketing managers, not by programmers. The programmers just do what they're told.
You claim you'd be happy with a computer as simple to operate as your washing machine. Well, guess what -- you already own several such computers, I'm sure. Your car probably has at least one computer in it (fuel injection?). Your VCR and/or DVD player has a computer in it. So does your cellphone. These are all computer "appliances". These are all computers with the sort of simplicity for which you're looking.
The computer that sits on your desk, though, is something else entirely. This is adaptive technology. It is capable of performing tasks the designers never envisioned because the software to do it hasn't yet been invented, though it will be. That sort of flexibility of functionality requires one of two things. It has to either have a complex interface (like the Windows GUI) and highly complex runtime environment (like the Windows OS), or it has to have a simple interface that requires skill and knowledge to use (like the various unix OSes, such as Linux). The reason for this is that the interface has to be designed to allow new functionality to be added.
You can't just put a new button on an appliance as though it were a sticker and have it suddenly access added functionality. You can sorta do that with a desktop computer, though. When you install software, you get something new to click, or to type at the command line, or both. The problem is that now you have to learn where that new button is or what that new command is, and what it does.
If you don't want your computer to be complex, don't install any software on it.
As for the problem of having to relearn how to use a computer all the time, that's another Microsoft deal. Any unix OS has essentially the same underlying interface it had forty years ago, though you can add more pretty (and more complex) interface to it if you want it. The interface for Windows XP, on the other hand, would be entirely unrecognizable to a user of Windows 3.11 in 1994. Every new "version" of Windows is actually an entirely new OS with a new UI.
You claim you'd be happy with a computer as simple to operate as your washing machine. Well, guess what -- you already own several such computers, I'm sure. Your car probably has at least one computer in it (fuel injection?). Your VCR and/or DVD player has a computer in it. So does your cellphone. These are all computer "appliances". These are all computers with the sort of simplicity for which you're looking.
The computer that sits on your desk, though, is something else entirely. This is adaptive technology. It is capable of performing tasks the designers never envisioned because the software to do it hasn't yet been invented, though it will be. That sort of flexibility of functionality requires one of two things. It has to either have a complex interface (like the Windows GUI) and highly complex runtime environment (like the Windows OS), or it has to have a simple interface that requires skill and knowledge to use (like the various unix OSes, such as Linux). The reason for this is that the interface has to be designed to allow new functionality to be added.
You can't just put a new button on an appliance as though it were a sticker and have it suddenly access added functionality. You can sorta do that with a desktop computer, though. When you install software, you get something new to click, or to type at the command line, or both. The problem is that now you have to learn where that new button is or what that new command is, and what it does.
If you don't want your computer to be complex, don't install any software on it.
As for the problem of having to relearn how to use a computer all the time, that's another Microsoft deal. Any unix OS has essentially the same underlying interface it had forty years ago, though you can add more pretty (and more complex) interface to it if you want it. The interface for Windows XP, on the other hand, would be entirely unrecognizable to a user of Windows 3.11 in 1994. Every new "version" of Windows is actually an entirely new OS with a new UI.
Hey man!
you where short of making me agree...
but, if every new windows where a new OS, then microsoft had at las least 6 or seven chances to fix the "start" joke, the netbios dependency, the WINS service, and another jokes that still plagues theirs OS.
Just to make the point clear, There has been ONE SINGLE Windows re-write, and that was windows NT. there is only one GUI update and it was 95.
SO...
I Have two computers at home, a home built PC and a tabletPC. I am thinking on getting rid of sp2 on the tablet, and install linux on the PC.
And a device that is good for everything, actually does nothing
you where short of making me agree...
but, if every new windows where a new OS, then microsoft had at las least 6 or seven chances to fix the "start" joke, the netbios dependency, the WINS service, and another jokes that still plagues theirs OS.
Just to make the point clear, There has been ONE SINGLE Windows re-write, and that was windows NT. there is only one GUI update and it was 95.
SO...
I Have two computers at home, a home built PC and a tabletPC. I am thinking on getting rid of sp2 on the tablet, and install linux on the PC.
And a device that is good for everything, actually does nothing
They're building new OSes from old templates. They reuse old code to create OSes that are in many ways incompatible with older OSes. Just as Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and HP-UX are all different OSes but all unices, so too are Win98, Win2k, WS2k3, and WfW3.11 different OSes but all Windows.
Oddly enough, the various unices are more similar than the various Windows releases in all the ways that matter for compatibility and user familiarity than the various Windows OSes are, despite being made by different companies and communities. You'd think that a family of OSes could be made more compatible with each other when created by a single corporation, but I guess you'd be wrong for thinking it.
In fact, there have been many OS redesigns, but they had names like Chicago, Cairo, Neptune, and Longhorn. What was actually released was always something else entirely, called Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, Windows XP, and whatever they'll call the next Windows version. Some of the design ideas of Longhorn will make it into the next Windows, but for the most part it'll just be Windows XP with "new" gimmicky features that make it look different and functionally incompatible with Windows XP in a lot of ways.
Oddly enough, the various unices are more similar than the various Windows releases in all the ways that matter for compatibility and user familiarity than the various Windows OSes are, despite being made by different companies and communities. You'd think that a family of OSes could be made more compatible with each other when created by a single corporation, but I guess you'd be wrong for thinking it.
In fact, there have been many OS redesigns, but they had names like Chicago, Cairo, Neptune, and Longhorn. What was actually released was always something else entirely, called Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, Windows XP, and whatever they'll call the next Windows version. Some of the design ideas of Longhorn will make it into the next Windows, but for the most part it'll just be Windows XP with "new" gimmicky features that make it look different and functionally incompatible with Windows XP in a lot of ways.
Due to our historical backgrounds many of us feel locked into Windows (which does a marvellous job of OSing at a reaonable price when compared to the software of Adobe etc). Personally I don't get the time to play with Linux/Unix although there is a copy of Ubuntu sitting in front of me right now.
Back to WinXP(using XP as a shorthand way of including our current burgeoning software bloat and hardware "species" proliferation): There is already a graduated array of XP available, from basic to complex. ["Home","Professional",... etc]. I use pro since home doesn't include facility for an ASP testing server.
OSes need to provide as much of everything that users require. Millions of different users each requiring slightly/greatly different configurations and various levels of security. To build in this funcionality is enormous and thus the OS becomes a labrynth.
I would love a pc that did a secure but rather basic job with modular add ins purchasable as required. Anything we don't use is not only wasted but actually gets in our way. (Don't get me wrong, I don't check out my log files but I still want them there, for when I need them).
What we get then is OS proliferation (rather like current motor vehicle model proliferation); one to suit every purpose and all expensive because of limited production runs, coupled with the problem of new software that doesn't like to run on old OSs and/or slow hardware. So keeping it all under one OS roof then makes the sys admin job tantamount to a masters degree in IT, especially since networks and security and programming (well, at least command line instructions) all seem to interect at this level.
As consumers it's our choice. Let the software and OS producers know what we want to spend our money on and if they think it's good business sense to provide it they'll make it. I doubt that they can be too user specific and remain economically attractive to investors.
Sys Admin would then be looking more like a PHD as so many variations, some rarely encountered, would need to be studied to the point of intimacy, and then the periodical updates... (Whew, I have trouble keeping up with all the changes to new versions of the software I use)
My impression is the same as Johnathon Yarden's. KISS. I'd rather pay my money for a familiar, simple, secure, system that does EVERYTHING I NORMALLY do with a system, and buy an upgrade/replacement if I need more. I spend money on security annually, I invest time and pc cycles in security. My time and energy is valuable to me and I'd simply rather spend a few hundred more on a system that requires less system security due to being locked down to a simple level of usability.
It's so good being able to modify almost any part of my system to do things my way but I know that I could do without much of it to gain a more secure system that was easier to maintain. After all I want a workhorse not a show pony.
NB Adobe Photoshop Elements is a recognition/solution of IT overkill. Bravo Adobe!
verbose opinion by t3rry (tarun); you are perfectly welcome to your opinion. No competition involved, just differing needs and different ways of addressing the same/similar IT problems we all share according to our current skillset.
Back to WinXP(using XP as a shorthand way of including our current burgeoning software bloat and hardware "species" proliferation): There is already a graduated array of XP available, from basic to complex. ["Home","Professional",... etc]. I use pro since home doesn't include facility for an ASP testing server.
OSes need to provide as much of everything that users require. Millions of different users each requiring slightly/greatly different configurations and various levels of security. To build in this funcionality is enormous and thus the OS becomes a labrynth.
I would love a pc that did a secure but rather basic job with modular add ins purchasable as required. Anything we don't use is not only wasted but actually gets in our way. (Don't get me wrong, I don't check out my log files but I still want them there, for when I need them).
What we get then is OS proliferation (rather like current motor vehicle model proliferation); one to suit every purpose and all expensive because of limited production runs, coupled with the problem of new software that doesn't like to run on old OSs and/or slow hardware. So keeping it all under one OS roof then makes the sys admin job tantamount to a masters degree in IT, especially since networks and security and programming (well, at least command line instructions) all seem to interect at this level.
As consumers it's our choice. Let the software and OS producers know what we want to spend our money on and if they think it's good business sense to provide it they'll make it. I doubt that they can be too user specific and remain economically attractive to investors.
Sys Admin would then be looking more like a PHD as so many variations, some rarely encountered, would need to be studied to the point of intimacy, and then the periodical updates... (Whew, I have trouble keeping up with all the changes to new versions of the software I use)
My impression is the same as Johnathon Yarden's. KISS. I'd rather pay my money for a familiar, simple, secure, system that does EVERYTHING I NORMALLY do with a system, and buy an upgrade/replacement if I need more. I spend money on security annually, I invest time and pc cycles in security. My time and energy is valuable to me and I'd simply rather spend a few hundred more on a system that requires less system security due to being locked down to a simple level of usability.
It's so good being able to modify almost any part of my system to do things my way but I know that I could do without much of it to gain a more secure system that was easier to maintain. After all I want a workhorse not a show pony.
NB Adobe Photoshop Elements is a recognition/solution of IT overkill. Bravo Adobe!
verbose opinion by t3rry (tarun); you are perfectly welcome to your opinion. No competition involved, just differing needs and different ways of addressing the same/similar IT problems we all share according to our current skillset.
Well put. One of the great things about the computer and the Internet, is that they are both platforms for innovation, generic enough that they can used in many different ways. There really is no analogous appliance, in the house. Perhaps my European oven, which is irritatingly complex is the closest I can get to. But hey, a computer was never meant to be an appliance if by appliance, we mean a single purpose instrument. The marketeers who call it that are doing everyone a disservice.
Anyhow, people who want simplicity probably won't ever be happy with a general purpose computational device such as we have now, regardless of who makes the OS or the apps that run on it.
On the other hand, it depends on what one means by complexity. If I have to edit the registry, that's pretty annoyingly complex. If I have to edit code, that's complex. However I enjoy the variety and range of things I can do to my software to customize my computer to my needs and desires.
Anyhow, people who want simplicity probably won't ever be happy with a general purpose computational device such as we have now, regardless of who makes the OS or the apps that run on it.
On the other hand, it depends on what one means by complexity. If I have to edit the registry, that's pretty annoyingly complex. If I have to edit code, that's complex. However I enjoy the variety and range of things I can do to my software to customize my computer to my needs and desires.
Everyone has good points, however your missing the BIG answer! The whole computing atmosphere has changed. I don't have to worry near as much about someone breaking into my car or my house, yet why has the computer become an "acceptable" target??? We have, as a socity, lost all respect for our fellow man! Change that!!
Just think of it this way:
- The risk of someone breaking in to either your computer/house/car is directly related to the number of people who CAN break in.
- Once you build your house or park your car in a certain area, only people who are in the direct vicinity of your car or house can break in them
- With computers, the moment you have connected your computer to the Internet, you have given the entire Internet-Connected population the possibility of breaking into your computer
- Now let's say 1% of people who CAN break in, actually WANTS to break in your car/house/computer. Just compute for the number of people in your house/car's vicinity vs. people who are connected to the Internet, and you'll get the reason why you have a higher risk of a computer "break-in" over someone breaking into your house or car.
- The risk of someone breaking in to either your computer/house/car is directly related to the number of people who CAN break in.
- Once you build your house or park your car in a certain area, only people who are in the direct vicinity of your car or house can break in them
- With computers, the moment you have connected your computer to the Internet, you have given the entire Internet-Connected population the possibility of breaking into your computer
- Now let's say 1% of people who CAN break in, actually WANTS to break in your car/house/computer. Just compute for the number of people in your house/car's vicinity vs. people who are connected to the Internet, and you'll get the reason why you have a higher risk of a computer "break-in" over someone breaking into your house or car.
The biggest jump came when Microsoft introduced Windows 95. Windows GUI has been the same ever since Windows 95 was released. From windows 3.11 once you learned how to use 95, the rest followed pretty much the same. Windows ME had a few more "pretty" options, and it attempted to hide the DOS side of the computer, but it was very much the same as 95, 98, and 98SE. Even windows 2000 has the same basic GUI. The new "versions" were the same old thing, with some options and functionality moved around. Since Windows 95 was released, Windows XP has been the only "new version" to drastically change what the end-user sees. And even then, as an adminstrator, you have the option of giving end-users the classic windows interface rather than the pretty new Windows XP interface.
I have been told by many of my clients that they don't see the need to upgrade an operating system because the next one looks better. If the operating system isn't more secure, then what's the point.
I had the unpleasureable task of beta testing windows XP pre-release (early 2001), and when I compare that experience to where XP has come now, I must say that I am seriously considering the move to LINUX for my own personal use. Windows XP still has bugs that were noticed and monitored back then, but have never been, or are onlu just being fixed today. Five years in the making. At this rate, Windows Vista won't be user-friendly and secure until about 2025.
I have been told by many of my clients that they don't see the need to upgrade an operating system because the next one looks better. If the operating system isn't more secure, then what's the point.
I had the unpleasureable task of beta testing windows XP pre-release (early 2001), and when I compare that experience to where XP has come now, I must say that I am seriously considering the move to LINUX for my own personal use. Windows XP still has bugs that were noticed and monitored back then, but have never been, or are onlu just being fixed today. Five years in the making. At this rate, Windows Vista won't be user-friendly and secure until about 2025.
Computer appliances are just what most normal users (ie not IT people) want. The home users I know (including my wife) have absolutely zero interest in how a computer works, in fact my wife gets cross if I try to explain anything. She just wants to type in and print her stuff, do email and web surf. There is a case for only allowing home and a lot of business users to use computers which have the OS and all executables in eprom cartridges like the nintendo 64. They can't be upgraded, the hardware is fixed, they can't be infected with worms or viruses. The email program doesn't allow anything to be executed by clicking on a link or attachment and everything is locked down. It does a fixed number of tasks and does them well and can't be fiddled with or hacked. Unfortunately, that would put a lot of us out of a job but hey I can dream!
To get things cheaper and user friendly you need to create a standard.
The only people who had try that and having struggling selling their equipment is apple.
Because their price still too high for the average joe.
The only people who had try that and having struggling selling their equipment is apple.
Because their price still too high for the average joe.
is their standard. No different to ms in that respect. Being locked in to one vendor is not friendly.
There's a unix standard known as POSIX, which includes OSes like Linux and FreeBSD. I have news for you. MacOS X conforms to the POSIX standard now. The Mac "standard" wasn't very stable for most of the '90s, and it has been ditched in favor of the unix standard.
Macs are also getting cheaper. You can get one brand new for about $500.
Macs are also getting cheaper. You can get one brand new for about $500.
I still looking for a simple way that a non-geek can put new hardware on unix machines.
would you leave alone a 20 year old freshman to install a DAT on your production server. I won't
Maybe on a W2k3 server, but not in Unix.
We are dealing with a Fedora soundcard affair trouble, after several months it's still an on-off afair.
thay have to work on that too
would you leave alone a 20 year old freshman to install a DAT on your production server. I won't
Maybe on a W2k3 server, but not in Unix.
We are dealing with a Fedora soundcard affair trouble, after several months it's still an on-off afair.
thay have to work on that too
Why do you need a sound card on a server?
Unless I knew him and knew the freshman was as knowledgeable as me (or moreso), I wouldn't let a 20 year old freshman install DAT drives on any production server at all without direct supervision, regardless of the OS. In fact, at present I probably wouldn't let myself do it without supervision unless I had to, since I've never dealt with DAT. It may seem easier to install the DAT drive on a Windows machine, but it's also easier to completely hose up the entire system by installing hardware without previous experience doing so. If the DAT drive doesn't work automatically on the unix machine, it won't work, but if it doesn't work on the Windows machine it could lock up your production server and screw your entire business.
As for who has to work on stuff like soundcard support -- that's probably either Red Hat or the soundcard manufacturer that you should blame. Microsoft doesn't have to write drivers for peripheral hardware, but the Linux community does have to, and usually they have to reverse engineer the drivers that are released for Windows to do it. Blaming the Linux community for the failures of the peripheral manufacturers isn't exactly what I'd call an accurate assignment of blame. Also, it's entirely possible that the soundcard is supported perfectly well in Linux in general, but not in RHEL/Fedora. Red Hat uses customized/modified kernels for some lunatic reason, and ignores much of the LSB and FHS standards, so you might even be dealing with a Fedora-specific problem with your soundcard.
Unless I knew him and knew the freshman was as knowledgeable as me (or moreso), I wouldn't let a 20 year old freshman install DAT drives on any production server at all without direct supervision, regardless of the OS. In fact, at present I probably wouldn't let myself do it without supervision unless I had to, since I've never dealt with DAT. It may seem easier to install the DAT drive on a Windows machine, but it's also easier to completely hose up the entire system by installing hardware without previous experience doing so. If the DAT drive doesn't work automatically on the unix machine, it won't work, but if it doesn't work on the Windows machine it could lock up your production server and screw your entire business.
As for who has to work on stuff like soundcard support -- that's probably either Red Hat or the soundcard manufacturer that you should blame. Microsoft doesn't have to write drivers for peripheral hardware, but the Linux community does have to, and usually they have to reverse engineer the drivers that are released for Windows to do it. Blaming the Linux community for the failures of the peripheral manufacturers isn't exactly what I'd call an accurate assignment of blame. Also, it's entirely possible that the soundcard is supported perfectly well in Linux in general, but not in RHEL/Fedora. Red Hat uses customized/modified kernels for some lunatic reason, and ignores much of the LSB and FHS standards, so you might even be dealing with a Fedora-specific problem with your soundcard.
The complexity of IT in general isn't a trend isolated to IT. Cars have on-board computers with functions many deem unnecessary or simply don't know how to use.
A washing machine nowadays has so many varied settings for so many different situations that selecting the right one becomes a job for the instruction manual!
And that is before we even begin looking at TV's, video recorders, DVD players and stereo's!
The fact is that continual technological development means continual technological change and the people that need to adapt to this are the people that buy into it. The change is going to happen. It can't be stopped.
The question maybe should be "why do people buy items/technology that they don't understand and have no desire to want to understand".
The human race seems to think itself impervious to change but society tells us change will happen whether we want it to or not.
With technological advancement comes new lessons to learn and new instruction books to read.
Its something we have to live with.
A washing machine nowadays has so many varied settings for so many different situations that selecting the right one becomes a job for the instruction manual!
And that is before we even begin looking at TV's, video recorders, DVD players and stereo's!
The fact is that continual technological development means continual technological change and the people that need to adapt to this are the people that buy into it. The change is going to happen. It can't be stopped.
The question maybe should be "why do people buy items/technology that they don't understand and have no desire to want to understand".
The human race seems to think itself impervious to change but society tells us change will happen whether we want it to or not.
With technological advancement comes new lessons to learn and new instruction books to read.
Its something we have to live with.
Yes...for those who just want to receive email, browse the Internet or just play games...yes oh yes! BUT in my opinion, it doesn't have as much to do with the programmers as it does with the spam, viruses/trojans/worm, adware, and spyware.
Computing used to be fun for the average user, just dial up, look for some interesting stuff, play a game, email a friend...now it just isn't safe anymore. Over half of our tech calls are because "my computer is slow", "I keep getting pop ups", and ACK "where'd this porn come from?". And they almost all lead back to the same thing...junk that was downloaded without the users knowledge.
The average user not only wants but needs their computer to be an "appliance"...something they can use when they want to and clean whenever or if they choose.
That is why I know tell my users "if it looks pretty and it is free...you don't want it!" Seems like that applys to a lot more then computers now a days!!
Computing used to be fun for the average user, just dial up, look for some interesting stuff, play a game, email a friend...now it just isn't safe anymore. Over half of our tech calls are because "my computer is slow", "I keep getting pop ups", and ACK "where'd this porn come from?". And they almost all lead back to the same thing...junk that was downloaded without the users knowledge.
The average user not only wants but needs their computer to be an "appliance"...something they can use when they want to and clean whenever or if they choose.
That is why I know tell my users "if it looks pretty and it is free...you don't want it!" Seems like that applys to a lot more then computers now a days!!
Most people just want there car to be reliable and to get them from point A to point B. They don't want to know how it works, they don't care how it works and they will never be interested in how it works. As long as they have a few lights which will flash when it's time for the vehicle to be serviced, they are happy. In these times of rididly enforced speed limitts, what's the good of a car which can do 200+mph? I know a fellow who has one. He has never even had it to 100mph. He never will. But, boy, he loves to brag about what it 'can do'! Same with computer software. Most endusers can't and never will, use all the bells and whistles, but they just love to have 'em there to brag about. Complexity has increased because the consumer WANTS all the bells and whistles. That is why Windows is so popular. Now, just like in the early 1990's, consumers don't know how it works, or even understand how it might break down because of the complexity. While it all works and there are mechanics to fix any problems, they are happy - just like with their cars and boy, haven't cars increased in sophistication over the past twenty years! Well, this consumer attitude applies to toasters, radios, TV's and almost anything else consummable. Hell, it even applies to food!! So, accept this situation and be a good programmer who can deliver what is required to keep the customer happy, relax about the situation and live a happy life. Consumers don't want to go back to T Model Fords, or T Model computers.
You are required to pass a licensing exam to operate a car on a public roadway, why not require such an exam to operate a computer on a public network?
When computer users are responsible for the deaths pf tens of thousands of people...when they put other people's lives and health at immediate risk "every" time they operate one...then and only then should we be discussing licensing computer users. The analogy drawn between the complexity, under the covers, of both automobiles and computers, vs ease of use, hardly extends to licensing users.
The risk of killing tens of thousands is definitely a good reason for licensing, but how about the simple cost of downtime?
How much time and energy could be saved in the IT department if the end-user had to satisfy to a licensing body that they are 'Qualified' to use the computer.
Most computer failures come from the "interface between the seat and the keyboard".
At the very least, every user should be required to attend a training seminar every 6 months to stay on top of emerging technolgies. If they aren't willing to do so, then they should not have the "privledge" of computer use.
ie: If you refuse to get a driver's license, you are not permitted to drive.
How much time and energy could be saved in the IT department if the end-user had to satisfy to a licensing body that they are 'Qualified' to use the computer.
Most computer failures come from the "interface between the seat and the keyboard".
At the very least, every user should be required to attend a training seminar every 6 months to stay on top of emerging technolgies. If they aren't willing to do so, then they should not have the "privledge" of computer use.
ie: If you refuse to get a driver's license, you are not permitted to drive.
I've allways said computing under windows is deceptively simple.
Others here mention (correctly) that it isn't programmers who are the root cause (rather) the malware, spyware and crackers out there with nothing better to do I guess.
Users - The troubleseome ones just install software without thought:
Toolbars? well, the more the merryer.
Browser helpers? hell, I'll take five! Maintenance? Non-existant.
As to your last comment:
"Almost everyone outside of this industry expects their computer to be just another appliance. Something that will do what they want, when they want it, without them having to understand how it works, much less having to fiddle with it several times a week."
All users need a rudimentary understanding of how a computer works, just like any other "appliance".
Any user making the above statement is likely looking for a pet dog.
Others here mention (correctly) that it isn't programmers who are the root cause (rather) the malware, spyware and crackers out there with nothing better to do I guess.
Users - The troubleseome ones just install software without thought:
Toolbars? well, the more the merryer.
Browser helpers? hell, I'll take five! Maintenance? Non-existant.
As to your last comment:
"Almost everyone outside of this industry expects their computer to be just another appliance. Something that will do what they want, when they want it, without them having to understand how it works, much less having to fiddle with it several times a week."
All users need a rudimentary understanding of how a computer works, just like any other "appliance".
Any user making the above statement is likely looking for a pet dog.
I really do believe that people expect a computer to be just another appliance. Thats because these users do not have a rudimentary understanding of their computer and the way it works.
Take a DVD player. It can understand multiple layers of data and translate it into a signal so that it can be viewed on a screen. Thats clever stuff. You don't have to delete temporary files, add anti-virus or firewall software and it certainly won't be hacked.
If a simple machine such as this can be self-maintaining then why not a computer that, by layman understanding, should be intelligent enough to know when things are going wrong and resolve them without human intervention.
It is this layman train of thought that leads users into the predicaments they find themselves in.
It is true: Users expect more from their computers than they should but that is because they don't understand their machines and more importantly, don't understand the threats posed by varying technologies to those machines.
Give them the "rudimentary instruction manual" and let them go through it as they would any other instruction manual.
Take a DVD player. It can understand multiple layers of data and translate it into a signal so that it can be viewed on a screen. Thats clever stuff. You don't have to delete temporary files, add anti-virus or firewall software and it certainly won't be hacked.
If a simple machine such as this can be self-maintaining then why not a computer that, by layman understanding, should be intelligent enough to know when things are going wrong and resolve them without human intervention.
It is this layman train of thought that leads users into the predicaments they find themselves in.
It is true: Users expect more from their computers than they should but that is because they don't understand their machines and more importantly, don't understand the threats posed by varying technologies to those machines.
Give them the "rudimentary instruction manual" and let them go through it as they would any other instruction manual.
That's just my point --> The same ones that bitch about how complicated things are, don't bother reading the manual or educating themselves about the "appliance".
It's not rocket science to protect yourself or do routine maintenance.
Using your example, you periodically clean the heads on your DVD, clean your DVD's & change the batteries on your remote control.
Three mouse clicks & the delete key will clean your temp folder, update your virus signatures & run your anti-spyware tool of choice.
You can also automate a weekly maintenance routine if you so desire.
It's not rocket science to protect yourself or do routine maintenance.
Using your example, you periodically clean the heads on your DVD, clean your DVD's & change the batteries on your remote control.
Three mouse clicks & the delete key will clean your temp folder, update your virus signatures & run your anti-spyware tool of choice.
You can also automate a weekly maintenance routine if you so desire.
A major problem here is in user (mis)understanding of the concepts of the system.
EUs (End Users) often want the all-singing, all-dancing everything machine, but still want it to behave as well as a Pet Rock. They don't understand that they're making a clearly self-contradictory statement when they express this desire. While it may seem blindingly obvious to those of us who have to understand the finer points of computer operation to make our livings, it may not be fair to expect an EU to understand that without being told. As such, it should perhaps be part of the implicit responsibility of someone providing technical support to explain why the simplicity of a mere single-purpose appliance cannot be had from what most people think of when they think "computer" (namely, a PC).
An instructive analogy is actually an analogy the original poster brought up: a car. It's often helpful, in fact, to use the analogy the EU brings up to explain how a computer could be so much simpler as the example of why it can't be so simple to maintain and use. I'll use the car for exactly that purpose now.
It's true that cars all tend to have an interface that follows much the same philosophy from one implementation to the next, at least enough so that someone that can operate one can generally operate another. This breaks down between stick shifts and automatics sometimes, but we can just chalk that up to being analogous to comparisons between different OSes and move on. That's about where the similarities stop, though.
See, with a computer you have people trying to install stuff on your car for free. This is because installing that stuff doesn't involve per-installation expenses for materials. On a car, you would have per-installation expenses, and thus it isn't cost-effective for someone to go around installing "helpful" aftermarket additions on a car. As such, if you want more stuff installed (a better car stereo, ground effects, mag wheels, low-pro tires, a supercharger with a blower, et cetera), you have to pay for it, and you'll have to pay a lot. You'll then spend some time researching the matter, find the one you really want (balancing cost, warranty options, quality and functionality, and so on). You'll also, if you're just a driver and not a mechanic, certainly want someone else to install it for you, most of the time. Such an operation is not trivial, and as such you won't modify the functionality of your car very often, if you're the typical driver.
With computers, it's actually much easier to do all of this stuff. It can often be free to install stuff, often because it includes advertising or embedded malware that makes it worthwhile to the person offering it for free, and often because a bunch of people collaborated on making a useful piece of software that they like and decided they would make it available to the rest of the world, too. It is also easier to install this stuff, or at least looks that way, and a lot of it installs itself (sometimes with the click of a button and, on Windows at least, sometimes without even that).
Now you run into problems. You get a supercharger with a blower that supposedly installs itself with the push of a button, is free so that anyone can get one, doesn't mention increased resource usage (whether fuel and lubricant or RAM and CPU time), includes an advertising blurb that occasionally flashes in front of the windshield, and removes something else under the hood to make room for itself (maybe the sensors that control your driver-side airbag). Add to all this the fact that it tries to install itself on any setup you might own (whether it be a Ford pickup, a Porsche sports car, or a KIA economy car).
Are we beginning to see the problem?
The problem is not in making the computer easier to use, but in making it easier to modify and adapt. Unfortunately, if you don't make it easier to modify and adapt, you can't do things like install Adobe Photoshop, Unreal Tournament, or Microsoft Office. In fact, most of what makes a modern PC what it is wouldn't exist. We'd be using unix without the ability to install anything on it at all, and with nothing pre-installed except the basic shell environment and a console-based text editor. We'd all have basic nonprivileged user accounts with access to nothing outside our home directories. If something had to be changed, we'd have to hire a "repairman" to fix the thing. If you had a really expensive, high-quality PC, you might have a console-only web browser like Lynx.
Is that really what you want out of your computer? Somehow, I doubt it. I suspect you want it to be able to load and view pictures from your digital camera, print to your new LaserJet, use AIM to talk to your friends, use a graphical web browser, play City of Heroes and Worlds of Warcraft, use a spreadsheet program like Microsoft Office Excel or OpenOffice.org Calc, and so on. With the ability to suit your computing environment to your needs and desires comes the responsibility of actually taking care of that computing environment, dealing with the added complexity you have to deal with, and so on.
Add to all that the simple fact that computer technology is advancing so quickly that next year computers will be able to do all kinds of things unimagined by EUs today, while cars still basically just get us from point A to point B. Some carry more passengers or cargo, most now have air conditioning and car stereos of some sort, there's often an airbag system, and you might get power windows and door locks, but that's all just accessories. Meanwhile, a PC can do your taxes, do homework, find directions for the next time you use your car, order pizza, and contribute processing time to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (which mine is doing right now). How much of that do you think the designers of computers were planning to do a mere thirty years ago? How much of that do you think people who'd never yet seen a PC were imagining a mere twenty years ago, who are now doing it daily?
. . . and yet, people want it to be like a washing machine. Well, if you want a washing machine, go buy one.
EUs (End Users) often want the all-singing, all-dancing everything machine, but still want it to behave as well as a Pet Rock. They don't understand that they're making a clearly self-contradictory statement when they express this desire. While it may seem blindingly obvious to those of us who have to understand the finer points of computer operation to make our livings, it may not be fair to expect an EU to understand that without being told. As such, it should perhaps be part of the implicit responsibility of someone providing technical support to explain why the simplicity of a mere single-purpose appliance cannot be had from what most people think of when they think "computer" (namely, a PC).
An instructive analogy is actually an analogy the original poster brought up: a car. It's often helpful, in fact, to use the analogy the EU brings up to explain how a computer could be so much simpler as the example of why it can't be so simple to maintain and use. I'll use the car for exactly that purpose now.
It's true that cars all tend to have an interface that follows much the same philosophy from one implementation to the next, at least enough so that someone that can operate one can generally operate another. This breaks down between stick shifts and automatics sometimes, but we can just chalk that up to being analogous to comparisons between different OSes and move on. That's about where the similarities stop, though.
See, with a computer you have people trying to install stuff on your car for free. This is because installing that stuff doesn't involve per-installation expenses for materials. On a car, you would have per-installation expenses, and thus it isn't cost-effective for someone to go around installing "helpful" aftermarket additions on a car. As such, if you want more stuff installed (a better car stereo, ground effects, mag wheels, low-pro tires, a supercharger with a blower, et cetera), you have to pay for it, and you'll have to pay a lot. You'll then spend some time researching the matter, find the one you really want (balancing cost, warranty options, quality and functionality, and so on). You'll also, if you're just a driver and not a mechanic, certainly want someone else to install it for you, most of the time. Such an operation is not trivial, and as such you won't modify the functionality of your car very often, if you're the typical driver.
With computers, it's actually much easier to do all of this stuff. It can often be free to install stuff, often because it includes advertising or embedded malware that makes it worthwhile to the person offering it for free, and often because a bunch of people collaborated on making a useful piece of software that they like and decided they would make it available to the rest of the world, too. It is also easier to install this stuff, or at least looks that way, and a lot of it installs itself (sometimes with the click of a button and, on Windows at least, sometimes without even that).
Now you run into problems. You get a supercharger with a blower that supposedly installs itself with the push of a button, is free so that anyone can get one, doesn't mention increased resource usage (whether fuel and lubricant or RAM and CPU time), includes an advertising blurb that occasionally flashes in front of the windshield, and removes something else under the hood to make room for itself (maybe the sensors that control your driver-side airbag). Add to all this the fact that it tries to install itself on any setup you might own (whether it be a Ford pickup, a Porsche sports car, or a KIA economy car).
Are we beginning to see the problem?
The problem is not in making the computer easier to use, but in making it easier to modify and adapt. Unfortunately, if you don't make it easier to modify and adapt, you can't do things like install Adobe Photoshop, Unreal Tournament, or Microsoft Office. In fact, most of what makes a modern PC what it is wouldn't exist. We'd be using unix without the ability to install anything on it at all, and with nothing pre-installed except the basic shell environment and a console-based text editor. We'd all have basic nonprivileged user accounts with access to nothing outside our home directories. If something had to be changed, we'd have to hire a "repairman" to fix the thing. If you had a really expensive, high-quality PC, you might have a console-only web browser like Lynx.
Is that really what you want out of your computer? Somehow, I doubt it. I suspect you want it to be able to load and view pictures from your digital camera, print to your new LaserJet, use AIM to talk to your friends, use a graphical web browser, play City of Heroes and Worlds of Warcraft, use a spreadsheet program like Microsoft Office Excel or OpenOffice.org Calc, and so on. With the ability to suit your computing environment to your needs and desires comes the responsibility of actually taking care of that computing environment, dealing with the added complexity you have to deal with, and so on.
Add to all that the simple fact that computer technology is advancing so quickly that next year computers will be able to do all kinds of things unimagined by EUs today, while cars still basically just get us from point A to point B. Some carry more passengers or cargo, most now have air conditioning and car stereos of some sort, there's often an airbag system, and you might get power windows and door locks, but that's all just accessories. Meanwhile, a PC can do your taxes, do homework, find directions for the next time you use your car, order pizza, and contribute processing time to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (which mine is doing right now). How much of that do you think the designers of computers were planning to do a mere thirty years ago? How much of that do you think people who'd never yet seen a PC were imagining a mere twenty years ago, who are now doing it daily?
. . . and yet, people want it to be like a washing machine. Well, if you want a washing machine, go buy one.
I want one that will tumble dry automatically if the internet weather report says that I can't hang 'em out to dry.
---or is that making 'em too complicated??!
Microsoft has the great idea of hooking your refridgerator, stove, microwave ect. to the internet so they can keep track of what you eat when and "allow" you to have your appliances order food for you. Or hadn't you heard? This is true! Talk about scary! If the general public embraces this the next generation of hackers could be sending you posoined food not just posoined e-mail! Don't you just Love technology usedor the wrong purposes!
I've met a few of those EU's right here as well.
I've yet to see en EU throw Ice, Liquor & mix into a Maytag.
I supose it could happen though, the spin cycle could make a great blender......even a cement mixer!
Your right.........we've come a looong way from (In my case anyway) DOS 3.
I've yet to see en EU throw Ice, Liquor & mix into a Maytag.
I supose it could happen though, the spin cycle could make a great blender......even a cement mixer!
Your right.........we've come a looong way from (In my case anyway) DOS 3.
And it worked. So why do we have cell phones that do everything short of cooking breakfast? Because that's what people (particularly young ones) want. I hate the buggers but they are here to stay.
Was the rotary phone more secure? Absolutely, but people want VOIP even though 911 doesn't work. Companies want to sell new products for the $, people want to buy the new products for the ?, and when enough folks have the new products then those who don't want it feel like they have to have it...or sometimes need it to compete. Simplicity unfortunately is not what we always want. If it was we'd live like the quakers. If you are going to blame Microsoft for the PC, then blame IBM for the Mainframe, NASA for its innovations, maybe Edison for starting all this in the first place.
Was the rotary phone more secure? Absolutely, but people want VOIP even though 911 doesn't work. Companies want to sell new products for the $, people want to buy the new products for the ?, and when enough folks have the new products then those who don't want it feel like they have to have it...or sometimes need it to compete. Simplicity unfortunately is not what we always want. If it was we'd live like the quakers. If you are going to blame Microsoft for the PC, then blame IBM for the Mainframe, NASA for its innovations, maybe Edison for starting all this in the first place.
Two thoughts.
The unnecessary complexity and changing of basic features in MS products helps support the concept of Microsoft Certification. This is a powerful economic driver in our society. Fix Windows and the country will crumble.
If you want usability, hire architects and librarians to develop the standards - specialists trained in how people interact with their environment and retrieve data.
I still use Mac OS 8.6 and spend zero(!) time playing admin except for rebuilding the desktop(2 minutes)a month.
The unnecessary complexity and changing of basic features in MS products helps support the concept of Microsoft Certification. This is a powerful economic driver in our society. Fix Windows and the country will crumble.
If you want usability, hire architects and librarians to develop the standards - specialists trained in how people interact with their environment and retrieve data.
I still use Mac OS 8.6 and spend zero(!) time playing admin except for rebuilding the desktop(2 minutes)a month.
If you're not one of thos people, don't buy a computer.
To continue the car analogy:
someone posted about how they are selling 200 mph cars to 75 mph (max) users.
during my last tenure in the software industry, i saw enormous pressure to build new 'bells and whistles' to either: a)sell an upgrade, or b)maintain the image of 'industry leader', because the competition added same.
it really comes down to the user. if they want to buy new crap because it's shinier than the last release, there will always be someone to sell it to them.
i personally have problems working for such an outfit, but i have done it in the past to make the mortgage payment. i guess i'm not alone.
someone posted about how they are selling 200 mph cars to 75 mph (max) users.
during my last tenure in the software industry, i saw enormous pressure to build new 'bells and whistles' to either: a)sell an upgrade, or b)maintain the image of 'industry leader', because the competition added same.
it really comes down to the user. if they want to buy new crap because it's shinier than the last release, there will always be someone to sell it to them.
i personally have problems working for such an outfit, but i have done it in the past to make the mortgage payment. i guess i'm not alone.
Out of all these years and computers still complicate enough to have a job on our desks everyday.
But to elaborate more on that is because of innovation and new bells and whitles technology is re inventing itself everyday.
And because we are on these field we learn it faster and undertand it better than a regular user.
By the way most of us will not be able to do the things our clients do for living so to each it's own.
We are not better .... we are just good at what we do!!
But to elaborate more on that is because of innovation and new bells and whitles technology is re inventing itself everyday.
And because we are on these field we learn it faster and undertand it better than a regular user.
By the way most of us will not be able to do the things our clients do for living so to each it's own.
We are not better .... we are just good at what we do!!
I agree wholeheartedly that computing is getting too complicated, as it takes so much of my spare time to keep abreast of my own field without too much dabbling in the plethora of other IT fields.
As a web designer, I need very little of the complicated software available; indeed, I could work quite well even without a network, which is sometimes inaccessable anyway. We have the newest Norton Antivirus which when used to scan a single file returns a notice saying "No Viruses or Threats found" (words to that effect)and then goes on to list the number of scanned files as 0.
Unfortunately I have no time to work out if this anomoly is a glitch in the code or a possible security problem. My last interraction with NAV's knowledge base left me scratching my head.
Apart from our productive software, a 100% basic, no frills OS plus a Firewall and Antivirus and a comprehensive Antispy program, coupled with secure networking are possibly all that many of us require to earn our daily bread, since I for one rarely use more than this anyway. Most of XPs frills are wasted on me and simply require RAM that could have been used more productively.
tarun.
As a web designer, I need very little of the complicated software available; indeed, I could work quite well even without a network, which is sometimes inaccessable anyway. We have the newest Norton Antivirus which when used to scan a single file returns a notice saying "No Viruses or Threats found" (words to that effect)and then goes on to list the number of scanned files as 0.
Unfortunately I have no time to work out if this anomoly is a glitch in the code or a possible security problem. My last interraction with NAV's knowledge base left me scratching my head.
Apart from our productive software, a 100% basic, no frills OS plus a Firewall and Antivirus and a comprehensive Antispy program, coupled with secure networking are possibly all that many of us require to earn our daily bread, since I for one rarely use more than this anyway. Most of XPs frills are wasted on me and simply require RAM that could have been used more productively.
tarun.
I love the "installing things on car" analogy. We don't let people mess with our cars but we seem to be unable to stop people from messing with our computers.
I just had a trojan/rootkit & it has killed
some of the joy of computers. I've always tried to keep up & usually find myself helping
others which is ok too. I'm very often way ahead of people sitting on help desks. Usually I enjoy learning all I can. It's getting to be too much tho when coupled with things I want to learn to further my own intersts & business.
What I hate is updates, fixes, programs I have to have just to get online. Now before my security prog expires a new one is out & mine is not only "not mine" but it's becoming obsolete before the license expires. So much for updates! I have Internet security/firewall, anti-virus, adware & spyware. One spyware will not catch all so we should be running several--All the spyware is great except that they don't necessarily remove the problem. Ok so find it & get rid of it. Of course some spyware won't show the real name of the problem or its location.
Without that info how do we really know if they are just saying the computer has been invaded so we'll buy it?
I'm avid on updating & maintenance so how did the trojan get on my system? Something installed it without my permission that's how. Or made me think it was something else....ah trojan yes, that is what the word means eh?
Besides the time spent learning, keeping up & buying programs to secure my computer is expensive & time consuming. Once a week updates are history. Now we need updates daily. Even that will do only so much. We need to be able to keep others from installing stuff, embedding tracking without our being aware. Phishing - be aware & don't open it. But installing stuff secretly is unexcusable & it's done all the time.
No one cares because security programs make money. Like marketing new stuff over fixes.
Now I have to learn more about security & networking when I'd rather be learning more about audio so that I can have fun & make some money. Besides networking hates me. I'm no good at it. It's supposed to be so easy.
Learning for me began long ago. I imagine that must be true for some of you too. However for people who are relatively new to computing & who don't even know some of the basics is it really any wonder that they don't want to get into all the upkeep etc.
What began as fun & adventure now requires so much time that it's like having another full time job. Ok, I'll quit ranting & go defrag.
Appliances? Oh yeah, gotta have those cause with all this there is NO time for cooking or cleaning.
I just had a trojan/rootkit & it has killed
some of the joy of computers. I've always tried to keep up & usually find myself helping
others which is ok too. I'm very often way ahead of people sitting on help desks. Usually I enjoy learning all I can. It's getting to be too much tho when coupled with things I want to learn to further my own intersts & business.
What I hate is updates, fixes, programs I have to have just to get online. Now before my security prog expires a new one is out & mine is not only "not mine" but it's becoming obsolete before the license expires. So much for updates! I have Internet security/firewall, anti-virus, adware & spyware. One spyware will not catch all so we should be running several--All the spyware is great except that they don't necessarily remove the problem. Ok so find it & get rid of it. Of course some spyware won't show the real name of the problem or its location.
Without that info how do we really know if they are just saying the computer has been invaded so we'll buy it?
I'm avid on updating & maintenance so how did the trojan get on my system? Something installed it without my permission that's how. Or made me think it was something else....ah trojan yes, that is what the word means eh?
Besides the time spent learning, keeping up & buying programs to secure my computer is expensive & time consuming. Once a week updates are history. Now we need updates daily. Even that will do only so much. We need to be able to keep others from installing stuff, embedding tracking without our being aware. Phishing - be aware & don't open it. But installing stuff secretly is unexcusable & it's done all the time.
No one cares because security programs make money. Like marketing new stuff over fixes.
Now I have to learn more about security & networking when I'd rather be learning more about audio so that I can have fun & make some money. Besides networking hates me. I'm no good at it. It's supposed to be so easy.
Learning for me began long ago. I imagine that must be true for some of you too. However for people who are relatively new to computing & who don't even know some of the basics is it really any wonder that they don't want to get into all the upkeep etc.
What began as fun & adventure now requires so much time that it's like having another full time job. Ok, I'll quit ranting & go defrag.
Appliances? Oh yeah, gotta have those cause with all this there is NO time for cooking or cleaning.
I think the article hit it right on the head - things really can be too complicated these days, especially on Windows (I don't know about Linux; not my area of expertise yet).
I would love to see a bare-bones, stripped-down, locked-up version of Windows available. Something that could be installed on a box and gives very basic access. Something I could install on client machines that would prevent them from unintentionally doing something that opens them up for problems.
I can see two problems with that, though. First, most users would not be comfortable having to call an IT pro to install everything. They would rather take their chances that the Google toolbar is safe and install it themselves than wait three days for me to be able to drive out there and get it installed for them.
Second, many applications these days (the ones people are used to using) would probably not function very well in said environment. I know of specific industry applications in widespread use today that require admin access to the machines. ADMIN access - that's just poor programming. While that's okay if I'M the one operating the machine (not really thrilled with it, but I can deal with it) it is NOT okay when I have folks running those computers that are not at all IT-aware. And, as you can expect, I make regular trips to repair things that have gone south out there.
Is there a solution to those two problems? Absolutely. Maybe there's an "approved application" list that can be created by the IT pro that will give the user the right to install certain applications without having to call the IT pro out. That works okay until someone figures out how to hack it or a great new app that someone just HAS to try appears and the IT pro hasn't had time to test it properly.
As for a solution to the software issues, I'm not sure. In the long run maybe there is a solution, but I don't think there's a short-term answer to it. People are not going to stop using these applications unless there is an alternative. And even then (because there are alternatives today) most folks (companies included) are not willing to invest the upfront time in making the switch because for most apps it WILL be painful.
I would love to see a bare-bones, stripped-down, locked-up version of Windows available. Something that could be installed on a box and gives very basic access. Something I could install on client machines that would prevent them from unintentionally doing something that opens them up for problems.
I can see two problems with that, though. First, most users would not be comfortable having to call an IT pro to install everything. They would rather take their chances that the Google toolbar is safe and install it themselves than wait three days for me to be able to drive out there and get it installed for them.
Second, many applications these days (the ones people are used to using) would probably not function very well in said environment. I know of specific industry applications in widespread use today that require admin access to the machines. ADMIN access - that's just poor programming. While that's okay if I'M the one operating the machine (not really thrilled with it, but I can deal with it) it is NOT okay when I have folks running those computers that are not at all IT-aware. And, as you can expect, I make regular trips to repair things that have gone south out there.
Is there a solution to those two problems? Absolutely. Maybe there's an "approved application" list that can be created by the IT pro that will give the user the right to install certain applications without having to call the IT pro out. That works okay until someone figures out how to hack it or a great new app that someone just HAS to try appears and the IT pro hasn't had time to test it properly.
As for a solution to the software issues, I'm not sure. In the long run maybe there is a solution, but I don't think there's a short-term answer to it. People are not going to stop using these applications unless there is an alternative. And even then (because there are alternatives today) most folks (companies included) are not willing to invest the upfront time in making the switch because for most apps it WILL be painful.
A lot of that can be done easily with any unixy OS, like Linux. For instance, if the user doesn't have the root password, he can install software in his user directory but not anywhere else, and only software that doesn't have to hook itself into the system processes to work, thus ensuring that the user can't screw the entire computer up by installing something.
Anything the user does without the root password can affect only the stuff in his user directory. With most major Linux distributions, getting security patches can be automated to occur behind the scenes so that, even if the user doesn't have root privileges to run security patch fetching himself, it will still happen without a technician's intervention.
Anything the user does without the root password can affect only the stuff in his user directory. With most major Linux distributions, getting security patches can be automated to occur behind the scenes so that, even if the user doesn't have root privileges to run security patch fetching himself, it will still happen without a technician's intervention.
...it still depends on programmers (or, more precisely, the folks that make the decisions as to what's acceptable) to program things that don't require system processes. And it ultimately comes back to us users - if we accept this as being OK we're not helping.
I've just started to seriously get in to Linux, somewhat as a result of a number of threads I've stuck my nose into. It is a very nice OS, although I'm having to dig up old bash knowledge that I had long since forgotten to get around in some of them.
I've just started to seriously get in to Linux, somewhat as a result of a number of threads I've stuck my nose into. It is a very nice OS, although I'm having to dig up old bash knowledge that I had long since forgotten to get around in some of them.
recent article had them putting in house PCs w/ windows OS in flash, no hd (conx to in house server for HD). reduces maintenance costs a great deal, and trips to end users PCs.
they thought was such a great idea are going to sell them.
they thought was such a great idea are going to sell them.
Same thing. I've known lots of EU's who loved them for e-mail and web browsing. I wouldn't like it cause it relies on someonelse always maintaining my letters, picures, etc. for me. With no way for me personally to back it up or keep it if I decided to change service providers. This puts more faith in a faceless utility than my personal trust level can handle.
These Hitachi units sound more like Terminal Services or Thin Client units which are more likely to be used in a business environment rather than in the home. These can reduce hardware costs and as all data is stored on a server it also simplifies backups.
I too have often wondered why Microsoft has kept adding more bells and whistles to their software when the same software is full of holes and bugs. I currently still run Windows 98. This OS stills crashes often on me forcing reboots every three or four days, and sometimes three times in a row before it stabilizes itself. Windows 3.1 NEVER crashed on me and I ran that for about 4 years before up(down?)grading to Windows 98. The Next move will be to Windows XP and, for me anyway, that seems to be an even scarier proposition. I honestly don't believe that OS is any better than the one I have now, just bigger with more bugs. I will be looking at other OS's (Mac and Linux) as they seem much more stable.
Why can't Bill Gates secure the code for his current OS before adding more bugs (features)to his OS?
Why can't Bill Gates secure the code for his current OS before adding more bugs (features)to his OS?
Microsoft adds "features" rather than fixes to its OSes because features sell and fixes don't. It's pretty much that simple. You can market a feature, but marketing a fix just makes you look inept.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
