[Tfug] 2 weeks of Hackintosh fun..

[Bexley Hall]

--- On Mon, 11/10/08, Claude Rubinson <rubinson at u.arizona.edu> wrote:

> So, when I do get roped into helping somebody out, I often can't fix
> the problem either and I assume that it's because I don't know the
> system very well.  What seems to happen, however, is that, while
> they're frustrated, they're also relieved. It's as if my inability to
> complete the task validates their frustration.  Where they were
> blaming themselves, now they can say (and, indeed, have said) "I'm
> glad it's not just me."  Somehow, the proprietary software companies
> have taught their customers that they (the customers) are
> incompetent, that they are to blame.

I think most users are not "comfortable" with their computers
and/or many other hi-tech appliances that they own.  They don't
invest any time trying to *learn* about the technology, the
applications, etc.  They just want it to "work" for them.

This is analagous to how most people treat their vehicles -- they
just get in, turn the ignition and stomp on the accelerator.  Sure,
they know there's an engine under the hood.  And a gas tank 
"somewhere back there".  If they thought REAL HARD they might
come to the realization that the gasoline uses air (O2) to burn
the fuel.  And, if they think even harder, that an ignition
source (spark plug) is needed to "light the fire".

Yet, when the car doesn't start, they never run through that
mental checklist:
- fuel
- air
- spark
to gain any insight into why it isn't "turning over".  ("C'mon,
the guy you're going to bring the vehicle to for service is
probably no smarter than *you* are!  Why not *try* to figure
out what's wrong...?")

Years ago, I was chatting with a woman who worked at same firm
as I.  After some time, she asked me "How long should this machine
take to boot up?"  (this is the era of CP/M and 8" frisbies)  Of
course, I knew *anything* could boot in the time we had been
chatting so I cautiously asked:  "How long have you been waiting?"

[floppie was inserted 90 degrees out of phase]

She had obviously booted *her* machine many times before.  Yet
never thought that "Gee, this is taking an awful long time... did
I do something wrong?"

OTOH, if you throw a load of clothes into the dryer and, 30 minutes
later, they aren't dry (despite hearing the dryer run and verifying
the settings), you *know* the dryer is broke!

People don't have that basic understanding of their technology.

> But when a peripheral doesn't work under Linux, though, it seems that
> Linux (or the distro) is to blame.
> 
> I'm curious as to the dynamics behind this.  Don's suggested that FOSS
> users are different than proprietary-software users (i.e., they'd
> understand why the hardware wouldn't run).

I don't think that is necessarily the case.  It's not that they
"understand" anything about the hardware/software.  Rather, they
are more *engaged* with the "machine" than "typical users" (whatever
*those* may be).  They *notice* how the machine typically responds
and notice when it responds differently.  (e.g., I suspect most
list readers can guesstimate how long their machine's take to
boot *without* ever having timed it!)

> But John's saying that his sister understands the issue and is
> still likely to blame Ubuntu/Linux
> rather than the vendor or Microsoft.  That seems curious to me.
> 
> I would suspect that John's sister would completely understand that a
> Mac-only printer wouldn't be expected to run under a Windows system.

Why?  What makes a printer a "Mac-only" printer in *her* eyes?
Is there something inherently different about putting ink on
paper for a Mac vs. PC?  At a gut level, a printer is a printer.
Its as if you are telling them that their automobile won't
work on even numbered avenues... (huh?)

> And I can understand a sentiment of "I've already bought this printer
> and I'd like it to work."  That's really no different than Shawn's
> observation that what keeps a lot of people from switching away from
> their proprietary systems is support for proprietary software.  But
> when a Windows-only printer doesn't run under Ubuntu, it reflects
> poorly on Ubuntu?  That seems odd.  And, yet, it does

Because the printer *does* work on Windows!

"I can read my CD's, floppies, etc.  There's nothing 'windows
specific' about them.  Why should my printer be any different?"

Unfortunately, you can't educate users "directly".  Most will
resist your effort as time that they don't have (to spare/waste).
I think things like the "look" of Macs (and their associated
peripherals, etc.) is intended not just to cosmetically
"match"/coordinate with the rest of the system but, also, to
subconciously reinforce "I *belong* with these other items.  I
will work *well* with them."

> reflect much of the sentiment that's out there (and that 
> we've seen in this thread).