Clay
Your post made me think. For me it was the opposite: I am an excellent programmer and can think algorithmically and read almost any code and understand what it is doing (except for some that addresses hardware directly)...But the point you made me think about is: what makes some people unable to see and understand how code and computer stuff works? For some reason I can play around with computers, even Windoze ones and get them to work or figure out what is wrong
-- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, Clayton Bonser <clay@...> wrote:
>
> Apart from the migrating Windows users, there's another reason for all
> that gooyfication being a good thing.
>
> Way back in the stone age, I had access to a Commodore vic-20. I found
> it a lot of fun. There was very little software available. You largely
> had to write your own. The machine came with a book on how to write
> little programs in basic. It had examples of how a command would work,
> then invited the would-be programmer to experiment to see what would
> happen when various parameters were changed.
> I quickly was writing little programs to do a lot of stuff. Even was
> considering home automation.
> Then I decided to join the big boys and got an Epson QX-10. It ran on
> CP/M, had all of 512Kb of ram, and came with some really thick spiral
> bound books on how the operating system worked. Here ended the adventure
> into writing to make computers do stuff.
> You see, I have real difficulties with some kinds of abstract thinking.
> Having a book full of what you may do, without any hints as to why one
> might even want to was the killer. Routines I opened off the floppy
> disks were so complex I couldn't fathom what was going on. The way I
> learn is by watching and doing with my hands. Not being able to see
> what's happening "behind the scenes" is the greatest stumbling block. If
> only there was a book that took one through programming in machine
> language that didn't assume you already knew what the book was intended
> to teach.
> Anyway, I kept the Epson until DOS morphed into Windows 3.X. By then
> things were apparently so complex I just threw my hands up and said
> enough. I'll just go with what's being written by them who get it.
> When I came to Linux, it was though Red Hat at about 6.5. I learned to
> do a lot of things, mainly to be patient with R.P.M.s. Dependencies!
> Yikes.
> I could do a fair bit of stuff because I had friends who showed me how,
> and explained what was happening. Over time I got pretty confident. Now
> I'm afraid it's all gone. Case of use it or loose it. Being able to
> point and click means I don't ever look a man pages any more.
> And I'm so glad. Struggling to dredge up from memory some process not
> well understood was a pain. So was trying to decipher cryptic words on
> what a command may provoke. We arithmetical dummies want to play
> computers too. It's just that we don't get what's going on easily, if at
> all. Anyway, all the front end stuff, with pretty windows and colours
> (other than green in two shades) makes using a computer possible for
> many folks who would just get left behind without. Even if it isn't
> true, graphics feels like a great equaliser. GUI's help reduce what
> would be another large social divide.
>
> So, briefly, my likes and dislikes about Linux. (Not going to be distro
> specific here.)
> Like:
> When things don't go as expected, there's almost always help in places
> like this. All manner of issues can be resolved because one has access
> to those who, to extend the car analogy, know what's going on under the
> bonnet.
> Dislike:
> Too many projects look and feel really amateurish. Often documentation
> is obsolete, incomplete or almost non-existent. I understand that so
> much is done by just your Joe Ordinary, but even so. As the poster in
> the toilet says- "The job's not over 'till the paperwork's done". It
> can't look good to someone from Windows-world trying to get some buggy
> software to run, only to find that the associated web site is awful to
> look at and contains nothing current or useful.
>
> There you have it. My ramble for the month.
>
> Clay.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment