Re: [GNU-linux-libre] I can also bring tons of examples to illustrate a point, even big data, 3D, and cake (was Re: 10 minutes, and uzbl browser became usable)

[Jean Louis]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 05:31:48PM +0100, hellekin wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 02:57 PM, Zlatan Todoric wrote:
> > 
> > The only one treating users dumb here is you and your pal.
> >
> 
> I think you misread an posted in anger, Zlatan.  Matt first mentioned
> that "users are not dumb", but that's besides the point.  The point, and
> I agree with you on that one, is that indeed, a computer user shouldn't
> have to learn how computers work to use them, like a car driver doesn't
> have to learn how cars work to drive them.

Thank you for your opinion.

That is contrary to all what I know about the driving
schools. Learners of driving are learning how the engines work, and
this and that, so that they become able to make small repairs. Don't
know in other countries, I have seen it in Germany that way.

A computer is doing what? Computing. So people are buying it to
compute, they shall get offered "computing resources". 

If they are only buying it to be spectators, like videos, music, some
communication, Internet browsing (reading), letters (it's not much of
computing), that is really, mildly said, not advancing them, not
empowering them.

A computer shall empower the user to compute, just the car is
empowering the user to transport somewhere.

If computer is converted to the passive role, like it is converted now
and today in mass, people are actually not getting smarter from
there. They are limited in creation.

In that case, a computer, shall not be presented as computer, but
rather as Smart TV -- this is more proper. You know what to expect,
and there is no need to think of operating systems. Operating what?

A spectator does not need more than a remote to operate a TV. That is
his operating system.

Either it is Smart Radio or Smart TV, or Smart Phone, those are all
computers keeping people dumb, to sell them more of the proprietary
stuff.

We had radio, and only radio, then we got some vynil, then we got some
TVs, and finally we have got computers.

Now we are going back to time, let us have a TV, just it is Smart TV,
Smart Radio, Smart Vynil.

Computers are for computing, TVs are for spectators.

> I was quite terrified to see that a young man from the smartphone
> generation in front of a text-only Web site with 'obvious' links would
> be confused not to find any *button* to click.
> 
> It's not that he's stupid, it's that he made a habit of clicking buttons
> to use a computer.  That indeed informs your mind to use this or that
> interface.

I see there the large corporations shaping the behavior of mass
population.

> People shouldn't have to learn how computers work

Sorry, I think so much contrary. If you say "computer", people should
learn how it works, including understanding the binary system and
decimal system and some basics of computing. Computer is for
computing, so people shall learn computing, and not just being guided
into the TV/radio analogy. That is all the problem with the today's
computing.

When I say "should" I don't certainly think "coerced" -- I think they
shall have the PRIMARY OPPORTUNITY to learn and apply computing on a
computer. Just like the programming languages in old times were
built-in in small computers, the programming language should be the
first that appears anywhere soon when computer starts, and users shall
be faced with it. Only this way, one gives them true computing
opportunity. It should be their choice to decide further what they
want. Opportunity should be there.

Treating users as nothing else but Smart TV spectators is really not
empowering them (trying to be nice, not to say making them dumb).

We were learning basics of computing in the school, and we
benefited. So everybody should benefit. With 8 years I was faced with
basics of computer programming, through a children's book, and I did
not have a computer. We had to think about the solution, and to wait
for the next issue to see the answer. It is finally not hard to teach
someone what it means GOTO, PRINT, or basic mathematical
operations. Isn't it? That is what children learn with 7-8 years
already. 

And the teacher I knew, in the elementary school where he worked, he
was teaching children on how computers work, why are they made, and
what is programming. I have seen it with my own eyes. Elementary
school children have got basics of programming in their heads.

Education is basis of every society. Those countries with computing
education have most programmers and better computing awareness.

So back to Free System Distributions, I would not allow endorsement,
even I have no powers there, if the system distribution is treating
users as Smart TV/Radio/Phone users. That is not distribution of
"software", it is more provision of utilization of software. It limits
users to learn and does not give them opportunities to create.

Jean Louis