BW )(: Call for Constructive Flaming

[bails]

Matthew Edmondson wrote:
>>> You might be bale to but the other 90% of the population can't hence  
>>> the thrust of the original analysis
>> I often rail against the myth of a need for a computer priesthood.
>> Also, I'm a statistician: what's the basis of that 90% claim?
>>
>> I've no special computer-fixing ability.  I've surprisingly little
>> formal education about computer hardware (pretty much none beyond
>> basic electrical safety IIRC).  I think more of my success with it
>> comes from being the son of a mechanic/builder/storesman/barman...
>> most people can learn and it's usually hard to break things badly, so
>> look up the basics (now easier than ever on the internet - I used to
>> make trips to the library much more often) and start experimenting!
>>
> 
> Right so it boils down to the bothered vs. cant be bothered
> 
> what gets me is that we (who can be bothered) are expected to support
> the IT needs of those who cant be bothered.
> 
> This is what Michelle's blog is about.  She tried, but found (amongst
> other things) that she cant be bothered anymore. This si the same with
> many NGO's they don't have the time to be bothered (as users or admins).
> 
> its also a key factor as to why Microsoft did so well.   They recognised
> this human trait and commercialised it.
> 
> thanks for the interesting discussion.
> 
> If there is anymore constructive to be had then I would welcome it.
> 
> Certainly Michelle blogged again after I  fed back to her.
> 
> http://www.zenofnptech.org/2008/06/what-software-freedom-means-to-me.html
> 
> So she knows the score and is being realistic.
> 
> In summary, to my mind, despite all the many wide ranging benefits, most
> folk cannot be bothered with it UNLESS they are very ethical and/or
> hackers/fiddlers.
> 
> Now how do i commercialise this understanding ;)

Easy! Label it as 'green' and you'll have every card carrying 
trustafarian, child of celebrity jumping straight on your wagon.

> 
> 

Bails