People say I rant too much. I complain and complain, but never seem to really like anything. As I promised a few weeks ago, I will talk about things I love about computers. After explaining why I like to complain and rant, this column will solely deal with fluffy bunnies, green meadows, blue skies, and shiny, happy people. I promise.
I complain because I do not care about computers. That may seem like a weird statement to make for someone who “does stuff” at one of the more geeky websites of the web, but let me explain.
Just as Eugenia often explained in her articles as well as on her blog: computers are tools. They are not a destination; they are means to an end. That end can be anything; from planning routes, to writing essays for university. From archiving and watching photos, to watching my favourite TV show on DVD (again, and again, and again, and…). I do not care about the computer itself; what I care about are the things I can do with it. In other words, when painting your house, do you care about the paintbrush, or the end result?
Hence my reason to complain. When you see your computer as just a stupid tool in order to get stuff done, it makes sense to complain about it as if it is a tool. Just like people complain about the remote if it is running out of batteries, just like people blaming the carton when they spill milk, just like people complaining about the knife when they cannot get something cut.
At one point (to be exact, season 1, roughly 30 minutes into episode 3) Mason in Dead Like Me says that he thinks computers will take over the world; Rube protests, saying that computers will never get smarter than human beings. Rube’s argument: “Yeah, when a computer loses it with a meter maid, or kills its self because it thinks it’s too fat; then I will believe in artificial intelligence.”
And I agree with him. Computers are simply not important enough to care about. That said, let’s get to the fluffy bunnies I promised you.
—
I love how using a Mac looks so good when everybody else in class is using clunky Dells. I love how Linux is Free. I love how for every problem, there’s a Windows application. I love BFS. I love Apple’s Exposé. I love GNOME’s ‘less is more’ attitude. I love how every pixel in KDE can be tweaked and adjusted. I love how Outlook 2003 and up have the perfect vertical preview pane. I love how Apple’s Keynote includes all these stunning transitions. I love how Linux lets me configure everything. I love Tracker and Deskbar. I love SLED 10 for giving me fancy eye-candy and effects without impacting performance. I love how Spotlight can double as an application launcher. I love how Office 2007 uses one of the best GUIs I have ever seen. I love how…
Forget it. You see how boring this is, and how ridiculous it sounds? Let us alter the above a bit for everyday tools. Because that is what a computer is.
I love how my remote control for my Sony receiver lets me switch inputs. I love how my glass holds my juice so perfectly. I love how my paintbrush is painting my doors red so well. I love how the key to my car fits so well in its ignition. I love how my bike changes gears so effortlessly. I love how…
I agree the above may seem like a stretch. However, it is what all this comes down to. Computers are tools, means to an end. Nothing more, nothing less.
I believe I broke my promise.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
But computers are tools in the plural for sure. One is good for this, other for that. One is built in China, the other in Japan, and another one in the USA. Just like there’s the splendid and shiny Swiss knife (set of tools) that almost everyone likes, but few really own one or remember to carry it on because you never really know when you are going to need it, computers that do everything that’s possible don’t really exist, and to make matters worse, as computers are really complex and are built and owned by so many people/companies, it’s beyond the simple desire to want to have Visual Studio.NET working on Linux, for example.
Sometimes, as I see it, users want computers that work like a Swiss knife, but they often need to settle down for a subset of it. And the funny thing is, that by applying a simpler mix and match, users can get a lot done with the individual tools. And one could think that tools that allow this mix and match are more valuable, though many folks don’t see such an appeal on Linux. Maybe they would prefer a supercomputer that’s a supermachine that does a lot of things like a Swiss knife would, but the downside of it is that the size of the manual would mean lots of reading, and we know that the need of reading is inversely proportional to how much one likes to use his tools.
Such figuratively speaking is rather too simple to represent anything in computers construction.
> And the funny thing is, that by applying a simpler mix
> and match, users can get a lot done with the individual
> tools. And one could think that tools that allow this
> mix and match are more valuable, though many folks
> don’t see such an appeal on Linux.
Anyone who owns a good (real) toolbox should like the idea. The advantage of Swiss Knives is that you can carry them around. I think the problem is not the basic idea, but rather how it’s applied. It’s hard and nonintuitive to use, creates artificial problems, and in general forces you to think about the tools so much that you lose your grip to the actual problem.
With real tools, you can easily hit a nail through two pieces of wood with a hammer, then use a saw to cut the wood into the right shape and mark spots on the wood with a ruler and a pen and finally make holes at these spots with a drill. The only thing to remember is where you put the tools.
With a computer, you first have to remember the name or position in a menu of all programs (analogous to where you put the tools). This is made much more complex than necessary: A hammer looks like a hammer, is called hammer and has the size of a hammer. On my Mac, the FTP client is called Cyberduck and looks like a yellow rubber duck. There is absolutely nothing that reminds me of the fact that it is an FTP client.
Then you have to combine these tools. The only mechanism I have seen so far that allows tools to be combined in *new* ways are pipes. To my knowledge, that means you first have to learn the command line, and the parameter interface of all applications you use. Secondly, how programs want to be piped varies from program to program. Third, they must use the same data format and even character encoding. The list goes on.
um, applescript & automator anyone?
…just like people blaming the carton when they spill milk
Pardon my interruption from the content itself, but people honestly do things like that?? Man… people need to find new things to complain about.
Moving on though, I honestly don’t see why so many people care about your writing. Granted, it’s rather analytical and can really pick apart things, but at least it gives you a good perspective on things. It beats having a review of something which just says that everything is perfect, because generally there are quirks to programs or devices. If somebody doesn’t say them, then you may end up sorely disappointed.
So, in general, I appreciate your writing Thom. As long as you write about the good things and the bad things, and in a positive mindset of “What could change to make this thing better” then I don’t really have an issue with how you write at all.
The Swiss Army Knife is not a tool. It is, rather, a container populated with tool substitutes. It has, perhaps, a screw driver bit, but not on the end of a proper screwdriver. You can turn screws with it in a pinch but you’re far more likely to strip them using a Victorinox knife than even a Craftsman screwdriver.
That’s the whole secret of “multi-tools” like the Swiss Army Knife or the Leatherman. They are a compromise kit of tool substitutes that are meant to be used occassionally but not to substitute for real tools. It’s ok for your average homeowner to only have a pair of pliers for the occasional nut he has to tighten but it makes no sense at all for a professional mechanic to have anything less than a full set of wrenches.
The problem with the ‘computer is a tool’ analogy is that computer software tends to be collections of multi-tools. So called ‘suites’ of general do-it-all-poorly-but-nothing-well applications.
The problem with Thom’s complaining, especially about the dying battery in his remote, is that complaining isn’t going to change anything. If you want the remote to work you gotta change the batteries.
If you want better software then you gotta stop complaining and offer constructive criticism. The trick is knowing the difference.
I can say “battery life sucks on this remote” and it’ll probably make me feel better, but it won’t make the remote work any better. Or I could suggest “maybe this remote could have a solar-powered recharger in it like my calculator.”
The later is going to get a lot more attention than the former.
Comparing the computer to a collection of Swiss Army knife tools isn’t appropriate. Here’s some examples:
* The word processor has all but relegated the once venerable typewriter to the technical junkyard of yesteryear.
* The spreadsheet is a far better tool running through redundant models than a caculator, slide rule or worse yet, good old pencil and paper.
* Before the computer, help me understand what you used to edit your pictures and home video. Did you see the recent movies that are fully digital? Could not have been done 10 years ago.
* Who would you allege that CADD is a swiss army knife collection of drafting tools? No serious industrial design is done by models or paper anymore.
In other cases you are 100% correct. For example, I still don’t get computer-based DVR’s like MythTV or Windows Media Center. TiVO kicks their pale arses in every which way imaginable. Who wants to spend a fortune on a PC that sux at recording TV and requires more effort than its worth. What a waste.
So the computer as a tool requires understanding what the tool is good at. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
To understand my point in more detail, I recommend
The Trouble with Computers: Usefulness, Usability, and Productivity
by Thomas K. Landauer
Most of what you’re hinting at is what we used to call raising the bar back when I still cared about how computers were used in business.
Here is my favorite personal example: 20 years ago, when I gave research presentations at conferences, I used handwritten slides presented on an overhead projector. They took about 20 minutes to prepare before a 90 minute presentation.
Then TeX came along and we switched to computer printed bullet slides. Then we got a color transparency printer and switched to color slides. Then we added fancy graphics making programs. Eventually along came presentation preparation tools like Impress and PowerPoint.
Now, a presentation of a certain amount of information still takes 90 minutes. But it can take two to three days to get all the collatoral material together, format the presentation, add the transition effects and so forth.
In 20 years, what have all those “tools” gained me? More work in setting up a presentation with absolutely no increase in the amount or quality of information I can present in a particular period of time.
Could we have done full digital animation films 20 years ago? Sure. Luxo Jr was released in 1986. Does being fullly digitally animated make a movie intrinsiclly better? Of course not. Attack of the Wererabbit is a much better film than many of the digital wow-fests.
Now let’s move on to your MythTV/TiVo comparison. What if I told you that for every application you named there could be a TiVo-like killer standalone tool that made the all-in-one stuff pale by comparison?
We were headed that way in the late 80s before “integrated” became a big buzzword and instead of following the model of ‘do one thing and do it well’ we got sidetracked into “oooh shiny”.
(By the way, the answer to your question about editing video: I was lucky. Twenty years ago I have access to an Avid(?) on-disk-edit system. It still blows the doors off what you can do with today’s all-in-one consumer products.)
You are right. There is an extraordinary perversity about the way computers have worked in business decision making.
It was common in industry 20 years ago for decisions to be based on closely written 5 page papers, distributed in advance to a committee; they were a combination of fact and argument. Does anyone really think that replacing them with 50 ppt bullet point slides has improved decision making? No, but making these slides has absorbed much of the time that formerly went into analysis.
20 years ago, business cases used to fit on a couple of pages, and the decision used to turn on arguments about whether the assumptions were reasonable, and in what scenarios they held. A broad range of alternatives was discussed. Does anyone think that huge spreadsheet models filled with macros and specifying relationships in enormous and incomprehensible detail for one particular case has improved the quality of argument about outcomes? No. It has made informed argument impossible by transforming business plans into multi-year accounting statements for imaginary enterprises. And their construction has taken all the time that formerly went into analysis.
It probably sounds Luddite, but my considered view after much experience is that the use of PowerPoint and Excel in the business planning process at large companies has become the main impediment, and a very effective one to both rational debate and quality decision making.
Serious advice: if you are ever in charge of a company, ban PowerPoint, and do not let any business case financials exceed one page. You’ll be amazed at how positive the effects are.
As a tool, the computer is superior to previous techniques, as I pointed out. Whether you apply it in a manner that affords such in your endeavors is anohter matter. The computer is not simply an invention that raises the bar, it provides a decidedly more powerful means to accomplish many tasks that were previously performed via other methods. You would ascribe such to “raising the bar” – which I take to mean – basically doing the same thing in a more aesthetic fashion.
Does Email “raise the bar” on snail mail?
I agree that there are times when the computer becomes a roadblock to productivity. The Internet is a two-edged sword in that respect. And many of us can spend more time in applications like project management than actually doing the work required of a project. This is not the fault of the computer raising the bar, this is the fault of the user not understanding how to apply it considering its current limitations. When such a circumstance arises, clearly common sense woudl suggest that you not abandon the previous, superior tool used for the task, which begs the question, why do you continue to struggle?
raising the bar is a phrase we used to use to describe this phenomena:
A company starts to use a new computer technique to solve an old problem. That gives them a slight advantage, so it is worth the overhead. Soon other companies start using the same technique. Eventually the playing field is level again, since all are now using the technique. In the net, new work has been added to accomplish the same goal but no new advantage has been achieved.
Why do I continue to struggle? Because, in the example of conference presentations, the PowerPoint slide presentation is the expected behavior. Showing up with anything less sophisticated costs credibility with the audience.
The computer is often not superior to previous methods. Rather, it merely changes where people expend their time. Writers or not better writers because they use computers than they were when they used typewriters. Movies are not better movies because they were made digitally instead of manually. Et cetera.
Here’s an intersting factoid about animation, by the way: It now takes longer and more people to animate a film than it did to animate an equivalent film in the 40s.
What computers tend to do is make one aspect of a job easier, at the expense of other aspects. If you focus on that single aspect, you conclude “computers make better tools”, but if you step back and look at the job that needs to be done, you conclude “computers make more complication”.
The problem here is the “computers can fit any shape hole” mentality, though. A similar attitude is pervasive at the attitude that every classroom must have a computer, and every student must have one, without anyone clearly defining “why.” This was one of Cliff Stoll’s points in the 1990s.
I don’t know why it has become so complicated to use computers when they either save time or increase value, and not use them when they don’t. But that problem is generally caused by people who insist on the use of computers because “its what everyone else is doing” without really taking a step back – and I don’t know that these are the computer geeks doing this.
So, quick poll for all of you – how many people here who consider themselves “computer people” like/enjoy Powerpoint? How many of you are sick of looking at it and would almost rather eat glass than make a powerpoint presentation?
I’ll raise my hand.
I don’t know why it has become so complicated to use computers when they either save time or increase value, and not use them when they don’t.
That’s “raising the bar” at work. When the first guy finds a way that increases value, it works for him for a while, but then his competitors catch up by using the same way. So now they’re back to square one in terms of value, but they’ve all gotten stuck having to do things the new way.
The seductive trap of ‘increased value’ is that in a competitive environment using a new tool only increases value until the tool becomes widely used, and then it moves from being a differentiator to something everyone has to do.
Hey, I’m a computer person. I use text editors, not presentation software. ;-)_
Thanks for your perspective on this. It sounds like you’ve been at this computer game a bit longer than me! As to the animation quality of today’s digital films versus those of the 40’s, I sugest you see the new movie Cars. It does not matter how old you are. Good stuff!
Incidentally, one aspect of computers that really kills me is the need to keep current with the latest technology and developments. As a semi-professional developer (I use it to strengthen my ChemEng background), it really demands a lot of time before you can achieve anything remotely productive. Developers always complain about this I suppose. Things have gotten too complex.
Developers always complain about this I suppose. Things have gotten too complex.
The industry has gone through a couple of cycles of growing complexity followed by a turning-away to simplicity. The minicomputer “revolution” was such a turning away. The wide spread adoption of Unix was another. Unfortunately, that seems to have been the last, and I don’t see another one on the near horizon.
One of the downsides of the OSS movement is that it tends to increase complexity rather than foster simplicity, although I’m not sure why that’s true.
Not really. Politically speaking I suppose the babbling bazaar is definitely complex, but it’s all based on a simple “do it yourself if you want it done” sort of principle, and of course “share it with others when you’re done.”
I’d say there was another shift to simplicity: Java. Work with a C++ programmer for an hour, ask him about his favorite features and then a Java programmer. I think you’ll see the difference.
I see some things in c# though which lead me to think it really is a c++ successor (which was not the successor to c btw) in that there’s always a new featured tacked on around the corner. Not that they’re bad or causing uneeded complexity because I don’t use it to know; and the same sorts of addons exist for Java, as addons.
Things like Python are probably also a looking to simplicity. Heavily relying on SQL for data definitions may be as well.
Maybe there’s a shorter, smaller, cycle that you’re missing and you’re only seeing the big revolutions?
Well, you’ve completely lost me. C++ is more complex than C was, and grows in complexity each cycle through the standards process. C# is hardly a simple language, and Java’s growth is an exercise in adding cruft.
There may be a shorter, smaller, cycle, but it’s sure not to be found in programming language evolution.
…computers are tools. They are not a destination; they are means to an end.
I guess that’s the real issue that I have with the editors of this site. Although OSNews has its fair share of trolls, people that frequent sites like this are generally at least a little more techinically inclined than your average joe. There are even some pretty geeky (and by that I mean smart) people that post on OSNews. We love computers. We don’t just use them as tools. We are fascinated by them. We want to know the ins and outs of all kinds of different operating systems, programming languages, frameworks, compilers, etc. We come to this site to learn and comment about developments in computer science. To us simply labeling computers tools is like telling an engine builder that engines are just tools, and while they may be to most people, they are much more than that to him.
You’re being awfully free with the ‘royal’ we there. I consider my computer a tool. It doesn’t stop me from playing with it to see what i can make using it. But I don’t attach any more intrinsic value to the computer itself than a carpenter does to a lathe (for example).
We come to this site to learn and comment about developments in computer science
I’m sure every professional who cares for their work wants to keep abrest of, and discuss, developments to the tools of their trade.
Computers aren’t tools: they’re meta-tools. For starters, they contain other tools, even multi-tools as Cloudy has noted. The big difference is how they can easily add new tools/multi-tools, the depth and usefulness of these tools (compared to, say, the proverbial hammer) and how they are now involved in the prodcution of pretty much every other tool out there…So they are not tools, as such, but the most advanced tools of our times (as far as versatility goes).
Computers are also unique in that they are not only tools to help us be productive, they are also entertainment devices that help us procrastinate and relax. So computers aren’t just tools, but toys as well.
Many people use computers as storage devices, a place to keep records, photos, old essays, pr0n, etc. I wouldn’t consider a storage device a tool. A tool involves active work, which isn’t necessarily true for a storage device. A photo album isn’t a tool, and it’s not a toy, but yet that’s a computer can be.
Many people, not just geeks, have special affections for their computers as physical objects, “artefacts” if you will. This is especially true for Mac and/or laptop owners. So computers are not just tools, toys and storage, but objects of style as well. I don’t care much for it myself, but thousands of marketing people would disagree with me.
I agree with abraxas. I think that while it’s normal that non-techie users don’t have to be passionate about this very interesting field, I also think it’s good that there are people who are passionate about it, otherwise we wouldn’t have the Internet as we know it today, and there wouldn’t be a Sunday rant for us to comment on. 😉
I also didn’t mind hearing about all the things you like about various OSes. I don’t see why the tone always has to be confrontational. Sometimes it’s just cool to be enthusiastic about some Operating System news…
So, as a change of pace, I didn’t find it boring. Maybe you could alternate rants and praises? 🙂
Edited 2006-07-02 23:14
This is the most worthless and stupid article I have ever read.
You lose.
Good day sir.
Computers are tools. That’s it. They aren’t a lifestyle. If they are then the person has an addiction problem.
They aren’t a lifestyle.
tell that to all those mac owners out there
Computers are tools. That’s it. They aren’t a lifestyle. If they are then the person has an addiction problem.
The way your computer works, influences the way you do a lot of things.
Or, vice versa, peoples choose computer & OSes in according to their lifestyles.
Any tool we use is part of our lifestyle.
If we go to work with bus or train or car, is part of our lifestyle.
If we take notes on a piece of paper or on a modern PDA is part of our lifestyle.
If we eat at McDonalds or at an Italian restaurant, is part of our lifestyle.
And so on.
So, since computers covers more and more of our life, i think that stating that “computers are lifesyle” is not completely wrong.
(Not saying here that this is good or bad at all)
I live in a house with 3 rooms including the bathroom. I do not think I am the exception here. The fact that I bought a *pretty* *silver* *shiny* small shuttle. Is not because its a better tool than any dell or whitebox. In fact as its starting to get long in the tooth a large spacious, unbranded box is what I would like.
In my house the computer is part of the furniture. Its in my living space. How it *looks* and how much space it takes up is more important than it is as a tool.
Thom,
If all you see a computer for is a tool, I think you need to find a new job. You can’t be enjoying your position at OSNews.
desNotes
I think computers are more than just a tool. Computers are rapidily becoming part of our life. They are becoming a gateway to new cultures, paradigms and societies. Believe it or not, more and more people are spending an obscene amount of time with their computers, especially the younger generation. I won’t be surprised if a decade from now, we’d be handicapped without computers. I foresee more intimate relationships with these tools we call computers in the future. I also foresee a future where “programming” will be a core requirement in educational institutions, just like Mathematics and English/Native languages are today. But for us, geeks, hackers and programmers, we all know computers are more than just a tool, they are means of eloquent expression. Computers blend art, science, philosophy and religion into one phenominal mass. A “tool” is a term I’d ascribes to a mechanical device like a hammer, or lever system. However, I wouldn’t call the genius of billions of transitors that spans several fields of human knowledge, a tool. A computer is a tool alright, but a different breed of tool. It’s a tool that evokes intelligence. I think we may just have been spoilt by the convience computers provide us to categorize it as “just another tool.”
why toolbox?
becuase the real tools are the software.
however, unlike normal tools, that you can use maybe one or two of at a time (depending on their task and size), your expected now to use multiple tools at the same time.
for this reason, there have been developed this elaborate interaction metaphor called the desktop.
this is i think the desktop itself should go away for a more simple toolbox metaphor.
however, some elements should be retained.
like all good tools, you can put it aside when you dont need it, but maybe put it within near reach if you expect to need it soon again. therefor a “task switcher” is needed still.
however, the tools should take second stage to the task you want to do. if you want to edit a image inside a document, you should be able to highlight the image and select edit. then you could be presented with a list of tools for the task, with either the last used or the default allready focused.
when your done and put the tool away, the changes would be saved and put into the document you worked on, and the document would pop back up onto the screen so you can continue to work on it.
in many ways you would build yourself a task-tree. ie, the image edit would be a sub-task of the document edit task. kinda like a mother and child prosess. as long as a sub-task was open you would not be able to close a higher task. therefor you still have a indication about the tasks are linked. one may even go as far as saying that if you unfocus a sub-task you unfocus the whole task-tree.
ok, so there are tools that dont fit into this task system that well, like say a calculator or a im session. however, a calculator could be a sub-task to any task out there. if you need to calculate something, you most often need to insert it into some document or similar. so when you end the calculator task you can insert the result, or optionaly the whole formula, into the document you started the calculator task in.
some im programs that i have interacted with lately have the ability to run multiple tabs. so rather then having say one window for each contact, you have tabs inside a single im task
same with browser, there the tabs have allready gotten hold.
this way one can break the tools down into smaller parts. they will still come packaged as whole kits (office software and similar).
so the computer becomes a toolbox, and then you fill it with diffrent tools. but still the primary focus should be the task, not the box or its tools.
the task switcher of today is wrongly named. its a tool switcher, not a task switcher. a single task can have multiple tools on the “task switcher” when a heavy duty user is in action.
this way we allso avoid the problem of the “lost” dialog window, and new windows jumping on top of old ones. the only way two or more “windows” Should be on screen at the same time is if you divide the screen between them. no overlap, no dialog box being lost under a inresponsive main window.
the dialog box would instead bit the top most sub-task of the task tree
and as sub-tasks have to be related to the main task, you cant just put a email task on top of a rendering task unless you want to send said render file to someone. alltho a better way to do that would be to not fire up the render tool at all but rather the email tool and then select the file as and attachment. and when looking for an attachment you get the same file tool that you allways get.
so lets say you want to visualy compare to files.
open them up in their own tasks and split the screen between said tasks.
Depending on the user, saying a computer is just a “tool” has many different connotations Craftsmen (or should I say Craftspersons) are very selective of their tools, often having a number of similar tools for vatious jobs. Many will modify and customize some specific tools. They do love and care for their tools, and at times will be frustrated with some of them. When they look for new tools, rants are of little value. Objectivity is far more important.
Thom, your writing is really quite good, although I find at times you lack some historical perspective on various topics, and occaisionally your focus is a bit narrow, but you do stimulate discussion.
It is reasonable to think that “computers are simply not important enough to care about.” That’s fine. I wish Thom would realize that others can feel differently. To some people, computers are a passion. To others, literature. To others, car engines. And even others, sports. Most artists feel a close connection to their favorite tools, and I don’t think that makes them zealots or fools. I don’t feel the same passion, but I respect the strength of their feelings.
Thom is so proud to announce that people shouldn’t have any personal connections to computers. Computers are just tools. Then what are you trying to accomplish? Writing a paper? Balancing a budget? Preparing a talk? These are all tools to accomplish a task as well. Writing this article is simply a tool for communicating a point. So, life is all about using tools to accomplish tasks, that’s sad, and pretty empty.
True, if you feel that everything in life is all important, and everything is worth dying for, then you’re just a histrionic fool. But if you feel that everything is just a tool, and nothing is worth discussing, or even arguing about, then you miss the magic and passion of life itself, and that is not good either.
I’m disappointed that Thom could not figure out such a simple idea, but I’m not surprised.
There’s a wonderful world out there for all types of people with all different interests, ideas, hobbies, and obsessions. Your next door neighbor has a life, just as interesting, unique, yet different from yours. Try to appreciate the differences in people, without putting them down for being different. You may not have their same interests, but that’s what life is about. The old cliche is true. Variety is the spice of life.
Thom is so proud to announce that people shouldn’t have any personal connections to computers.
Where am I saying others should feel the same as I do?
>Where am I saying others should feel the same as I do?
Are you serious? The WHOLE article. When you mock people’s habits, beliefs, and feelings, the connotation is that others should feel the same as you. If that was not your point, and you didn’t know that, you must be a very poor writer. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt.
“At one point (to be exact, season 1, roughly 30 minutes into episode 3) Mason in Dead Like Me says that he thinks computers will take over the world; Rube protests, saying that computers will never get smarter than human beings. Rube’s argument: ‘Yeah, when a computer loses it with a meter maid, or kills its self because it thinks it’s too fat; then I will believe in artificial intelligence.’
And I agree with him.”
Thom, emotions and intellect, while related, aren’t the same. Just because an entity is capable of killing itself because it thinks it’s too fat, doesn’t mean it’s actually intelligent. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Too bad you’re not fascinated with computers like many readers of this site are. You’re missing out, man.
Too bad you’re not fascinated with computers like many readers of this site are.
Oh but I am fascinated by computers. I love tinkering and adusting and whatever. However, what does an artist like more, his instrument itself, or the music it produces?
Oh but I am fascinated by computers. I love tinkering and adusting and whatever. However, what does an artist like more, his instrument itself, or the music it produces?
This isn’t a valid comparison, because for geeks (computer or otherwise), the end result is only a small part of the equation. The ongoing process is much more important.
A real computer geek spends 56 sleepless hours to get gentoo compiled and setup exactly as they want it on a 486, configuring all the little extra needed plugins and codecs, customizing the desktop functionality to match their own user preferences…just to blow it all away the next day because some other new distro has been released.
Or they spend 6 weeks trying to convert the Gimp to run in a terminal window. Will they ever use it? Of course not. But hey, it seemed cool.
These aren’t people that have a desired result and use a computer to achieve that goal; rather, the goal is to use the computer, and a useful end product may or may not result.
I love how some people have the nerve to write such a condescending piece of crap and post it on a site full of people who do actually care about computers. Go back to whatever you were doing before you became head troll on OSnews, Thom.
I care about Computers AND I agree with the point that Thom was making. As an editor on a popular news site, Thom’s articles are subtle, incisive, and balanced. The trolls are the people who tear every article of his to shreds. Go find yourself a different news site if you can’t put up with good journalism.
Computers are considered to be smart (I’m not saying they are smart), and people often react more to computers like they do to people: they call the softwere stupid, where with a tool, people talk about bad designed/engineered devices and mock the creator, if you place non-geeky people with a computer, they curse to the computer, complain about how it refuses to work with him and doesn’t obeye then as it should (perhaps computers are more considered like slaves or pets (no I don’t abuse my dog :S) than actually humans).
While in the meantime for geeky people computers are a lifestyle, the GPL has been responsible for a complete movement of thoughts that actually worked. People help with the software themselves rather than complain about its stupidity they actually get involved in doing things (even when it is as little as translating things, or or delivering ftp-space for small projects). And in the closed-source part you got the macs who apparently succeed in creating a lyfestile of there own.
“You see how boring this is, and how ridiculous it sounds?”
Just as “I hate my Mac Book pro because is too hot” “I hate my Mac Book pro because the keyboard suckes” “I hate linux because it boots too slowly” “I hate GNOME because panels suckes” “I hate Apple because the GUI is inconsistent” “I hate ….
So, someone who spends his time editing a site called osnews, posting about stuff that nobody who sees computers only as a tool would possibly care about, getting into heated discussions about things nobody who sees computers only as a means to achieve something will have heard about, let alone care, now want to pose as Mr. Superpragmatic.
Really, that’s just silly and most of all, it’s incredibly irrelevant and boring. Stop taking yourself so importantly.
About people complaining about your ranting, I agree that many of them are very stupid complaints. Ranting while having some good points is more than justified and fun to read imho.
However and here the problem starts, ranting without making any good points is just silly. Unfortunately your latest column and your reaction to critical posts about your earlier columns seems to confirm that you are not willing to confront valid criticisms, but rather choose to focus on the silly posts as they are so much easier to deal with.
posting about stuff that nobody who sees computers only as a tool would possibly care about
Why not? I care about having the best tool for the job. Sometimes that’s Linux, sometimes its the MacOS, sometimes it’s BeOS. Discussing that interests me. That absolutely does not negate the fact that I still see computers as tools– and many with me. Whether they read OSNews or not.
For me, it’s what I’m trying to achieve that matters. I want to make good-looking presentations, and for that, currently, Apple’s Keynote is the best choice (personally). However, does that mean I’m not supposed to discuss any alternatives? Does me seeing Keynote as a means to an end (creating good presentations), prevent me from being interested in discussing alternatives– and like that discussion while I’m at it?
However and here the problem starts, ranting without making any good points is just silly.
Yes. It was so silly I have been contacted by developers from GNOME, KDE, and yes, even Apple. Sure. They all contacted me, asking me for more background information on my points, because they find the points I make silly.
That makes sense.
Why not?
Simply because engaging in a flamewar about a license for example or in heated discussion about some niche oses is not something someone who cares about about computers only as a tool would do.
Yes. It was so silly I have been contacted by developers from GNOME, KDE, and yes, even Apple. Sure. They all contacted me, asking me for more background information on my points, because they find the points I make silly.
That makes sense.
Wow, Thom, you are so important…
Note though that I never claimed all you did was rant without having valid points. Look for example at your Gnome article, IIRC you’ll find a very positive comment from me in the discussion.
This however does not me that you didn’t make rants without having valid points and that you chose to ignore critical comments about these rants and instead focused on the easier targets, whining fanboys.
This was my original critique and it still stands, no matter how hard you try to spin what I said.
Stop taking yourself so importantly
you said it…
…with the sudden spurt of intelligent arguments posted on OSNews. Goes again to show why I like OSNews better than other sites.
Ok… As to the case of whether Computers are tools or not, many have given interesting viewpoints. But humans are humans. As humans work with something, over time, feelings *will* develop.
And don’t forget style. Many people demand style in their “tools”, be it toys or whatever.
In all, I would rather describe computers as a platform. A platform for virtual reality. In that platform you can find many tools. In real life that platform has a form that can be styled.
For the other argument that this column makes no case, well, simply let Thom be! He’s here for a reason. And so far, he hasn’t created so much problems we *need* to eradicate him.
Edited 2006-07-03 12:54
.. is a great band. They can blow others into pieces.
Now back to passion in computing. It’s fine to be passionate about your craft, be it computing, literature or whatever fetish that you have. But that passion burns people’s capacity to think without bias. Additionally, most of these ‘passionate people’ will try to impose their standards unto others. Will try their best to make them appear far better than the others, elevating themselves.
That is the time that some guy will snap their finger and say:
“Hey man, it’s a just a freaking tool/music genre/book or whatever! Get a life!”
Then all hell breaks loose.
>But that passion burns people’s capacity to think without bias
Too much of anything is not good. I don’t think anyone would argue with that. But then again, that applies to passion in general, not just to computers.
>Additionally, most of these ‘passionate people’ will try to impose their standards unto others. Will try their best to make them appear far better than the others, elevating themselves
That may be true, but so is the reverse. Some people go to lengths to distance themselves from computers, saying they are just tools, and in so doing, “try their best to make them appear far better than the others, elevating themselves.” I agree completely with your post.
I don´t understand the point of this article, is it a kind of sarcastic humor? (I´m from russia)
Computers are just tools.
Cars are just machines for transportation.
Shoes are just a means to walk around.
Clothes are just devices to keep you warm and decent.
Food is just stuff that keeps you alive.
Lifestyle is indeed not involved in any of these. That’s why we all drive the same car, have the same shoes and clothes, all eat the same and all buy a Mac.
Edited 2006-07-03 14:01
The parent makes a great point. You can argue computers are just tools all you want, it doesn’t make their design and features any less important. The fact is, computers are by far the most complicated “tools” we own. The range of meaningfully different configurations, capabilities and interface options is unheard of in areas outside the computer.
Computers are also a hobby and recreational activity, similar to cars back in the early days. Are all the car nuts also silly for paying so much attention to “tools”? There are shows on TV where people tweak engines on 30 year old cars. You can start arguing we’re as bad when someone is talking about how to get the most out of your 8086 in 2011.
In 20 years when the functionality and interface of computers has settled down and they all look pretty much the same and have the same capabilities and everything manages itself these discussions may look silly, but we’re far from that time.
In 20 years when the functionality and interface of computers has settled down and they all look pretty much the same and have the same capabilities and everything manages itself these discussions may look silly, but we’re far from that time.
So the end result of computer science is a homogenized commodity? I have trouble believing this is the way things will go.
OK, Thom, I have one major problem with your commentary. You say people don’t care about the paintbrush they use to paint their house. That may be mostly true. But the artist creating the most brilliant painting of the 21st century sure cares about his paintbrush. He’ll probably spend years finding the one single most incredible paintbrush that will allow him to achieve his dreams.
By the same token, the guy watching a DVD and writing some e-mail might not care about the computer he uses. But the guy developing cool software, the gal designing an awesome web site, the dude editing his next movie masterpiece, the gal writing ten sonnets, the guy calculating the equation that will lead to a cure for cancer, the gal modeling particle fields — those people, by and large, will REALLY CARE about their tools. Because the different between a good tool and a great tool may be the difference between miserable failure and overwhelming success.
I love everything about computers, and for me they’re far more than just “tools”. I play Celtic music and electronic music as well, and my recorders, bagpipes, keyboards, etc. are way more than just “tools”. They’re a part of my life. They’re a part of me.
My computer is an extension of my being. I’m sorry if you, Thom, don’t understand that.
My computer is an extension of my being. I’m sorry if you, Thom, don’t understand that.
Oh, I perfectly fine understand it. I personally feel the same way about music; I spend lots, lots, lots of money on albums, have an LP collection, a player for it which cost me a pretty penny, etc. etc.
However, the main point I was inexplicitely trying to make was that in order to run a site as OSNews as unbiased as possible, one needs to be detached from the subjects you report on. Because I view computers as tools, I have no strong feelings for any platform, company, or whatever (save for BeOS/Haiku/Zeta, probably, I’ll be honest in that). And that benefits you, as a reader, as OSNews gives you news unbiased (no matter what some zealots say, OSNews is, and yes, I know this sounds arrogant, one of the most unbiased websites in this field).
That’s why I would never be able to run a similar site on music, for example. Music means too much to me, and certain artists mean more to me than just the music they make; the best example of this is my love for Fiona Apple. I am simply not capable of criticising her music or her character, because she and her music mean too much to me.
I do not have this ‘problem’ in the computing world. And that’s a good thing.
>However, the main point I was inexplicitely trying to make was that in order to run a site as OSNews as unbiased as possible, one needs to be detached from the subjects you report on.
That is an understandable, yet common misconception. You cannot hope to be unbiased about anything, ever. It’s not possible. Since you have no strong feelings for any platform, that makes your bias one of indifference. Make no mistake, that is a bias, and a strong one at that.
Everyone tries to hide the truth from themselves. If you really want to be a great reporter, then don’t, because you aren’t fooling anyone but yourself. Acknowledge your biases, and report within the context of them. People frequently do that, and it makes for a much more reasonable story.
Example of biases: 1) Macs are the best, and all others suck, 2) Macs are a waste of money, and whoever created it should be shot, 3) I don’t give a crap about computer platforms, and don’t see the issue.
You can see that each point of view has it’s validity, even though you probably agree with only one of them. They are all just a personal opinions. But to take the third option and call that unbiased is not correct. The third point of view is not any more valid than the other two.
>the best example of this is my love for Fiona Apple. I am simply not capable of criticising her music or her character, because she and her music mean too much to me.
If you cannot criticize Fiona Apple, then you must consider her and her music completely perfect, an ideal to which all other musicians should strive. If that’s how you feel, then great. You are one of the few people in the world who has seen perfection. If you can say, I love her music except for . . ., then you understand that you CAN critisize within the context of your passion. People do it all the time, because perfection is so hard to attain.
When others understand your bias, and the context of your comments, and when you can freely discuss all sides of the issues, instead of ignoring others’ points of view, then you will have more credibility.
I said as unbiased as possible. That’s the key. Of course I know I am not unbiased. Nor is OSNews as a whole. However, in the field of reporting OSNews concentrates on, we are one of the more unbiased websites; contrary to some others, who, of course, I won’t name as that’s not very posh and all.
But yes, of course I’m biased too.
If you cannot criticize Fiona Apple, then you must consider her and her music completely perfect, an ideal to which all other musicians should strive.
I don’t want to stray too far off into off-topic land, but, well, yes. She makes music for herself, and never really cared about the money side of it, or the pleasing-the-fans stuff. This means she can make her music without any of those two important constraints.
I mean, she only made three albums in 10 years. Her first was a major success, but did she continue to make the same sort of music? Did she start to produce music as if it is a product?
Many other artists are in the same league, I know that. However, with those, I do not have this personal connection. Some others might have, and that’s why music, like all art, is so interesting and fascinating.
You cannot hope to be unbiased about anything, ever. It’s not possible.
If asked to judge whether a pair of dice is rigged or not, I submit them to a statistical test. If they fail the test, I rule them rigged. If they do not, I rule that the test cannot judge.
Where, precisely, is the bias in that?
>Where, precisely, is the bias in that?
All right, fair enough. We’re getting off topic, but I’ll still answer the question since the thread is dying anyway.
There are many biases here. Why are you asked to judge? Is it for a game of dice, or is it for scientific explanations of probability. If it is for a game, is it for tons of money, or just for fun? You can keep going down the line of questions until you become very precise. My bias is that you are being too vague, because in MY past, I’ve answered vague questions, and gotten in trouble. I never like to answer questions that are vague. Others may not mind.
Then you come up with a “statistical test.” #1 comes up on the dice 16.1% of the time. Is it rigged? #1 should come up 16.666666% of the time. Is it close enough? Depends upon the underlying bias of the examiner. A statistician may say no. I may say yes, depending upon the situation. Did we roll the dice enough times? Maybe it was just an anomaly. What does “failed test” mean? Is 15.2% failure? If so, what about 15.3%? Where is the line? Is there a margin of error? If so, what is it? All of this will depend upon your personal beliefs about statistics and the potential variability. i.e. your preexisting biases.
Additionally, I might disagree with the test itself because of my personal biases. It’s Monday, July 3rd. Dice should never be rolled on July 3rd, because of Gamblor, god of gambling, alters the odds. Sounds stupid? It’s more reasonable to me than some religions. That’s just my bias.
You may be thinking that I’m just being stupid and petty, but that’s again a bias by itself. Biases vary as much as opinions. Your question implies that you trust statistics. I don’t. I usually distrust the methodologies of data collection and analysis, and therefore, the results.
Finally, ask yourself the question, why do you have to judge to begin with? That implies there was disagreement ahead of time. Why is there disagreement? Why does anyone disagree with anything? I’ll give you a hint; it has something to do with bias.
My point is that you shouldn’t deny biases. Reveal them, and speak about them within the context of the situation. Then you and your audience can find a common ground to agree or disagree. If you deny any bias, then you can never find common ground with anyone, since you don’t know what it is yourself.
Edited 2006-07-04 01:28
None of the biases you describe apply to my action of applying the test to the device though.
In science, this behavior is called objectivity. If the result of an observation is independent of the observer, then the observation is objective. Here is a sequence: “HTTHTH”. There are many questions I can ask about that sequence that have objective answers:
which characters appear between the quotation marks? How many characters are there between the quotation marks? How many are ‘H’? How many are not ‘H’?
There are unbiased answers to all of those questions: 6, 2, 3, and 3.
In this particular instance, I can ask questions about the sequence that do not have objective answers: Was it generated at random? Was it meant to represent a series of coin tosses? Does it, in fact, record such a series?
These questions are not objective because I was alone when the sequence was generated and recorded, so I alone know the answers. They do have unbiased answers (yes, no, no) but you cannot verify that the answers are unbiased, or even if they are accurate.
I can even ask questions for which there are no unbiased answers: Why 6 characters instead of 7 or 5? Why did you pick ‘H’ and ‘T’? Why only two characters?
The key here is measurable empiricism. If I can measure it against an unambiguous agreed upon standard, then the measurement is objective and without bias and if you apply the same unambiguous agreed upon standard, you will achieve the same measurement.
The opposite of objective, of course, is subjective. Any action which is objective is unbiased. Subjective actions may or may not be unbiased: measurably empirical actions are.
I completely agree with what you are saying. Once you take out the “human factor,” there is no bias. The problem is, how do you do that? My originating post referred to human interactions, not objective data. A human is needed to collect the data, and interpret it. I don’t question that “if I can measure it against an unambiguous agreed upon standard, then the measurement is objective and without bias and if you apply the same unambiguous agreed upon standard.” The problem is, can you agree upon a standard? And that was the point of my last post. Agreement presupposes an understanding of each others’ stance on an issue. Without prior knowledge of the opposite point of view, there cannot be true agreement to begin with.
Remember, you just asked where the bias in a given scenario was, and I told you. Otherwise, I agree with everything you just wrote, and nothing you wrote disagrees with me.
The problem is, can you agree upon a standard?
Sure. We do it all the time in science. See the definition of metre for a good example.
Remember, you just asked where the bias in a given scenario was, and I told you. Otherwise, I agree with everything you just wrote, and nothing you wrote disagrees with me.
Um, no. You told me about a lot of hypothetical biases that might surround the scenario, but none in the scenario itself.
The scenario I gave was an example of objective measurable empiricism.
But even if you ignore the original example, you have just agreed that the post you responded to with the text string comments and that post claimed to contain an example of unbiased action.
>Sure. We do it all the time in science.
Thanks, I’m glad you agreed with me. Like I said as well, “agreement presupposes an understanding of each others’ stance on an issue. Without prior knowledge of the opposite point of view, there cannot be true agreement to begin with.”
>Um, no. You told me about a lot of hypothetical biases that might surround the scenario, but none in the scenario itself.
I don’t see the difference. I UNDERSTAND the difference, but I don’t agree that there is a difference. My bias is that the data (what you call “objective measurable empiricism”) is meaningless without interpretation, and evaluation of the means of collection. I don’t think you can separate them. You may disagree, and that’s understandable, because that’s your bias. That’s the importance of acknowledging biases. I see every day the misuse of statistics to prove a political or economic point. The data is objective in most cases. But how do you collect it? How do you present it to get your point across? It’s ALL biased . . . at least, that’s my opinion, and MY bias.
>The scenario I gave was an example of objective measurable empiricism.
Don’t you find it strange that I said I agree with you, and you were quick to say, “um no?” Why? Why is it that we are going back and forth? Where is the source of our disagreement. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, or vice versa. You have your opinions on the given scenario and, in my mind, it is equally valid to mine. Yet, we are stuck.
This takes us full circle back to the original topic: BIAS. It’s OK for us to disagree. We are not disagreeing on the “objective measurable empiricism,” (again, I said I agree with you) we are disagreeing on the role of the circumstances around it. I know you were trying to prove that biases don’t have to exist, but disagreeing with me is bringing our respective biases out. Your bias is that you value the purity of science, its objectivity. My bias is that I’m skeptical about the abuses of science and the prevalence of “junk” science.
>But even if you ignore the original example, you have just agreed that the post you responded to with the text string comments and that post claimed to contain an example of unbiased action.
Unfortunately, I don’t understand this statement at all, so I cannot respond. Maybe it’s just too late
Remember, the original article has nothing to do with computers. It was a social commentary on a niche hobby that is shared by visitors of this site. Computers are just a metaphor. The dennotation is that computers aren’t that important. The connotation is that the opinions of people who love computers aren’t that important. I don’t think that was Thom’s original intention, but that is the result.
I just wanted to say that I rather enjoyed this exchange. You had some great points, though I do respectfully disagree with some of them. I hope you can respectfully disagree with me. If you are an American, I hope you have a wonderful Independence Day. Thanks again. This is my last post on this thread.
I just wanted to say that I rather enjoyed this exchange.
Thank you. I did as well.
You had some great points, though I do respectfully disagree with some of them. I hope you can respectfully disagree with me.
But of course. Your points are well thought out and well stated.
If you are an American, I hope you have a wonderful Independence Day.
Thanks. I am, and I am. May your day be wonderful as well.
Thom, I wrote:
“My computer is an extension of my being. I’m sorry if you, Thom, don’t understand that.”
and you replied:
“Oh, I perfectly fine understand it. I personally feel the same way about music…”
OK, if you understand it, then why did you write in your article, point blank, that “computers are tools” ??? You could have written about how you personally aren’t passionate about any particular computer platform or design philosophy, but you understand that other people are and that’s cool. But you didn’t. You wrote that computers are tools, so why should anyone care about them that much.
So which is it? Are computers just tools, or are you personally not very passionate about different computers? Big, BIG difference in those two statements.
Eh, columns usually express opinions. I don’t feel like I have to say “but other people might feel differently and I totally understand” after each and every opinion I throw out there.
Computers…
Met my first girlfriend on a BBS, not looking for any kind of relationship. We were both fans of the same band. Met her in real life to trade some tapes…
Got my first job out of college. A computer job. I was trying to troubleshoot a Fidonet connection on my board with my hub administrator. I mentioned my unemployment. He happened to have just left his job for another one. He recommended me to his boss, and I got hired instantly on his recommendation. I had a Political Science degree and English minor. But there I was, in a computer job.
Then a contractor pulled my resume off of Usenet, and got me in at a large corporation. Later that corporation hired me because of my computer experience in a technical capacity.
Then I accidentally met the woman who was to become my wife online in the early 2000s, on an IRC channel connected to a newsgroup. Also related to music.
As a teenager, I felt alienated, distant, and had nothing in common with my peers. Didn’t understand all the things that interested them, and they didn’t get me (It wasn’t that I was brilliant, or anything like that. Just more serious about things.)
But the people in the local BBS scene did. I wound up meeting many of them in real life, often through the ddial/STS bowling meets in in the late 1980s. Many of them became good friends.
With the paycheck from the company that hired me because of my computer skills I was able to fulfill a lifelong dream, to move the hell out of New Jersey.
Then I explored all of the ghost highways of the Southwest, filling my gas tank with the money I made at my computer job. I bought the vehicle I wanted since I was a small child. I saw San Francisco, ate fondue in Berkeley, drove over all of the passes in the Eastern Sierras. Stood in the middle of Death Valley on the salty earth at Badwater Junction with two dozen strangers in silence, experiencing mid July in the most arid spot I’d ever been, and my spirit soared in a way I cannot describe. Computers made this possible.
All the while I had this amazing hobby. A hobby that people would respond to by telling me how little they cared about computers other than getting work done, and with a little self-righteousness, too, like somehow I had no kind of life because this was my hobby. Yet, this hobby has enabled me to do so many things I always wanted to do.
And not just financial. It’s the people I’ve met. It’s the places I’ve been. It’s the satisfaction I’ve gotten out of dumb little late night hacks in Perl and PHP.
It’s about how I don’t take the internet for granted; it’s about the grace and beauty and elegance of a worldwide network that has made the world so much smaller than it was when I was young. It’s talking to people all over the world and realizing how much we have in common, despite the unfortunate tendency of people to emphasize the differences. It’s the exposure to the collective intelligence, wit, humor, creativity, and artistry of dozens of cultures and thousands of subcultures.
Computers made me realize how many intelligent people there are in the world, and how much hope there is for us, as a species, relative to the nihilistic despair that gripped me when I was young.
It’s the infrastructure that makes that possible, all based upon probably quadrillions of miniature logic gates figuratively slamming open and shut on the basis of the presence or lack thereof of an electrical charge. It’s the dramatic and glorious miracle of this working, at all. It’s the brilliant minds that built it and the clever minds that hack it. It’s pulling signal out of a million lines of noise, in seconds.
Just a tool?
Not to me. The computer is the Everything Machine. And I don’t take it for granted, and it’s way more than just a mundane tool, to me.
I can certainly appreciate how people could think of it as just a tool. But in my mind, it’s their loss. I don’t hold it against them. But it’s like, when you love a song that speaks to you in such an intimate way and says something you could never say yourself but always wanted to, and then you play it for someone and they shrug at it.
It’s sad. But it’s not my loss, when someone feels that way. Someday when I am very old, and perhaps unable to walk very well or leave the house often, I will still be tinkering with computers, because I love computers not merely for what they have produced or provided for me, but the artful elegance in which simple circuitry based ones and zeroes work in concert, like a symphony, to be able to provide the infinite range of things that computers do.
If people don’t get it, I’m not sure what else to say. I’ll take the little jabs at me, the little sarcastic quips about the fact that this interests me. I’ll endure the stereotypes, the abject shock and surprise when people find out that my degree is not in computers despite my uncloaked enthusiasm for them; the closed-mindedness of people who immediately assume I’m not like them because I have this interest, only to have the audacity to come to me for help when their desktop icons disappear.
All of this being said, it is important for people to be critical, because people like me do not represent the majority of people, and the majority of people have to use computers and OSes whether they want to or not.
There’s a place for both points of view. But I think those of us who love computers as an end in and of themselves (and it’s never exlusively that; we love what we produce with them too) understand the “computers are just a tool” crowd more than the “computers are just a tool” crowd understands us.
I do not care about the computer itself; what I care about are the things I can do with it.
No you don’t. You don’t care about what you can do with your computer, few people do. You care about how you can do things with your computer and this is why words like “intuitive” enter reviews of software: It’s not what you can do, but how you have to do it.
Here’s a bold statement: Anything that can be done with your computer you can do with it, without investing in any software. However, I doubt you know your computers instruction set, or how to operate your hardware. That’s fine, no one would expect you to. And so, people write programs to make doing things easy; this is what most people seem to have defined as “what you can do with it:” What someone has made easy to do with it.
Computers are tools. A better tool means getting the job done quicker. Afterall, you can use sandpaper or a power sander, both get the job done, both enable you to finish the same tasks. You could use a crane, or thousands of low paid workers and pullies
.
It’s not what the tool can do, it’s what the tool can do easily.
Not only are they the focus of our current careers (in the case of software developers like myself as well as hardware or networking folks), but their usage and direction of development may well have a tremendous impact on us over the course of our careers.
You might not care about the computers themselves, but many of us do, and in some cases the interest we have is not just a passing fancy. It’s our means of making a living.