[plug] Linux training for home newbies

[Craig Ringer]

On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 15:06 +0800, Mr E_T wrote:
> On Monday 19 September 2005 14:43, Senectus . wrote:
> > On 9/19/05, simon <simon at plumtek.com> wrote:
> > > Arie Hol (arie99 at ozemail.com.au) wrote:
> > > 
> > > Best thing I ever did for my father and his usage of linux was tell him to
> > > stop bothering me with it.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Funny thing was, once he was left to his own devices, he learned a lot faster,
> > > and now on the odd occassion he asks me something its usually a good, pointed
> > > question. He still craps on and on about how good Suse is and how much better
> > > than Mandriva it is, but at least its only on the rare occassion I have to go
> > > outside and beat up a tree for half and hour :)
> > > 
> > > Linux is NOT windows - if youre not willing to sit and read a lot of
> > > documentation, youll never 'get' it and therefore it wont be much use to you.
> > > 
> > Agreed.
> > Though abusive e-mails are not on, in any situation.

I couldn't agree more. I've received a couple over time, and it's a
really unpleasant way to ruin a day. I'll admit to having sent some very
frustrated and somewhat heated posts here (usually ill-considered
response-in-kind) - but what you folks have seen here is about the worst
of it. Nastygrams just aren't on, private nastygrams because you're too
ashamed to show the world what you think, doubly so.

> How about we split this into three questions.
> 1) Would a linux introduction course cut down on inane or basic questions ?

I suspect not.

First, I really don't think they're a problem on PLUG - there is the odd
one, but it's really not bad. The vast majority of people seem to have
at least done a little checking first. Sure, we have some serial
offenders :-P but even then I just don't think it's anything that's
becoming a problem.

Second, I don't think people who expect others to answer their every
question - no matter how poorly stated, oft-repeated, and easily
answered by moments of research - without them doing any work are the
sort of people who will pay for training. Doubly so if it makes them
think.

> 2) What would the course/series contain ?

Those two points are interesting. They bring up the question of /who/
such a hypothetical course would actually be for.

- Highly computer literate users wanting to learn to use Linux,
including basic admin, and wanting to understand the basics of the
system?

- Fairly computer literate users who want to install Linux, learn to use
it, and learn "recipes" for the most common admin tasks and problems
(think printers & winmodems), but who really don't care how it works?

- Computer-illiterate but capable users (ie not frightened of the
system, minimal knowledge of desktop use concepts) wanting to learn how
to install and use Linux but who really don't care about how or why it
works, how to tweak it, etc? Users to whom 99% of system administration
tasks sound like they'll require chicken feet, a very unhappy newt and a
large cauldron.

- First time or very computer illiterate users who just want to know how
to use the very basics? (This is where CA has an existing, well refined
course, and it's an area that requires impressive patience and quite a
bit of experience from the teacher(s), so I wouldn't think this to be
the area you're thinking of).

It comes down to the fact that there's a HUGE amount to know, and there
are many different sorts of interested people with different needs.
Deciding who you want to cater for seems like the first step. Yes, I
said *you* :-P .

> I agree that inane questions can get annoying.

Only, in my experience, when spending a couple of minutes would've let
the person answer it themselves. I don't mean hours of tireless
searching and trying to puzzle through chicken-and-egg documentation
like chmod(1) (read it while pretending that you don't already
understand it and you'll understand why I call it that). I just mean a
little bit of research, consistent with your knowledge and means, as an
*honest* *attempt*.

Yes, I was half guilty of failing that requirement this week, but mostly
due to idiocy rather than failure to try. I'd simply failed to find
IPMItool in all my research, even though "apt-cache search ipmi"
would've been quite enough. For the record that server board is the only
one in the entire line that lacks a BMC (though finding that out from
Intel's site was another interesting challenge) so it was all useless
anyway.

--
Craig Ringer