It’s not about having the same interests; it’s about the fact that the single distinguishing factor between a computer and any other mere machine is its ability to be programmed, and you therefore don’t really know how to use a computer unless you can create novel workflows to solve your own novel problems. If you can’t script, you aren’t literate in the 21st century.
All car people would love everyone to be car people. All bikers would like everyone to ride bikes.
It’s funny you should use those particular examples, (and not just because they also happen to be things I’m particularly passionate about).
In particular:
If you live somewhere that’s built wrong (i.e. is car-dependent) and you can’t drive, you’re homebound. It’s not about being a “car person;” it’s about the skill being necessary to function.
Conversely, places that aren’t built wrong are precisely those that facilitate cycling as a matter of design and policy. It’s not about what “bikers would like;” it’s about what empirically works best for a functioning city.
I used to examples because in both cases it’s things you can do without it being an interest to you, you do it out of convenience, no need for a deep analysis, I could have said people who love camping would like everyone to love camping, it would be the same thing.
And just like those things, people use computers out of convenience and it’s perfectly acceptable that some people don’t have a deep interest in them and therefore wouldn’t be interested by an OS that requires a deeper understanding of computers to make it work.
I used to examples because in both cases it’s things you can do without it being an interest to you, you do it out of convenience
No, they’re things you have to do without it being an interest to you; you do it out of necessity.
And that’s exactly my point: you have to know how to, if not “program,” at least chain functional components together into a workflow, if you are to be considered computer literate. IDGAF if you’re using Linux or not; that applies equally to folks using Windows or MacOS too. Just like how the concept of (regular) literacy requires being able to write, not just to read, the act of using a computer is inherently one of creation and synthesis. If you’re not doing that, you’re merely consuming content.
No, going biking around the lake on the weekend isn’t a necessity, driving your car instead of taking the bus isn’t a necessity and no I’m both cases you don’t need to understand the mechanical intricacies of the bike or car to do it. You’re over analysing for no reason.
And no you don’t need to be computer savvy to use a computer if you use an OS that’s simple and automates tasks like updates and not everyone wants to understand computer enough to do those tasks manually, hence me pointing out Linux users spitting on people that aren’t good with computers while also saying that everyone should use Linux, which requires being good with computers.
My 90 years old grandma got her first computer at 80 and she couldn’t tell you how to plug a mouse in it, it doesn’t prevent her from using it to check Facebook and get emails!
It’s not about having the same interests; it’s about the fact that the single distinguishing factor between a computer and any other mere machine is its ability to be programmed, and you therefore don’t really know how to use a computer unless you can create novel workflows to solve your own novel problems. If you can’t script, you aren’t literate in the 21st century.
It’s funny you should use those particular examples, (and not just because they also happen to be things I’m particularly passionate about).
In particular:
If you live somewhere that’s built wrong (i.e. is car-dependent) and you can’t drive, you’re homebound. It’s not about being a “car person;” it’s about the skill being necessary to function.
Conversely, places that aren’t built wrong are precisely those that facilitate cycling as a matter of design and policy. It’s not about what “bikers would like;” it’s about what empirically works best for a functioning city.
I used to examples because in both cases it’s things you can do without it being an interest to you, you do it out of convenience, no need for a deep analysis, I could have said people who love camping would like everyone to love camping, it would be the same thing.
And just like those things, people use computers out of convenience and it’s perfectly acceptable that some people don’t have a deep interest in them and therefore wouldn’t be interested by an OS that requires a deeper understanding of computers to make it work.
No, they’re things you have to do without it being an interest to you; you do it out of necessity.
And that’s exactly my point: you have to know how to, if not “program,” at least chain functional components together into a workflow, if you are to be considered computer literate. IDGAF if you’re using Linux or not; that applies equally to folks using Windows or MacOS too. Just like how the concept of (regular) literacy requires being able to write, not just to read, the act of using a computer is inherently one of creation and synthesis. If you’re not doing that, you’re merely consuming content.
You don’t get the point at all…
No, going biking around the lake on the weekend isn’t a necessity, driving your car instead of taking the bus isn’t a necessity and no I’m both cases you don’t need to understand the mechanical intricacies of the bike or car to do it. You’re over analysing for no reason.
And no you don’t need to be computer savvy to use a computer if you use an OS that’s simple and automates tasks like updates and not everyone wants to understand computer enough to do those tasks manually, hence me pointing out Linux users spitting on people that aren’t good with computers while also saying that everyone should use Linux, which requires being good with computers.
My 90 years old grandma got her first computer at 80 and she couldn’t tell you how to plug a mouse in it, it doesn’t prevent her from using it to check Facebook and get emails!
Honestly i dont think any of my friends or family can script any thing.