Computer Voodoo? 686
jbeaupre asks: "A corollary to 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' is that sometimes users have to resort to what I call 'computer voodoo.' You don't know why it works, you barely care how it works, but you find yourself doing the strangest things because it just seems to work. I'm talking about things like: smacking a PC every 5 seconds for an hour to keep it from stalling on a hard drive reformat (with nary a problem after the reformat); or figuring out the only way to get a PC partially fried by lightning to recognize an ethernet card, after booting into Windows, is to start the computer by yanking the card out and shoving it back in (thereby starting the boot processes). What wacky stuff have you done that makes no obvious sense, but just works?"
My analysis? (Score:4, Insightful)
The same is most likely true with the ethernet card.
The motherboard itself may have something loose, and the way to deal with all of it is to move components into other PC's and see how things go.
I've seen and met all hardware problems and beat 'em all (even if by buying a new component). The REAL voodoo lies in the software. Why in God's holy name does Windows fail to boot one time, and then boot successfully the second time?
Re:For most problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, to be honest, I find that creating an incentive for the user to understand the technology is a much better long run solution. The average person nowadays can accomplish an awful lot with a very basic, approximate functional understanding of the system. Unless there is some reason that they need to learn the details, they will likely never do so.
The truth is that this does not merely apply to "lusers," but to many of the most brilliant programmers you'll find. How many programmers know the deep details about the electronics that make up the processor? Or about the connection between doping, band-gap effects, and statistical mechanics that regulate the real-world execution of logical operations? I have dual degrees in Physics and CS, yet I would not include myself in that category.
I think what we need is users that aren't necessarily "theoretically" educated (this can, in practice, be quite useless), but rather have the appropriate metaphors (pipes, not tubes) to understand the majority of what to do in a given situation. Know what different symbols and actions connote, and where to find help (besides just asking the "computer guy").
Complexity (Score:4, Insightful)
'Magic' is when a device does something well, which one did not expect technology to be able to do, and in a way that does not make it obvious how the technology is implemented.
The story is about when devices do not do what they are expected to do.
Re:Walk into the room (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the step WAS crucial, and now it works. They had some other problem, and they'd fixed it, but now by skipping that step they still get the problem.
I wish I could attribute that just to dumb users, but I've made that mistake myself. "Yes, I TRIED rebooting the router... oh, it worked this time. Never mind."
Re:For most problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even understanding the architecture of your processor is only of value to some programmers. For most, it's better to understand the programming model for the particular language being used and tailor your program to that abstraction. Trying to apply knowledge of the low-level architecture in high-level programming is a recipe for over-optimization, especially if that code ever gets ported to another architecture.
Now, in the latter case, I will grant that it's indispensible to have learned the details at least one computation architecture through and through at some point. It almost doesn't matter what it is, since it's the process of stepping back and thinking about how to construct machines that compute that is the enlightening bit. It's really astonishing how "dumb" the logic behind a really "smart" processor can be. However, day-to-day, it's very rare to actually need to apply details for the specific machine you're using.
If you're writing DSP code or other real-time embedded stuff, this is obviously different, but that's a very small subset of all programmers.
Re:For most problems... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:For most problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not useful for programming, but that's not what this article (or my post) is about - it's about using and fixing computers. All the software knowledge in the world doesn't help you when it's really a hardware problem. There are computer problems that an electrical engineer (and occasionally even a mechanical engineer, or materials scientist) could solve, that a computer scientist cannot fix any better than the average person.
Knowing how the physical device works also helps one to avoid damage to a computer because then one can predict what types of things are bad for the computer, and how to see early warning signs of hardware failure. Some individuals do not know, for instance, that lithium ion batteries are sensitive to extreme cold, and temperature swings. Those people might put a spare in their luggage on a long flight, and find a nasty surprise in their suitcases.
Re:one time at computer camp... (Score:2, Insightful)
Really. It actually is.
Re:For most problems... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not sure how it works... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing left to add is that doing
should be significantly quicker.Oh, and the other thing is that, these days, I tend to run badblocks' write-test on new drives, in an attempt to get the drive to remap any failed or marginal blocks before putting Important Information on them.
Re:For most problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's where spending time fixing all kinds of eletronics (stereos, TVs, VCRs, cassette tape recorders, 8 track players, reel-to-reel tape recorders, fish locators, film projectors, overhead projectors, computers, packet assembler/disassemblers, etc) grants a kind of insight that theoretical background might not give you.
Oddly, sometimes it seems that its not saying the exact right words, but what you have under your belt that makes a difference to hapless users. Also, if you can somehow make a story out of what you are explaining, sometimes even intractable users will listen and kind of understand.
Re:For most problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
What actually has to be learned is that people get to be a bit of a nerd. Just try other things than the standard ones. Actually this line of thinking will be beneficial in all parts of life.
I'm also in favor of having things that are easy to use in the first place, but as even those will malfunction at some point (programmers/engineers are also people, luckily), it will still be necessary to be a bit of a geek.
Re:For most problems... (Score:2, Insightful)
All people who include themselves in that category just don't understand what amount of knowledge is necessary to make even simple devices functional nowadays (that doesn't only apply to electronics or software).
I guess there is only a handful of people who are born with the humbleness to respect the value the research of other peoples, most of them (including me) have to learn a lot to finally understand that it is impossible to know and understand everything about one particular subject.
But hey, young people are constantly changing the world with new ideas just because they refuse to see the difficulties with the implementation!
Re:It is modded as funny beacuse is nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)
The average user doesn't give a damn how it works, doesn't care if their own actions are contributing to the failure(s) experienced, and will resist being educated. The technician who is called in after-the-fact is only half of the equation.
The way most users handle computing could be compared to approaching your doctor, complaining that there is something wrong with you, and then putting your fingers in your ears and saying "BLAH BLAH I CANT HEAR YOU!!!" when he gives advice or asks if you are willing to undergo some tests. Oh, and then getting pissed off at the doctor when you have the same complaint again. Now, would you say this is the doctor's fault? Similarly, the best technician in the world needs someone willing to work with them in order to truly solve problems instead of merely applying band-aids.