" Everyone has to be hardcore willing to tinker, which means a lot of lost productivity."
That depends. If you do everything in your browser, and you were using Firefox before, you have little or no problem. I switched my wife from XP to Linux Mint with about five minutes of retraining under such circumstances. All she uses is the browser and her experience is better in that she likes to click on, well, everything, and the malware risk is much reduced.
Of course, I do the maintenance, but I did that before.
Now, if you're used to MS Office, photoshop, Exchange, etc. etc., I agree, it can be a much different story, at least for a while. But it all depends on willingness to learn something new and accept change.
Is the Linux learning curve more difficult than the Windows learning curve? If you start from scratch, will one be much harder than the other? There was a time when I would have said Linux was much harder but is that still true?
"If you're really old you can tell them stories about toggling in boot sequences or using punch cards"
I remember doing that stuff
Emacs and Vim are both terribly unproductive text editors. I've walked the walk and actually learned the cryptic keystrokes, but I still ended up with software that was just incredibly clunky to use. In the end I found myself very carefully thinking what control keys I must press next or I would otherwise mess up my text or end up in some wacky state in the editor.
After some experience (something more than three months and less than 20 years) the keystrokes come naturally, without much need to think about them.
Funny how fast science can turn into outright doomsday panic when grant money is involved.
Grant money or Al Gore.
"Continued efforts" means Al Gore continues to take your money.
That's the essence of the problem. People like Al Gore act like they are the "experts" and there are similar loonies on the other side of the question. Can't we just do unbiased scientific work and rely on that?
I'll put forth what I always do:
1. It would be nice if global climate change were to be debated not on the basis of politics (etc.) but on a rational, unbiased, scientific basis. If we would stick 100% to the science I think we would come to a sound conclusion in fairly short order. But factor in all the special interests (on all sides) and you get the current mess.
2. Having said that, I also think it is prudent to act as if climate change were real. This is in the Willilam James sense: if it's real, we dare not fail to act. If it isn't real, we still have acted in a manner that supports long-term sustainability (distant paraphrase of James' views about religion).
I am neither a "supporter" or "denier" by the way. Those labels represent the idea that there is room for widely-varying opinion on something that ought to be a matter of science.
My guess is because IT is not given control over security, not listened to and told to "just do it" when they try to point out the security problems during planning.
I was once the security advisor at a Large Place. A senior manager came to me and said, I want to forward all my email to Gmail so I can read it at home. (Much of it was sensitive stuff.) He said, "what do you advise?" I said, obviously, not to do it as it presented unacceptable risk, forwarding internal sensitive email to an external source beyond our control. He replied, "OK, I asked you the question, document that, will you? I can't help it if you gave the wrong answer" and he went ahead and set up forwarding. Actually, had someone set it up because he was clueless about how to do it.
My parents were dumb when I was a kid, and now they show me how i might of been a bit less smarter than I thought I was. With age comes wisdom.
Reminds me of an old Rabbinic saying: Wisdom comes to us when we are too old to use it.
I always pay in full every month, and it caused me to be refused a higher line of credit. Bank of America told me that I didn't have a record of monthly payments (which I did, as I paid in full every month on every credit card, but I guess that doesn't count as they weren't installment payments or loan payments) and therefore didn't qualify for more credit. Then they said that they ran a credit check, and my credit score was 820 (850 is the max you can have), and appended tips for improving my credit rating!
Of course Bank of America is one of the more evil players (they too highlight the minimum balance and have no "auto-pay full balance" option), but then again most of the players are evil to some degree.
Maybe people should start learning how to communicate again, rather than getting wizards to create bullshit for them.
These people, whose jobs are to propagate information, would probably produce a better result if they used vi.
That was one of the main points in my posting earlier in this discussion. Slicker is not better unless it communicates more effectively, and often it does the exact opposite. Back in the day, some people used WordStar and were happy enough with it. Slick? Hardly. Could you communicate with it? Yup. (Not that I recommend it today, but that isn't my point.)
Another poster made the point that LibreOffice and predecessors don't break the paradigm, and instead try to more or less mimic MS Office (sans ribbon). That is an interesting observation and could generate a long discussion of its own. Even AbiWord, which prides itself on being small and lightweight, has an MS Office feel. That leads me to ask, where could office software go that is new and different, and most importantly, allows for easier and better communication, if the paradigm were to change?
There was an important paradigm shift between the older systems, such as the aforementioned WordStar, and the fully-GUI systems of today, although there are those who argue that this did not enhance communication. But clearly usability for the average user is higher.
What might the next paradigm shift be?