🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27475@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>
>Let me ask who was insulted here: the poster who bitched about GateKeeper
>being broken for doing it's job, or Gatekeeer (and it's author, who happens
>to also be on the net), who's program was vilified publicly by someone with
>no idea what was going on.
>
Everybody seems to be taking things a little too personally around here.
Describing a problem with a program is not an insult unless specific and
personal statements with value judgments are made (eg. the next quote).
Anyone who is a professional programmer knows that this is simply a part
of the job to respond to difficulties users have with a program (not a
favorite part of the job, I'll agree).

>Yes, I was harsh. But if you're going to open your mouth and make ugly
>statements without any basis in fact, if you're too lazy to read the
>documentation when you have problems, you should expect to get your
>stupidity shoved back down your throat.
>
>... the person stupid enough not to
>know how to use the device *and* talk about it like an expert in public?
>
These are unnecessarily inflammatory remarks that are in no way
appropriate for this newsgroup. I dont remember the exact words used in the
original posting, but they were nothing like this.

>I don't think I gave anything out that wasn't deserved and wasn't already
>tossed into the ring by the original poster. IF you're going to scream about
>something on the net, know what you're talking about.

The whole point of posting a question to the net is to get an answer to
learn what you're talking about.

I do agree that if the program in question can be identified, one should
read documentation first, and one should never "vilify" a program on the net
if you DONT know what you're talking about.

Nobody should be casting stones here.

I posted what I said about programmers paying attention to the users needs
and limitations because of a personal bias.  I have done graduate work in
human-computer communications and feel very strongly about getting the
machine to serve the user, much like a good teacher in a class who tells
you there are no stupid questions (even though there are, of course). In
the long run, this will hopefully reduce the computer paranoia among the
"illiterate" masses and make us all more productive (like the Mac was 
supposed to do).

Hell, it may even generate more demand for more and better software, giving us
programmers job security unmatched even by Teamster's Union members. (Unless
those boys in reusable design environments, ala HyperCard, put programming in
the hands of the User - then we're all in for some trouble)


PS: One of main reasons the "illiterate" masses are that way (aside from
lack of equipment) is that the few times they've been on a computer, they
have been made to feel stupid by the machine (error messages like "Illegal
operation" instead of "I dont know what you mean by...", or no message at
all). Let's not contribute to this disincentive to computer use, unless we
want to maintain an elite of "smart" users only.

PPS: I received mail from the author of GateKeeper, Chris Johnson, who seems
genuinely willing to help and has done exactly as I suggested (better, even)
in providing alerts. Apparently these alerts run only under System 6, so that
the original user may not have had System 6 since he/she had to systematically
remove INITs to identify GateKeeper. If he did, I'm sure he's learned his
lesson from this net exchange.

GateKeeper is obviously an excellent program and service to the Mac community.






========================================================================
Richard Fozzard
University of Colorado				"Serendipity empowers"
fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu