Well, you may wonder what this title hides behind and what an article like this does on a website about Linux and free software. Well the answer is simple, I will try to explain how the minds of developers work and designers who work at Apple and how they have affected the Android project and humanity, being able to be well deserving of the Ig Nobel Prizes for anti-contributions to humanity. But if you will allow me, I am going to start by explaining something quite interesting that has been released in recent days about how technology affects our intelligence.
Technology is certainly good for humansIf not, this blog and others would be meaningless. I love technology and am a huge advocate for it, but there is a certain technology that is made, excuse me for the expression, "fool-proof" by underestimating the brainpower of its users. I will repeat it throughout this article, I do not attack the users who use it, but those who create it. The issue of usability and intuitive environments is fine, but to a certain extent, since if you go too easy, technology can become a weapon against humans and cease to be a tool for their benefit.
You have heard that Google has affected our ability to memorize, since we no longer need to remember so many things, we simply look for them in the famous search engine ... And other diseases have also appeared derived from the use we make of technology. Well, what was going on, the environments and software that go from usability and ease of use, such as Apple's, may be affecting our intellectual capacity, they prevent us from having to think and complicate our lives, and yes, this can be uncomfortable, but sometimes trying pays off big.
Some time ago I was able to read an article that stated that users of various operating systems had been analyzed to see your computer skills and the order was as follows: BSD and other * nix, GNU / Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. It is not surprising that the order of knowledge matches the order of difficulty, from more complicated to simpler. It's not that more capable users use Unix and less powerful ones use OS X (which may also be the case), but maybe classic * nix users (not counting OS X) have had to struggle with their machines. to install or configure your computer, while those of OS X or Windows simply by pressing a click and have everything done ... Therefore, the former will have learned more than those that have been given so easily.
Everyone knows that practicing with something makes you assimilate the concepts in a much deeper way and permanent that if you read, visualize or listen to it. How many things that you have memorized in school do you remember and how many things that you have practiced do you remember? And going back to the title, Apple developers make attractive, very usable and extremely simple designs, which can sometimes even underestimate the intelligence of their users. Linus Torvalds already said it: «If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it«. To what I am going, it is good that there is simple technology for the elderly or digital immigrants that costs them more to learn than digital natives, but, I insist, up to a point.
And now we go with the consequences of «Everything intuitive and everything easy, without effort, without thinking ...», a study carried out with students from prestigious universities such as Harvard, MIT, etc., has revealed that more than 50% (and in other universities it exceeds 80%) of the students were unable to solve a simple problem: «A ball and a baseball bat cost a total of $ 1,10. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? The answer is that the ball costs $ 0.05, since the bat would cost $ 1,05. This is worrying and it seems that technology is turning off our intellectual capacity in a certain way, just as certain primitive abilities have ceased to be in the human being due to evolution, technology, which is part of this evolution, seems to be disabling the mental capacity. Technology thinks for us!
And what does Android have to do with all this? Well simple, Mac OS X is a registered UNIX, but perhaps UNIX, or rather its philosophy, is little left. The core of Mac OS X is XNU, a hybrid that combined Mach 2.5 and BSD 4.3 (although it was later replaced with FreeBSD code). Apple's philosophy did not match that of these systems in terms of usability. They have provided them with a graphical interface and automated tools so extremely simple and attractive that they have forgotten the essence and worst, they have destroyed their potential in pursuit of ease of use. FreeBSD is powerful, Mac OS X is capped, tied down, restricted, ...
What happens with Android is something similar, despite being based on a Linux kernel, Android is probably the system of this type that suffers the most from malware and security problems, in addition to being a system that without root is too inflexible. It has lost all that Linux essence that it should enjoy, and everything in favor of creating a system with great usability and simple so that anyone with a finger can configure, use and do whatever it allows you. And no wonder, since The idea of Android came from the mind of an Apple worker, as Steve Wozniak clarified, and thus brought this mindset to Google. The result? A successful product like Apple's, but ...
Please, I insist, Apple users are not offended. And this could be transferred to Android as I say and to other systems such as Windows or even to certain free projects. It is not about attacking or calling users idiots, the problem lies with its creators, Apple (and the creators of Android in this case), not its users who are only victims….
You pose the subject as if the object of an operating system were the same operating system and not another. An OS is a tool or intermediary to do other things: write a text, navigate, do photo retouching, program, etc. If you facilitate the task and not complicate it, you do your job. The rest are fallacies.
Of course the OS is useless by itself, it is a "layer" between the user and the machine on which the rest of the apps will work for different tasks ...
But the operating system provides tools such as installers (type Next, Next, Accept…) or configurations that are one-click… I think that the intelligentsia has little to say in these cases. It has a desktop, a GUI that also makes things easier for you ...
And it's not about developers creating complicated systems. Of course if it saves you work or is simpler better, but up to a point. Once this limit is exceeded, these products become an insult to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, rather they seem systems for Australopithecus.
And it is not only applicable to apps or OS, but also to other gadgets and devices that we use frequently.
It is not about having to compile from source and make everything extremely complicated. But between that and Next, Next, Accept… there is a middle ground.
Great truth, when you learn something is when you hit the system, it drives you crazy, you try this and it does not work, you try the other and break it more, etc. It is true that not everyone can be an IT expert, but chewing it only puts them at risk due to ignorance of the technology they use. You don't have to be a great hacker, but at least have some basic notions, just like you don't have to be a mechanic or an engineer to drive a car, but you have to have a license ...
Thank you!
Your argument is incoherent, you talk about the flexibility of certain systems using inflexible arguments, basically in 2 aspects:
Type of user: From your point of view there is only one type of user, the one who must have knowledge of the operating system and must absolutely spend their time on it, what do you really live in?
Tools: For the vast majority the OS is a means and not an end, extrapolating your tastes and knowledge through unreal generalizations if it shows a certain ignorance, the photo that speaks of iDiots would also be applicable to those who live with their backs to reality and they believe that "their world" is "the world."
Look, I work in a research center that applies advanced mathematics, very advanced, in different areas. Tomorrow I will propose to my Boss, Professor with 20 years of experience, that he migrate to a linux system and that he renounce OSx, that is, in return he will have to dedicate a large part of his time to increase his "computer intelligence" and will automatically switch from be an iDiot to iReady. I honestly believe that you live in a parallel reality.
Read the article again. It is not about whether there is one type of user or 20. It is about giving you everything ready-made or easy, at a click… as if you couldn't think. Ease yes, stupid no.
And now I pass the idea of this article to the world of education in Spain. In other educational systems, such as the Nordic ones, they teach children to think, they give them the tools and it is the students who discover the how and why of things. In Spain they do not teach how to think (usually, there are very good teachers too), they simply teach: this is so, period, memorize it and I will ask you in the exam, and then I will reduce you to a mere figure or a word (failure , remarkable,…) ????
And now I return to the computer issue, do you think that someone can learn more by installing an executable Next, Next, Accept ... than someone who does it from the code, compiling, ... or from a binary, but knowing how and why (there must be simple alternatives, I have said it in the article, for older people or that it costs them more…) What's more, forget this. I ask you another thing, do you think that with all the facilities, intellectually speaking, that they give us now, we are not stopping using a certain mental capacity? It is that they even tell us on TV (school, other media) who is good and who is bad, who to vote for and who not, how to dress or how to act ... Although this, apart from touching on intelligence or reasoning issues, would also go further there, touching on issues such as freedom, ethics and morals.
Well, first of all you speak of fallacies and for the sake of argument I will tell you nothing more than: you are wrong.
One, you start by distorting the issue, that more than an absolute truth is an opinion text, based on a study. Well, here everything is fine, we can appeal to the information that science gives us, such as percentage points. But a separate case.
Two, SO or not, it is true that technology makes us useless in CERTAIN aspects, as the author of the text says, speaking of computer skills or knowledge. It is no longer necessary to hunt the caribou on duty, there are markets. That is to say, yes that the advance has rendered useless to the MOST of human beings in the field of hunting our dinner.
Three, I quote: 'Forgive me the expression,' foolproof 'undervaluing the intellectual capacity of those who use it. I will repeat it throughout this article, I do not attack the users who use it, but those who create it. » And many more examples.
In short, who must believe that the absolute reality is yours is you.
First of all I must say that your article has raised my morale 20 points !!! I have managed to solve the problem of the bat, I swear that before reading your solution, using my level of math acquired in high school!
B + P = $ 1,10
B> P = 1 -> B = P + 1
P + P +1 = 1,10 = >> P = 0,10 / 2 = >> P = 0,05
B + 0,05 = 1,10 = >> B = 1,05
B = $ 1,05> P = $ 0,05 difference 1 $
As for the article, I think that things that do have something to do with it are mixed, but in a very superficial way. It is true that if they give us everything done they make us digital illiterate but I believe that the problem, if it can be considered as such, is that this practice encourages superspecialization. In other words, I am a computer developer, I develop and I don't know anything about mechanics. You fix my car and I'll put the Güindowns for you. Damn, I have been even more simplistic !!!
The mechanic knows a lot about engines and tires and the computer scientist from the Big Apple or the transparent windows knows a lot about code and scripts for fools ...
Meanwhile, the poor renaissance man who is the typical * nix user has to replace and solder the capacitor that has burst on his plate, look at the oil in his car since it does not reach the mechanic, put the Guindowns in the neighborhood @ maciz @ by the face, find out why the script that comes in the current distro natively does not go with its penultimate generation graphics card (remember that it is poor) ... Anyway, I'm losing my grip.
Greetings and thanks for making my day!
If you really think that by compiling a program and not using a wizard for its installation you are more intelligent, you are an idiot and you have to go over mac ...
You should not generalize, much less underestimate the developers of any platform. Each one has its pros and cons and, luckily, there are them for all tastes. Focus on talking about the one you like the most (linux) because every time you comment something about whether mac is simple or Windows insecure it makes me want to stop reading you.
A bit of rigor please.
Read the comments, I don't think compiling a program is the solution, but there is a middle ground. A Next, Next, OK menu doesn't even give you a choice. The first thing is to accept the license yes or yes, because if you do not accept it, it will no longer allow you to install. Then it shows you a screen and Next, what other option do you have apart from continuing if you want to install?,… And it's not just because of the software, I'm talking about technology in general.
The key is that the OS are aimed at the majority of the population, who are computer literate. Most use the equipment as tools without wanting to delve into its operation. You can be a pilot and not know how to build airplanes.
I disagree, you just think, skewed, from your point of view, come on, you are not the only race on the face of the earth. I am of the opinion that, many times, why the hell should I know anything about computers? I use * nix as "only OS", I do not have Win or Apple, which I would love, which often makes me want to forget that I am in front of a PC and focus on work. Without Win and Apple the software would be very mediocre.
A simple example, what would office automation be if there were no Redmon Office? Sure a nerd would be proud to edit documents from their terminal, but not all are nerds, assimilate and accept it.
Hello, all of you have taken it from the point of view of computing, it is not that. I don't care about computer skills, it's not about computer skills. Perhaps I have not been able to express myself correctly. It is not about knowledge either, I can know more about electronics and not have a clue about piloting an airplane or aeronautics. Each one learns and studies what he wants and not all of us have to know everything, the era of the wise is over. It is about something very different, it is about taking away your intellectual or reasoning capacity. Sometimes they want to make everything so extremely simple or already done, that it undermines the ability of those who use it.
It is not about making things complicated, nor about computer skills. I have given some examples, but I am talking about technology in general and the damage it is doing to users in some cases because it is so extremely simple.
In addition, without Apple and Microsoft the software would not be mediocre, now the one who thinks in a biased way is you. There are big projects beyond Microsoft and Apple. And the ones you call nerds may not be so nerd. If they want to edit documents from the terminal to do so, no one prevents them, nor do I prevent with this opinion the use of Apple software. And without Office, of which I have written several articles recognizing how good it is, as there would be Calligra Suite, LibreOffice, OpenOffice, and many other alternative office automation projects. Beyond Office there is life ...
A greeting!
You will be surprised to know that before Office there were already text editors like WordStar or WordPerfect, spreadsheets like Lotus 123 or Ability, database managers like dBase III. And there were office suites like Open Access II. Yes!. Microsoft did not invent office automation. There was already a lot of software before.
Contrary to what this article says, I believe that every day we are more intelligent since our tools (in this case, the computer ones) are so simplified and "fool-proof" that people have more time to do what they really should ( the agronomist, the architect, the biologist, the geneticist and others) and for what they are really good at and not solving issues that do not concern them. As someone already wrote in another comment, one day humanity devised livestock farming and supply chains and since we no longer had to spend long hours hunting our food, we spent those hours developing, innovating and creating and that is why we are where we are. . In conclusion, I prefer that a doctor is 15 minutes closer to discovering the cure against a disease and not 15 minutes closer to knowing how the software in which he keeps his blogs is compiled by hand and installed.
Let's see Isaac, do not stay with the examples, I simply think that you have been wrong in the approach you take, stating that a simple system makes you less mentally agile. Perhaps if you had not put a particular system in place, we would have understood that the easier things make for us, the less we get used to making an effort.
An interesting debate. Of course, the simplification of the tool does not make its users any more or less intelligent, although what is intelligent is having simplified it. However, it seems more relevant to me the lack of curiosity about the tool, in this case, the operating system. I have no relationship with the computer world, but that does not mean that I have been interested at least in it until I make gnu-linux my only OS. And I continue to learn, but without excess: it is after all a tool, but fundamental in our daily lives.
Reading the article about three times because I could not understand what the author wanted to express, and I read the comments to see the approaches and effectively each one interpreted in their own way.
The point according to me is if technology makes us dumb? or that developers or companies in the computer industry are the ones to blame for going stupid for making everything easy, well, but what is the sense of creating technology if it is not to simplify things. And that example that now we no longer memorize phone numbers, at least before I used a smartphone, I wrote them down on a piece of paper or kept the card so as not to forget a number, now we keep them on the same phone or on the cloud depending on the service used.
Technology does not make anyone a fool, nor are the developers to blame, what if there are different good or bad uses, a person without computer knowledge or some other different branch, for them technology, as they say in previous comments, only It is a means, another tool, period, if that tool simplifies something that was very laborious, you will use it without a doubt and take advantage of your free time for other things. What do you prefer to use an accounting program that takes care of your business accounting? Or do all that by hand and spend hours that you can use on other things? Or getting super extreme, the people who used Ubuntu and installed the programs they needed to discover the gravitational waves predicted by Albert Einstein. Are they more foolish for having used technology that simplified things and focused efforts on other aspects of said study?
The idea of your article sounds interesting, but if you need to explain things better and give examples that really have a negative impact on human beings, and not to say that now we no longer memorize phone numbers.
I am a Linux user and I solved the problem wrong.
The total is $ 1.10 and the ball is worth one dollar less.
I thought the bat was worth 1 dollar and the ball 10 cents.
Why is this solution invalid?
Why is it necessarily 1.05 and 0.05?
Hi, it can't be $ 1 a bat and $ 10 a ball. This was the most widespread response among those surveyed. But it is wrong because if it is worth that, the bat would be worth 90cent (1-0.10 = 0.90) more than the ball and not $ 1. The only solution is to consider that the bat costs at least $ 1 and we have 0.10 left that if you divide them equally (0.10 / 2 = 0.05) you can already deduce that the bat is worth $ 1.05 and the ball is $ 0.05 (now, 1.05 -0.05 = $ 1, if it is worth $ 1 more than the ball).
Each app has a purpose "whatever the platform" the end user wants ease of use and a pleasant design. That the app is easy to use, attractive and intuitive, does not have any relationship, much less determines, the level or intellectual progress of each user, since each person is dedicated to a specific field of knowledge, that is, for example: a Surgeon neither can nor need to waste time with complicated apps, what he wants, what he needs from an app, is that it covers certain needs with the greatest ease of use possible. Does this mean that you are smarter than the surgeon? With your argument we would use the DOS operating system again to gain intelligence or better yet, that the surgeon develop his own OS and applications.
Anyway, I am not going to analyze your article, I only conclude that you have tried to make an argumentative text and what you have done is an expository text full of inconsistencies.
Let's see… In what part of the article does it talk about being smarter using more complicated software. Nowhere is there talk of gaining intelligence. A person with an IQ of 80 who compiles is not going to have a 100 and an IQ 160 is not going to be a borderline for using Mac.
What I am trying to say, and it seems that you do not want to understand ... is that technology so extremely simple (be it software, device or whatever), can make us intellectually lazy.
But if you want to continue seeing what is not in the article, then go ahead.
Perhaps the exposition of the main idea of the text is not a success, since it confuses. But yes, in a way, the general idea that simplicity can lead us not to think is not only true, but also evident. The average user has become accustomed to not thinking, and when something does not work "within its simplicity", he simply is not able to solve his problem. And I am not saying this, but I am based on my experience as a computer scientist in a university faculty, with a large number of users: 5000 (students, administration ...).
The problem is not so much this simplicity, but the idea behind it: dependency. And from this dependency arises the (legal) benefit of companies that create software. It is evident that if a user saves time on certain tasks, they will be able to apply them to others that I considered more important (for example, a graphic designer). But, if we now transfer this same concept, for example, to driving, we see that if we do not go to a driving school and get a driving license, it will be difficult for us to drive a car in "normal" and safe conditions. Yes, the example is exaggerated, but it illustrates the idea well.
I read, amazed, that almost everyone resorts to the hackneyed "mantra" of compiling code, etc ..., because from my humble opinion, I do not think the general idea goes there, even if there is any mention in the article.
I am not so daring to define which company works more in this line of simplicity / dependence, because I think that almost all of it really tries to bring this idea to its developments.
On the other hand, I am surprised by the "baseness" of some previous comments. A contrary opinion can be expressed politely. I think that when someone loses their manners, it is because they personalize the problem in themselves in some way. Relax, please.
regards
Here we do not talk about a specific operating system, many interpreted it that way, what they really do not talk about is simplicity, this applies to everything in general and not only for computing, for example people who have always eaten fast food like maruchan among others when facing the kitchen it costs them more (this already happens in many young people) there is also the case of if there is no simple food to prepare, I do not eat, for the same with computers, a point is reaching that if It is not totally easy to do, people are not interested, the other day I was watching the revenant movie and to my surprise most of the comments are that it was a bad movie because it was too slow and action scenes did not appear every 5 minutes, being that people who are used to a particular type of film and cannot tolerate something different are in a culture that is too used to being in the comfort zone. Another disadvantage is that you can put anything in the software and the user does not even take into account and I have seen so many cases of malware, phishing and other things that at first glance you can see that they are false but people drop for example a facebook link in a website with a false url but with the identical interface, it is like medicine there are medicines that help and others that are not useful others that do not work for a certain disease, however people have instilled in them that it is positive and they take it without even looking that they are ingesting the same with industrial foods that have so much that one cannot imagine, the same with software and spyware back doors and a multitude of things.
A study revealed that one thing that makes us smarter is changes and challenges.
Some rats were made to follow the same maze day by day and others were slightly changed the labyrinth day by day, the brain of the second rats was more connected to each other (brain plasticity) and was larger in some specific areas of planning and decision.
Android is crap, few updates, a lot of bloatware, root required, google slave. No more androis I'm going to iphone or windows phone.
hehe friend ... I go further, I go to the old LG a275.
The reason, I got tired of the smart panelas.
Man, because you buy a device from brands like Samsung, which fill it with bloatware, now think that you have the option to change the rom in android easily and put the version of android you want, rotated and optimized. And the slave of google, I think it is the least, don't you think? Windows a slave to Microsoft and Ios a slave to Apple (especially Apple accessories that go a long way in price) and on updates I think the number is irrelevant if not the modifications and optimizations that they make
I'm not going to open a debate about what is right or wrong, but honestly, this article borders on insulting to a UX Designer. Steve Krug or Donald Norman I think they would think like me. This article, without wanting to insult far from it, has made me feel like a «naughty Nerd» seasoned with a bit of technophobia for taking a study in which they do a simple mathematical test that people fail, nothing directly related to the use or conditioning of a particular OS.
I think that if Windows and Apple exist today it is because NO Linux distribution has learned that not everyone has computer knowledge and people do not want to, nor will they use manuals or documentation. I suppose that, being here, it is evidence that I use Linux, although I also use Mac (as an iOS developer) and Windows (for leisure). Apart from programming, Linux is insipid, it is not something you enjoy, it is something you settle for.
As you said when you have put the analysis of computer knowledge, the more complex, the more COMPUTER knowledge (to emphasize a little more). You call it victory and I call it defeat. A user should not have computer skills to make his computer a useful tool. He will have knowledge of his subject that, perhaps, is even more complex than knowing how to use a piece of equipment. Also mentioning Linus Torvalds for something that is not purely computerized seems to me an incredible mistake. That you tell me that iOS is enabled, I accept it without a doubt, that you tell me that Macintosh is enabled, I deny it ...
I'm going to give you a simile that I know will be of painful quality but I think you will understand the underlying philosophy of everything I want to convey:
Do you think that by using your hands you think less? Do you think you would be smarter if you had to think carefully about each movement to which part of the body you want it to go and with what intensity? Would you work at the same speed?
A distinction must be made between tools and implementers. The executor - the brain and, outside of the simile, the user - does not have to know absolutely anything about how his tools work - the hands and, outside of the simile, the computer - he simply must use them for a purpose. That does not make you stupid because you simply do not waste time on something that can be considered useless.
Please do not take my comment too seriously or too seriously.
Hello. I quote a part of your post with which I cannot agree.
«I think that if Windows and Apple exist today, it is because NO Linux distribution has learned that not everyone has computer skills and people do not want to, nor are they going to use manuals or documentation. I suppose that, being here, it is evidence that I use Linux, although I also use Mac (as an iOS developer) and Windows (for leisure). Apart from the programming, Linux is insipid, it is not something you enjoy, it is something you settle for. "
Apart from having neither head nor tail, what little I can understand about this paragraph is not correct. The reasons why Apple and Windows are there have nothing to do with Linux, apart from the fact that they share a large part of the code and technological base. Some are technically valid hardware exploitation systems, period. Another thing is the philosophy of creation, distribution, ownership and use that underlies the different license models that each one has.
Nor do I agree that a distribution (its creators) has to learn anything about users, unless it is aimed at a very particular type of user. Most current GNU / linux-based distributions are generalists and have a more than acceptable level of development for the average user. Another thing is all the available software, common to all of them, which in many cases are more oriented to a specific distribution but making the appropriate adjustments can work perfectly in others. There I can give you some reason that the user is forced to have certain computer skills that in most cases they do not have to be able to use that software.
Lastly, I don't know what you mean when you use the word tasteless. That word, as far as I know, is used to qualify a taste property, eg in food.
When I refer to Windows and Apple, I am not talking about them at a technological level, nor about the positive or negative quality of each one. What I mean is that Linux currently has not generated real competition as OS, something that if it had been made closer and more familiar to the common user, it would have put a lot of pressure on the larger ones.
A self-respecting distribution should learn which target it wants to target. A generalist distribution does not have to think about what type of user will use its software, but this leaves a lot of people in the way.
When I say that Linux is tasteless, I am referring to a taste property, of course. Like foods that do not have any flavor and do not give you any satisfaction, Linux does not produce satisfaction when using it, although its usefulness is totally unquestionable.
In summary and at the end of the day: Having to open a terminal in Linux (something that is our daily bread) makes people not use it because it is not intuitive. That people do not use it implies that it does not generate interest or competition which, in my opinion, is a totally avoidable defeat.
You fall into a mistake when saying that a developer for making it simple, despises the user, what he does is work hard so that the end user of the software can work without problems, buy the software and use it and not have so much paperwork. The same is a car, you buy it to start it up and not think about each and every one of the components in its operation that allow movement.
It would be ideal for everyone to be taught computer science so that we can all create our OS and software and to use others we know how it works and how to make it work, but that is nothing more than an ideal, just as it is an ideal that we all know how to sow, we know of law and laws and of economics.
As long as the software is useful and easy to use, it will be more productive and that is what we want and buy, we don't buy tedium or lack of productivity (that's what yotutube is for), productivity speed and better performance are bought, and that's where the developer it is necessary to applaud it, because more and more illiterate people in terms of computer science can enter this wonderful world.
Grace is seeing the utility of knowledge. It is useful to know how to compile software and to know how codes and other herbs work, when what a writer does is write books and open his text editor and just write? Did a bad job that programmer who in the installation only gives you the option of OK, next, put the password, support, thanks? I don't think it's a great job at all. If it were more difficult, many would put these tools aside and use typewriters.
The development of humanity is based on at least two things. One is that we want all work to be easy, or else there would be no tools. Two pastry chefs to your cakes, what matters to a student who wants to be a physical preparer, know how to compile the software that allows him to edit texts or talk with his friends.
The other, I will give you a life advice, when reading your opinion I can only say that you belong to a very small group within a small and minority that likes technology in the area of software development and updating. The vast majority are not even interested in that, they do not think about SO, they think about equipment brands, they seek productivity and time to drink and have sex, they are not interested in these topics.
I am interested in them anyway, I consider myself illiterate and ignorant, but I like to read and get closer, however, it must be recognized that most people are not interested in these things, they only seek to be productive without viruses and to like photos either on facebook and instagram, nothing more. Your position is a small position.
And in view of this vast majority who are not interested (if they were interested, they would learn) knowing how to compile, solve graphical environment problems, use the terminal and others, it is that developers seek to facilitate everything and for my excellent, everyone is happy and productive.
You always have to be ambitious, but everyone is ambitious in what they like to each one, computer science is one more area of life and it is certainly even less important than others.
Regarding the mathematical problem, that people do not know how to develop it is basically because it is a problem with a trap xD clearly if you do not do the equation you tend to say 1 and the other 0,1 in terms of the value and mathematically it will give you well, despite that the other result by equation would be more correct (only correct)
And as for Android, plagued by malware and security? certainly, if it is very massive, not like linux. The incredible thing is how little notorious IOS security problems are that few attacks and garbage reach him with great popularity.
Actually they are all correct; what the author wanted to understand complicated the installation, the use of termibal etc. It makes one use the head a little more and the logic that is how the human brain works. It is very complex but at the same time simple for the user; hehe I liked the example of the bat that squares very well when using the brain and the mathematical formulas you get another result that does not seem logical. So everyone is right, technology invades us, to the point of our body like clothing. I am talking about the Internet of things, as well as science fiction they will have more control, what happens is that we do not realize it because we still have control but up to what point is what friends should debate!
Please ... what does this matter. The life of most people does not revolve around operating systems, the truth is that if it is easy to use it makes my life less complicated and I spend that time living ... finally everyone uses technology as a tool to simplify processes. to make matters worse, let's think then about changing the wheel for a square just because the wheel simplified processes
I bought my first computer ... I didn't even know what a hard disk was, it came with windows installed and with 17 gigabytes of hard disk (you will never fill it they told me) a week I loaded it, I lowered it to the store I paid for what a guy wrote format c: and swore not to pay again, consequently I learned to use it, break it and fix it, a year ago I came to debian, at first a bit of a scare, but nowadays it is easy to find any information (sites like this for example) . I have not touched a mac in my life, I can not speak, but I suppose that I was just as curious that I was with windows, and that now I am with my soul debian, (bye Microsoft) it would be with those of the apple.
In short, an operating system does not make you more or less intelligent, or more or less lazy, that (and it is only my opinion) you only choose and decide. I suppose that in the end it will be that since I'm not the hot neighbor and I'm just a bald glasses, I never found anyone who wanted to fix my computer—