23 Jan
2007
23 Jan
'07
11:42 p.m.
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 19:41 +0000, Tony Duell wrote:
I feel I should repsond to this part, since it does
have quite a bit to
do with classic computing.
I have to say *I* have seen none of this, Tony, but I've not been
around long, and could easily have missed a classic rant or two...
<Grin>
Your personal preference for only using computers
you can rebuild for the
next 100 years is so pervasive that quite often it colors your posts and
advice to the point that it can seem quite condescending. To be perfectly
honest, I've been offended (indirectly) on more than a few occasions by
the... vitriol... that you may or may not even know is present in many of
I apologise. This is certainly _not_ my intention.
> your posts WRT either 1) computers that can't be troubleshot at the gate
> level, or 2) people who cannot troubleshoot computers at the gate level. I think _everyone_ here could do component-level
troubleshooting if they
wanted to. It's mostly a matter of logical reasoning, and I think everone
here can think logically.
Erm, I think you're projecting. Troubleshooting is only partially a
learned skill. The idea of building a mental model of how it is
SUPPOSED to work, and seeing what is different, which is how I assume
you work, is NOT a skill that is universal. I have the impression that
fewer than half of the humans alive, even in this technological age,
have the mental fundament upon which to build skill in troubleshooting.
I read an article some time back about surveying populations for
particular skills. If you have the basis for troubleshooting, which you
obviously do, it *WILL* seem easy, even inevitable, that such skills,
mixed with some information about the equipment, will generate
troubleshooting ability. Troubleshooting is one of those skills, like
ability to teach others, which exists in large measure as inherent
ability, rather than as acquired skill. Or, perhaps, we are just
unaware of the process which might impart that ability to others. If
so, that situation is functionally indistinguishable from the first.
This last part may explain why I'm so fanatical
about it. I find it fun.
I like solving puzzles. I like logic puzzles particularly. And that's
exactly what rtoubleshooting should be. A puzzle. It's like detective
work. You gather the clues, think about them, and find the cluprit.
Fortunately for me, the rsults of being wrong are somewhat less serious
than sending an innocent man to the gallows ;-)
My mother used to say the same things about crossword puzzles.
"Anyone can do them," she would say, "everybody knows the words."
Uh,
yeah, mum, but not everyone can sort through the words in their head to
find the proper one. I am a troubleshooter by nature, and crossword
puzzles come easily to me, but I know that is NOT the case for everyone.
I guess troubelshooting is one reason that I mess
around with old
hardware. I do enjoy it.
There are at least two kinds of troubleshooting, based on objective:
first, troubleshooting for the joy of the hunt, and the idea of making
the world a more coherent place through one's own efforts. And, the
second kind is the kind of troubleshooting undertaken to remove an
obstacle to progress. This is done, generally, under time pressure, and
is not usually very much fun. Fixing a computer because NOT fixing it
might get one sacked is not the way to foster a gourmet's taste for
repair.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net