Please sent your replies to the list, not to me personal, thanks. Oh, and please configure your MUA to include reply tokens, otherwise trying to find out who wrote what becomes somewhat tiresome.
Anders Johansson andjoh@rydsbo.net: On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 00:24, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
- /dev notion; block, character, special
- notion about security; root & lusers, why so many system users
- scripting; (ba)sh, awk, sed, python
- textfile editting: vi/emacs/joe/...
- notion about processes and memory management as seen with ps or top
- some basic network notion: ifconfig/route/ip
<snip>
I thought this was about teaching people what to expect in a Linux environment, you seem to want to teach them administrator skills right away.
Fair comments, but given what you suggested (see snipped section) a bit odd, since a luser wouldn't have to know about /dev, and talking about vi, sed, awk and emacs would probably be the best way to get them to run away and never look at linux/unix ever again :)
I don't agree. the /dev/ fs is an important property of Linux/Unix, it is imho important that users realize that ordinary files basically behave in the same way as a mounted floppy, a string of zero's, a string of nulls or a tapedrive. Ie, they have stdin and stdout, and can pipe from or to programs.
Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor tools is usefull too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these tools for future uses.
I think the most important thing is to decide who the target audience is, and then tailor the class after what they need to know and be able to do
that would be a logical course.
Theo
* Mon, 02 Jun 2003, twe-suse.e@ferrets4me.xs4all.nl:
Please sent your replies to the list, not to me personal, thanks. Oh, and please configure your MUA to include reply tokens, otherwise trying to find out who wrote what becomes somewhat tiresome.
Forget about this last bit, it was coused by my forward of course.
Theo
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 01:30, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
Please sent your replies to the list, not to me personal, thanks.
Sorry about that.
Oh, and please configure your MUA to include reply tokens, otherwise trying to find out who wrote what becomes somewhat tiresome.
If by "reply token" you mean an indicator of who wrote the quoted material I have to ask if you're blind. You wrote the whole snipped lot, and there is a "Theo v. Werkhoven wrote" attribution.
Please adjust *your* mailer to add proper quote marks. In your mail it appears that I wrote the "I thought this was about..." paragraph, which was a quote from your mail and indicated as such in the mail I sent to you.
I don't agree. the /dev/ fs is an important property of Linux/Unix, it is imho important that users realize that ordinary files basically behave in the same way as a mounted floppy, a string of zero's, a string of nulls or a tapedrive. Ie, they have stdin and stdout, and can pipe from or to programs.
No it isn't. It is completely useless knowledge for, say, the company secretary. In fact, it is worse than useless, since it's just distracting from his/her real work.
There are users for whom that type of knowledge would be useful. And then there are most users, for whom it is not.
Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor tools is usefull too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these tools for future uses.
For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins.
It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
* Mon, 02 Jun 2003, andjoh@rydsbo.net:
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 01:30, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
I don't agree. the /dev/ fs is an important property of Linux/Unix, it is imho important that users realize that ordinary files basically behave in the same way as a mounted floppy, a string of zero's, a string of nulls or a tapedrive. Ie, they have stdin and stdout, and can pipe from or to programs.
No it isn't. It is completely useless knowledge for, say, the company secretary. In fact, it is worse than useless, since it's just distracting from his/her real work.
But the company secretary won't be asked e.g. to extract some information from a sql database and put that on a floppy in a DOS format or whatever.
There are users for whom that type of knowledge would be useful. And then there are most users, for whom it is not.
It doesn't help users to keep them in the dark about why things work the way they do. You don't keep information about the drives system from Windows users either, although most never have a clue about the implications.
Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor tools is usefull too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these tools for future uses.
For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins.
How can you say beforehand what a user needs or is going to need once he/she has the tools at their disposal? Some people do more than email and writing memo's you know.
It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
No it doesn't, the thought that they can't play their games and that they don't get all these "funny" emails with flash/java/mediafiles or who knows what scares them away.
Theo
* Theo v. Werkhoven (twe-suse.e@ferrets4me.xs4all.nl) [030601 17:08]: -> ->No it doesn't, the thought that they can't play their games and that ->they don't get all these "funny" emails with flash/java/mediafiles or ->who knows what scares them away. ->
Actually, it's partly the things above that scare people away, but the other 70% of the reason people haven't yet jumped on Linux is that they don't really grasp why they should change. They think every system has virus problems and they really don't understand the differences. So they think " Why should I go to the trouble to change, what I have works just fine and it's a " standard ". Even though what a standard is can be debated until the cows come home. They are just apathetic to it. The things that make people change are things such as iTunes or some other " ohhh..I have to have that .." application. Things are progressing slowly but steady. This is a good thing. I would be happy if the industry would just think of computing as having 3 standard environments so that when software, drivers and hardware are produced that they keep Windows, OSX and Linux in mind and everything works with each. That would be fine with me. But Microsoft returning to being an applications company only or dying outright over time would make me happy as well. I honestly don't want Microsoft to die to quickly because to many people make their living with that crap and I wouldn't want them to not be able to support their families..so a slow death and re-training of the talent out there would be nice. :)
On Monday 02 June 2003 02:07, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote: <snip>
But the company secretary won't be asked e.g. to extract some information from a sql database and put that on a floppy in a DOS format or whatever.
There are users for whom that type of knowledge would be useful. And then there are most users, for whom it is not.
It doesn't help users to keep them in the dark about why things work the way they do. You don't keep information about the drives system from Windows users either, although most never have a clue about the implications.
I think these are extremely valid points. Most people will forget most of what they learn after a couple of months simple because they don't use it. However, I think it is valid to at least present the material to them.
Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor tools is usefull too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these tools for future uses.
For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins.
How can you say beforehand what a user needs or is going to need once he/she has the tools at their disposal? Some people do more than email and writing memo's you know.
Plus there is a difference between a Linux course and a KDE or Gnome course. If someone wants to learn how to use/run/admin Linux then you need to tell them about sed, awk and vi. If all they are interested in is how to run the apps in KDE, then they probably don't need to know about vi. However, that is obviously a different target audience.
It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
No it doesn't, the thought that they can't play their games and that they don't get all these "funny" emails with flash/java/mediafiles or who knows what scares them away.
I agree with you there. Although there are a lot of people who simply want something familiar to read their email or surf the net, most of the people I know are interested in learning a little more. That is what the course needs to teach them. If they want an Windows-like GUI where they only need to press a few buttons, then the Linux distributions need to provide something that reaches that level of "do nothing" installs.
Regards,
jimmo
On Monday 02 June 2003 18.39, James Mohr wrote:
However, that is obviously a different target audience.
Well, you never said what the target audience is, and that is obviously the most important part in designing a course curriculum. There is no such thing as "a linux course", there is "a linux course for ...<fill in user type here>". If you try to put a little bit of everything in there, chances are that your students will walk away with nothing at all.
On Monday 02 June 2003 17:16, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 02 June 2003 18.39, James Mohr wrote:
However, that is obviously a different target audience.
Well, you never said what the target audience is, and that is obviously the most important part in designing a course curriculum. There is no such thing as "a linux course", there is "a linux course for ...<fill in user type here>". If you try to put a little bit of everything in there, chances are that your students will walk away with nothing at all.
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately a lot of people have been making assumptions about the intended audience is and insisting that what they would present (based on their assumptions) is the "only" way to do it.
Regards,
jimmo
* Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [030601 16:41]:
->> Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor ->> tools is usefull too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these ->> tools for future uses. -> ->For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time ->when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins. -> ->It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to ->include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
I'd have to agree with Anders on this point. When I was working at SuSE in Oakland the secretary used Linux on her workstation and rarely had an issue that I remember. She used Netscape, StarOffice and many other programs. I doubt she ever opened a terminal client the whole time she was working there. She got along fine with what she was given to work with. I can't speak about other secretaries in other companies because the other companies I've worked for had them using Windows.
For the most part the IT people in the company should know all of these things so they can remote admin the machines...but secretaries, sales people, marketing people and the like shouldn't know anymore then the apps they need to do their jobs. If they are using terminal clients to input data like I've seen at the Toyota dealer I go to ..then teach them that application. But I wouldn't work at a place where these types of people had root or the ability to edit anything that would need vi or emacs. Hell, some of the developers I work with now scare me in this respect and they are suppose to *know* WTF they're doing. ;)
Just 0.02 from someone who's done help desk, IT and Sys. Admining. ;)
Cheers,
I'd have to agree with Anders on this point. When I was working at SuSE in Oakland the secretary used Linux on her workstation and rarely had an issue that I remember. She used Netscape, StarOffice and many other programs. I doubt she ever opened a terminal client the whole time she was working there. She got along fine with what she was given to work with. I can't speak about other secretaries in other companies because the other companies I've worked for had them using Windows.
Exactly. I am an R.N. (registered nurse) and I have to use computers at work (more so now due to HIPAA). Every nurse logs on to a windows client. Every nurse brings up the reports. order, labs, etc, etc,,, ad nauseum. Now, Many of them don't know and could care less that many of these programs are running on a dos fs in a Unix main server, and when they look up records they go to the Nix server in St. Lious. They don't want to know, the don't need to know. They need to get the work done at the comp and get back to the patients.
So, It all depends on what class and curiculea your try to gear towards. If it user land then it's all about navigating the gui bring up programs,... in otherwords getting stuff done. Much as I hate to say it. All the windows droned I.S. instructors focus on this and only this. How do you enter the data? How do you retrieve the data? And they try to stay away from words like "data" unless it's appropriate to the professions (in the case of clinical settings it translates into Patient data, lab data, imaging data. etc... NOT comp data!) This is way Windows is used in most places, people have been weened on it and can grasp it (in that ever popular windows way). I.S./I.T. uses the KISS theory.... Keep It Simple and Stupid. Linux and the gui is pretty much on the cusp of having anything and everything that blows could offer the end-user non-tech/non-concern needs. It has been my view and observation (as is with any technical field) that there's always a division of either I can't talk to you about this because you'll need at least two years of comp classes to understand me or I can't talk to you because I don't care what makes it run, I just want to get my work done.
If your designing classes for admins or the somewhat tech savvy then you definitely need to explain the guts and howto's. If your designing classes for use by office workers, sales reps, etc, etc, then it has to be both gui and app specific.
Just my $0.02.
Cheers, Curtis.
P.S. Yes Ben, I'm still paragraphing them to death (lol) :) I can't help myself and no clinician will accept my case. (hehehe).
* Sun, 01 Jun 2003, ben@whack.org:
- Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [030601 16:41]:
->> Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor ->> tools is usefull too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these ->> tools for future uses. -> ->For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time ->when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins. -> ->It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to ->include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
I'd have to agree with Anders on this point. When I was working at SuSE in Oakland the secretary used Linux on her workstation and rarely had an issue that I remember. She used Netscape, StarOffice and many other programs. I doubt she ever opened a terminal client the whole time she was working there. She got along fine with what she was given to work with. I can't speak about other secretaries in other companies because the other companies I've worked for had them using Windows.
Ok, but we don't know /what/ these Indian people are going to do with their Linux boxes do we? If they are going to use just these basic office programs then I agree with you of course. I didn't mean to say 'give 'em a full tutorial in these Unix tools', just a mention of their existance and a notion of what can be done with them. But hey, it's not my show (hate hot weather anyway), so let the OP decide.
Theo
On Monday 02 June 2003 02:11, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
- Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [030601 16:41]:
->> Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor ->> tools is usefull too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these ->> tools for future uses. -> ->For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time ->when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins. -> ->It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to ->include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
I'd have to agree with Anders on this point. When I was working at SuSE in Oakland the secretary used Linux on her workstation and rarely had an issue that I remember. She used Netscape, StarOffice and many other programs. I doubt she ever opened a terminal client the whole time she was working there. She got along fine with what she was given to work with. I can't speak about other secretaries in other companies because the other companies I've worked for had them using Windows.
To some extent that is true. However, it would inappropriate to send that secretary to Linux course. Instead you send her to a KDE course. As others have said in various posts, if they behave that way with Windows it will be the same with Linux. That is, if they don't care what the OS is called and just want to do their job, then they are out of place in a Linux course.
For the most part the IT people in the company should know all of these things so they can remote admin the machines...but secretaries, sales people, marketing people and the like shouldn't know anymore then the apps they need to do their jobs. If they are using terminal clients to input data like I've seen at the Toyota dealer I go to ..then teach them that application. But I wouldn't work at a place where these types of people had root or the ability to edit anything that would need vi or emacs. Hell, some of the developers I work with now scare me in this respect and they are suppose to *know* WTF they're doing. ;)
Then you are not teaching them Linux. You are teaching them how to use a particular app or a particular GUI. Then I agree that teaching them sed, awk and vi would probably scare them away. On the other hand, if you are teaching them Linux, then I must agree with Theo that they are necessary parts.
regards,
jimmo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 01 June 2003 18:39, Anders Johansson wrote:
<snip>
I don't agree. the /dev/ fs is an important property of Linux/Unix, it is imho important that users realize that ordinary files basically behave in the same way as a mounted floppy, a string of zero's, a string of nulls or a tapedrive. Ie, they have stdin and stdout, and can pipe from or to programs.
No it isn't. It is completely useless knowledge for, say, the company secretary. In fact, it is worse than useless, since it's just distracting from his/her real work.
There are users for whom that type of knowledge would be useful. And then there are most users, for whom it is not.
Agreed. Not that it means it still shouldn't stay there or be there if a regular 'Joe' wants to 'start' to look at it or see what it is/does, though.
Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor tools is usefull too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these tools for future uses.
For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins.
It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
Also agreed. I've a couple of friends who got as far as the 7th grade. They're not book smart, but have all the common sense anyone could ever need...this doesn't make watching me try to show them using CLI on a konsole to untar, compile, and install a tarballed app any easier for them though. They've *never* had to mess with cli in any way on M$. They *love* Linux, but they're still gonna have to be slowly worked into being less fearfull of CLI...but if I were to open vi or awk or sed...forget it, they're eyes would glaze over and I'd lose them forever. Hell...*my* eyes glaze over seeing vi or awk! I *want* to know how to use these things, but my condition just doesn't make it feasable for me. These things *are* useful though for admins, and those who find these things 'easy' to learn and useful, but the regular 'Joe' just won't really need to use them, since kedit or kword work just fine for us 'Joe's'.
John - -- I needed fresh bugs for my SuSE gecko, and Linux penguin. So I went out and caught this huge ugly blue and red and green and yellow butterfly. They won't need fresh food for 3 months now.
Ok, showing my ignorance
..this doesn't make watching me try to show them using CLI on a konsole to untar, compile, and install a tarballed app any easier for them though. They've *never* had to mess with cli in any way on M$. They *love* Linux, but they're still gonna have to be slowly worked into being less fearfull of CLI...but if I were to open vi or awk or sed...forget it, they're eyes would glaze over and I'd lose them forever. Hell...*my* eyes glaze over seeing vi or awk! I *want* to know how to use these things, but my condition just doesn't make it feasable for me. These things *are* useful though for admins, and those who find these things 'easy' to learn and useful, but the regular 'Joe' just won't really need to use them, since kedit or kword work just fine for us 'Joe's'.
I have heard the term "CLI" on numerous occasions. I have done searches for "CLI". I have tried to find out myself and at the same time didn't want to embrasses myself by asking... What the hell is meant by "CLI"!
So, I'm asking.
What is CLI?
Cheers, Curtis.
* Curtis Rey (crrey@charter.net) [030601 21:41]: -> ->So, I'm asking. -> ->What is CLI? ->
ehheheh..it's " Commandline Interface ". :)
* Curtis Rey; crrey@charter.net on 01 Jun, 2003 wrote:
Ok, showing my ignorance I have heard the term "CLI" on numerous occasions. I have done searches for "CLI". I have tried to find out myself and at the same time didn't want to embrasses myself by asking... What the hell is meant by "CLI"!
So, I'm asking.
What is CLI?
Command Line Interface
On Sunday 01 June 2003 11:40 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
Ok, showing my ignorance
..this doesn't make watching me try to show them using CLI on a konsole to untar, compile, and install a tarballed app any easier for them though. They've *never* had to mess with cli in any way on M$. They *love* Linux, but they're still gonna have to be slowly worked into being less fearfull of CLI...but if I were to open vi or awk or sed...forget it, they're eyes would glaze over and I'd lose them forever. Hell...*my* eyes glaze over seeing vi or awk! I *want* to know how to use these things, but my condition just doesn't make it feasable for me. These things *are* useful though for admins, and those who find these things 'easy' to learn and useful, but the regular 'Joe' just won't really need to use them, since kedit or kword work just fine for us 'Joe's'.
I have heard the term "CLI" on numerous occasions. I have done searches for "CLI". I have tried to find out myself and at the same time didn't want to embrasses myself by asking... What the hell is meant by "CLI"!
So, I'm asking.
What is CLI?
Oh HELL. I know that. The big fear factor, My new best friend. The CONSOLE. ROFLMAO!
Ok, so I ain't quite as dumb as I thought (Don't say a word...shut up, and that includes you) :)
Cheers, Curtis.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 01 June 2003 11:59 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
On Sunday 01 June 2003 11:40 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
Ok, showing my ignorance
..this doesn't make watching me try to show them using CLI on a konsole to untar...
I have heard the term "CLI" on numerous occasions. ...
[and appearently lost an internal debate, so went on to say]
So, I'm asking.
What is CLI?
Actually, just to throw a curve at those that responded, when I was in Data Processing (DP) and Computer Science (CS) classes, "CLI" referred to the "command line INTERPRETER" [and in fact, one of the CS assignments was to build a CLI from scratch]
There is little functional difference between an "interpreter" and an "interface" in this *particular* case, so I don't think it matters much which of the two you use [though I'll bet someone is willing to argue the point]
- -- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net
* Anders Johansson; andjoh@rydsbo.net on 02 Jun, 2003 wrote:
from or to programs.
No it isn't. It is completely useless knowledge for, say, the company secretary. In fact, it is worse than useless, since it's just distracting from his/her real work.
There are users for whom that type of knowledge would be useful. And then there are most users, for whom it is not.
Correct, when conducting any training there are two types of information
a) Need to know b) Nice to know
Need to know information is essential to get the job done while nice to know is just for the interested person. Especially in an entry level training the educator must carefully select the need to know information to be presented to the participants. This will make sure that success is guaranteed and speed of learning is fast. Everybody wants to be successful when they take a class and making sure they are achieving their goal should be the major concern of the program designer.
Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor tools is useful too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these tools for future uses.
For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins.
It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
Well said unfortunately not many people realize this
On Sunday 01 June 2003 09:56 pm, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
- Anders Johansson; andjoh@rydsbo.net on 02 Jun, 2003 wrote:
from or to programs.
No it isn't. It is completely useless knowledge for, say, the company secretary. In fact, it is worse than useless, since it's just distracting from his/her real work.
There are users for whom that type of knowledge would be useful. And then there are most users, for whom it is not.
Correct, when conducting any training there are two types of information
a) Need to know b) Nice to know
Need to know information is essential to get the job done while nice to know is just for the interested person. Especially in an entry level training the educator must carefully select the need to know information to be presented to the participants. This will make sure that success is guaranteed and speed of learning is fast. Everybody wants to be successful when they take a class and making sure they are achieving their goal should be the major concern of the program designer.
Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor tools is useful too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these tools for future uses.
For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins.
It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
Well said unfortunately not many people realize this
The fear factor. And both have excellent points. Togans are particularly to the point. NO ONE LIKES TO FAIL and if you sink them in technical jargon and concepts that are convuleted and complex they will struggle more than necessary and feel like they are not up to it and failing. This is the surest way to kill interest and darken opinions. Can you hear it? I'm sure you have... Linux is too technical, Linux is for Geeks.
Linux is ready for the desktop. It's ready for the mainstream. But perception is everything (especially on Wall Street and the market). So, show them how to get their jobs done and then they'll spread the word amongst themselves,.. Like - I haven't seen a BOSD ever. I got a virus in my mail box but it didn't do anything (um, this could be a problem later though - ah user habits). My system froze, but I.T. said hit crtl-alt-backspace and log back in. I thought I woud have to wait for a few minutes for the machine to boot. But all I had to do was log back in. No scan disks, no waiting for the server to connect. It was just a couple of seconds and I'm back.
If the admins have the sys maintained Linux on the client side will kick the ever loving sh%* out of Windows in the office. It hasn't gained a reputation for stability for nothing. It needs to shed it's reputation for being non-users friendly. Now is the time to step away for the server and into the client. Understanding what the users need is what it's about, not what the admin or the instructors know about it technically. It's up to the Linux class instructors to orient the users to using the system, not maintaining and configuring it - thats the admins job. The key word in all of this is "users" - those that use a thing, not build it. :)
Cheers, Curtis.
On Monday 02 June 2003 06:56, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
- Anders Johansson; andjoh@rydsbo.net on 02 Jun, 2003 wrote:
from or to programs.
No it isn't. It is completely useless knowledge for, say, the company secretary. In fact, it is worse than useless, since it's just distracting from his/her real work.
There are users for whom that type of knowledge would be useful. And then there are most users, for whom it is not.
Correct, when conducting any training there are two types of information
a) Need to know b) Nice to know
The problem with a "need to know" approach means that you must have a very clear idea of who your target audience before your class starts. Granted if you were providing "in-house" training to all of the secretaries it would be pretty clear. Also if you provide specific classes like KDE, kernel internals, and so forth then it is also pretty easy to make that determination. However, if you provide a course on "Linux Administration" then what a user "needs" to know is not easily determined.
A couple of years ago, I took the level II Solaris admin from Sun. In it, we were taught how to configure serial terminals. Not one single person in the class wanted to know about it. However, it was important to others and that's why they continued to include it in the course.
Need to know information is essential to get the job done while nice to know is just for the interested person. Especially in an entry level training the educator must carefully select the need to know information to be presented to the participants. This will make sure that success is guaranteed and speed of learning is fast. Everybody wants to be successful when they take a class and making sure they are achieving their goal should be the major concern of the program designer.
Okay, how does the instructor make that determination? Assume the course is called simply "Intro to Linux" or even "Advanced Linux" , just what is "essential to get the job done"? For some it's being able to configure new hardware devices. For others its writing shell script to perform automated data import. To get **my** job done, I need to know about scripting, how process interact, how to interpret what is in /proc, and so on. The guy in the office next to me needs to know about routing, TCP/IP stacks and various network protocols. So, which should one teach in a Linux class?
You also have to look at it from a business. You could create 20 different course offers, some that only address hardware issues, others that address networking and so forth. However, will you have enough students and do you have enough space and instructors?
Knowing a thing or two about the /ever present/ standard text processor tools is useful too, if only to give them a feel for the power of these tools for future uses.
For most regular users there are not now, nor will there ever be a time when sed, awk of vi is useful. This is why companies have admins.
It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
Well said unfortunately not many people realize this.
Again, I must disagree with this. If someone is going to the trouble to learn something, then they are not going to be scared away. In my experience, they are going to rely on the people providing the course to make some decisions about what is relevant and what not. Granted you may end up with cases like my serial terminal example, but I really don't see a problem with people being scared away.
Regards,
jimmo
* James Mohr; suse_mailing_list@jimmo.com on 02 Jun, 2003 wrote:
The problem with a "need to know" approach means that you must have a very clear idea of who your target audience before your class starts. Granted if you were providing "in-house" training to all of the secretaries it would be pretty clear. Also if you provide specific classes like KDE, kernel internals, and so forth then it is also pretty easy to make that determination. However, if you provide a course on "Linux Administration" then what a user "needs" to know is not easily determined.
Education is a continous process and one must learn to crawl first before attempting to walk. Asking to run from a participant who is just learning to walk is not the sign of a valid educational approach.
It is my understanding that to design a programme which is educationally valid one must have specific, measurable, realistic, attainable performance requirements (sometimes called as learning objectives). This is valid regardless of the subject to be provided. No learning objectives, no learning.
Performance requirements can also be used to measure the outcome of the education meaning they can be used as questions for exam/testing purposes.
An educationally valid programme uses "mastery learning" approach. Definition of mastery in terms of learning can be described as "when the learner can demonstrate proficiency and competence of all objectives"
a. Mastering a skill means being able to perform it in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner
b. Mastering knowledge means being able to apply the knowledge to real life situations.
Once the "learning objectives" defined than the educator can provide the information which meet the performance requirements. This will set the content and the scope of the programme.
As I understand, someone who has just taken driving lessons and has passed the exam is given a driving licence. This does not make the person an experienced driver, yet the person is qualified to drive and in an entry level stage. Similarly someone who has taken an Linux Admin course (regardless of the scope of the content) is an entry level system admin.
So in any programme the ending result is someone with entry level qualification, not a savy
A couple of years ago, I took the level II Solaris admin from Sun. In it, we were taught how to configure serial terminals. Not one single person in the class wanted to know about it. However, it was important to others and that's why they continued to include it in the course.
People learn knowledge, skills, attitude based on values. Realistic education should provide real life value (need to know). If there is no value involved with the information then human memory tends to flush unnecessary information. Do you still remember everything taught on your secondary education. You only remember the ones that have real value to you in life ( you need to know them)
Okay, how does the instructor make that determination? Assume the course is called simply "Intro to Linux" or even "Advanced Linux" , just what is "essential to get the job done"? For some it's being able to configure new hardware devices. For others its writing shell script to perform automated data import. To get **my** job done, I need to know about scripting, how process interact, how to interpret what is in /proc, and so on. The guy in the office next to me needs to know about routing, TCP/IP stacks and various network protocols. So, which should one teach in a Linux class?
The educator makes the determination based on the scope and content of the learning objectives (performance criteria). The amount and detail of information to be presented depends on the knowledge and skill level of the participant. I do not think anyone studied The Tragedy of Macbeth" and tried to figure out the importance of "... all the parfumes of Arabia will not sweeten these little hands .." while trying to learn how to read and write.
Consequently education is a nurturing process. As the participant gains knowledge, skills the needs have to be reevaluted. Imagine going to a doctor who without listening you says "take two asprins and you will be fine ". Presciption before diagose is malpractice.
You also have to look at it from a business. You could create 20 different course offers, some that only address hardware issues, others that address networking and so forth. However, will you have enough students and do you have enough space and instructors?
Exacly this is the education market and you have the be as flexible as possible. An educational system is like a staircase. having enough students is basically connected to the success of the entry level programme.
If people are succesful, and they are enjoying themselves while learning and they do understand the need to continue their education either for personal gratification of for career puposes then there will be candidates.
Take McDonald's as an example although it looks as if their main objective is to people in a fast way, they do offer choices of different burgers and they do have meals available.
An educational system is similar to a fast food restaurant, you need to offer choices else they will start to look else where.
It is extremely detrimental to the "linux on the desktop" movement to include this type of material in "luser" classes. It scares people away.
Well said unfortunately not many people realize this.
Again, I must disagree with this. If someone is going to the trouble to learn something, then they are not going to be scared away. In my experience, they are going to rely on the people providing the course to make some decisions about what is relevant and what not. Granted you may end up with cases like my serial terminal example, but I really don't see a problem with people being scared away.
My thoughts are as follows:
a. People learn best when they are "ready to learn", intellectually, psychologically and physically.
b. People learn best when they can use past experiences or knowledge to help them understand the new material
c. people learn best from instructional repetition
d. people learn best when they are at ease and having fun.
In instructional design there is a theory called "Sphere of Awarness". It consists of the following.
1) Self oriented: At this stage participants focus inward. They concentrate on themselves as they strive to develop new skills and assimilate new information.
Example: "I can not configure my modem please help"
2) Task Oriented: As the participant gains knowledge and skills their awareness becomes broader. The participant has mastered the basics and is prepared to interact with various environments, learn new skills
Example: I want to setup a SuSEfirewall2
3) Other Person oriented: At this level the participant has gained confidence with skills, and applications. This allows them to focus on helping others. It is at this level they start providing help to others who may have problems.
Example: Proving answer and solution to boot and reinstall roots's pasword
4) Leadership oriented: It's at this point particpants are ready to be role models and leaders. They broaden their focus to supervise other people and pass on their skills and knowledge to others.
Example: Not only giving the answer but also taking the extra mile to explain where more information can be found how that information relates to the current situation.
If you will for a second close your eyes and think about the above levels of awareness you will most probably realise this happens on this very list also. Kudos to all the list members.
Now the educator must take the "Sphere of Awareness" into consideration when designing the programme and therefore it is not sounding to my ears logicall to have a programme designed to be "know it all" type.
Regards
ps. Sorrry for a long and drifting to an OT explanation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 01 June 2003 4:30 pm, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:
[actually, I missed the start of the thread, but at some point it was said...]
Fair comments, but given what you suggested (see snipped section) a bit odd, since a luser wouldn't have to know about /dev, and talking about vi, sed, awk and emacs would probably be the best way to get them to run away and never look at linux/unix ever again :)
I don't agree. the /dev/ fs is an important property of Linux/Unix, it is imho important that users realize that ordinary files basically behave in the same way as a mounted floppy, a string of zero's, a string of nulls or a tapedrive. Ie, they have stdin and stdout, and can pipe from or to programs.
[and later on in this thread it was pointed out that "local users" means "secretaries and the like"] In my opinion, about all a secretary would need to know about "/dev" *might* be the fact that the floppy and CD-rom drives are referenced against this instead of things like "A:" and "D:", and this is only in the case when the automount service fails and the secretary is forced into "some form of command line" to enter a "mount" command. (I say "only when automount fails" because for the most part, the system WILL mount the "drives" in an equally cryptic, but certainly more recognizable name, like /media/floppy...)
- -- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net
On 02-Jun-03 Tom Emerson wrote:
[...] [and later on in this thread it was pointed out that "local users" means "secretaries and the like"] In my opinion, about all a secretary would need to know about "/dev" *might* be the fact that the floppy and CD-rom drives are referenced against this instead of things like "A:" and "D:", and this is only in the case when the automount service fails and the secretary is forced into "some form of command line" to enter a "mount" command. (I say "only when automount fails" because for the most part, the system WILL mount the "drives" in an equally cryptic, but certainly more recognizable name, like /media/floppy...)
I have found that it works well, for users habituated to Windows/DOS, to set up mount-points called /A:, /B:, /C:, /D:, etc., with corresponding entries in /dev/fstab, so that (for instance)
/dev/hda3 is automounted on /C: /dev/hdb2 is automounted on /D:
entering the command "mount /A:" mounts floppy drive 1 on /A:
etc.
That way, users have the feeling of "familiar territory" and can read the road signs in the way they are used to. So they can (from CLI or a grahpical navigator) cd to /C:/My_Documents/... They don't need to know what the system really calls them.
Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972 Date: 02-Jun-03 Time: 09:13:40 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
The 03.06.02 at 09:13, Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
I have found that it works well, for users habituated to Windows/DOS, to set up mount-points called /A:, /B:, /C:, /D:, etc., with corresponding entries in /dev/fstab, so that (for instance)
That reminds me:
cer@nimrodel:~> a: Error: There is no such thing as a drive A: in Linux. If you want to access your floppy, try "mount /dev/fd0" and then look in the directory /media/floppy ! cer@nimrodel:~>
:-)
-
Anders Johansson -
Ben Rosenberg -
Carlos E. R. -
Curtis Rey -
James Mohr -
John -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk -
Theo v. Werkhoven -
Togan Muftuoglu -
Tom Emerson