References made in the article:
Apple = 0
iOS = 1
iPad = 2
Mac or Macbook = 5
OSX = 3
Microsoft = 5
Windows = 12
Google = 3
Android = 1
Linux = 3
So, total references to anything Apple is 14. Microsoft references number 17. There are 4 Google references and 3 for Linux. Seems pretty balanced in that regard to me.
Let me quote this bit from the article:
"iOS is a lost cause, unless you jail-break, and Android isn’t much better. I use Ubuntu-Touch, and it has possibilities."
That doesn't seem to be a "hail to the fruit" to me.
This post has received some interesting comments. Some of them seem to have entirely missed the point of the article. The author may have been a bit over the top (or arrogant) in some parts of the article (English is also not the author's native language, so that has to be taken into account)
The point was this - Kids Can't Use Computers.
Here's the problem - it is too often true. I had a teacher come to me the other day describing how a more than small percentage of the students in his class (Year 8) didn't know what to do with a USB drive that they were handed. They truly had no clue how to access files on it or save to it. One (new to the school) didn't even know how to logon to a computer (Windows 7).
Here's the bigger problem - there is the myth of the digital native, so people just assume kids know more about computers than others because they can use google, facebook, twitter, instagram, and snapchat. That means these kids aren't actually being taught how to use a computer. And, I don't just mean a PC (or a Mac). I'm talking about tablets as well. Yep, they can unlock it and open up Safari or download a game and play it (as long as they don't have to type in the details for an Apple ID). Too many of them cannot setup their email (or even follow the instructions to do this), or many other basic computer tasks. This means I'm seeing kids with less computer skills than those coming through 10 years ago.
Here's the biggest problem - these same kids are going to have great difficulty in a world that is increasingly consumed by technology in every industry. And many schools are doing very little about it. "Give them all a <insert device here>" doesn't solve this problem. These kids need to be taught, not expected to just pick it up through osmosis.
"Here you go kid, I'm giving you the car keys, now go figure out how to drive it."
10 Mac/Macbook + 1 iOS + 2 iPad + 3 iPhone + 3 OSX = 19.
So, about 20 references to Apple. :p
I read the article through, the environment he seems to work in is Apple heavy, not himself. He states its other staff he helps which use apple products. He said late in the article he uses a Macbook with Ubuntu and Mac OSX when the mood takes him. He bashed a lot of companies in there, both rightly and wrongly.
It is unfair to say that the OS manufacturers have made this generation of dumb users, when in fact it is a lack of proper skills being taught. I have often advocated, for good IT lessons, you need to have hardware savvy people, ideally the technicians, to go through the subject. Have 30 breaker machines, which the kids can strip and put back together. They'll be much more inclined to learn then if they can make and break it without fear.
My daughter (who is nearly 5) is able to install an OS (albeit with help from me), she can add apps to a phone, she can add contacts too a phone, in fact I gave her my old galaxy note (with no sim) to play with, and she gets along fine, she can put the wifi on, she can also do this on my mrs laptop. By this guys standard, she can use a PC.
He also says "Windows 7 (I hate 8, but that’s another story) and Mac OS X are great operating systems" So, Windows 7 good, OS X good. And he also likes Ubuntu.
Actually, it's usually the exact other way around on Edugeek. Just amazing how an article about how kids can't use computers turns into dogging the guy as a insane fruit-lover because he dare make mention of something Apple-related more than once.Quote:
Poking fun at the usual "it's Apple; therefore it's awesome" mentality that seems to be going around.
Adults can't use computers either. We've just had one of the sci techies in with her laptop, who wanted to print a PDF off (an eticket for her holidays). She doesn't have a printer at home and had no idea as to how to either pull it off with a memory stick or email to her college account or (perhaps) access her private emails using a web portal. To use the car analogy, "I've put something in the boot and I don't know how to get it out".
All I can say about this subject is "Ubiquitous computing"
I can't see much to complain about in the article. Most people don't know much about computers and since many rely on them, that is a shame.
Seriously... Everyone should watch PBS Idea channel.
When the settings are being pushed more and more into the dark depths of the OS, that's on Microsoft/Apple/[Linux flavour specific devs]. IIRC, Windows 7 was advertised as an OS that just got on with it. [A lot of auto/default configs.]
However, there's also the issue of people not wanting to experiment.
I [literally] just had the following conversation:
Art Teacher: I have to cover %other_teacher% and teach science... :(
Me: Why not combine Science and Art?
AT: I'm going to. I do that with all the subjects. [+1 from me. This is a good thing!]
Me: Even I.T?
AT: No... I'm "not good with computers".
Me: I could show you some interesting things you could use in class...
AT: No... I'm "not good with computers".
Me: We have graphics tablets... you could use it to draw [whatever] in real-time on the board. Even get one of the kids to draw something.
AT: No... I'm "not good with computers".
His message comes across in a badly condescending way and could do with a rewrite to say the least, and his personal anecdotes related to his own failings are all silly. "I fix the computers in my house and never bothered to tell the kids how, look at how awful society is today!"
That being ignored, I've noticed this a lot. Parents and teachers are all too quick to say "Oh, my kids are great on their iPads and phones. They tap and click away faster than I ever could." So what? What are they learning by doing that? I've seen kids who tap at monitors expecting the button to press and not in the slightest way knowing how to use a mouse or keyboard. I've seen a year 1 teacher who has all of her kids use a keyboard correctly to type their usernames and passwords and a year 3 teacher whose kids didn't know how to save an image.
He definitely has a point when he says that things are too locked down, even if it is blunt and incorrect in areas regarding android and others. But I don't think it's easy to point the blame at the locked down systems themselves and their manufacturers. It's not their fault that consumers have no interest in learning the skills. I'd say teh fault mostly lies with the people pushing for kids to exclusively use these. Just another reason why I'm objecting to the Head wanting to get rid of the ICT Room and replace it with iPads because "nobody uses it". Because they don't know how!
As much as I had a good chuckle at the 'Can't use computers' section, which I can't help but agree with, this guy is a condescending douchecanoe that needs to lighten up a little.
I know how PC's work, because I'm interested in them. Always have been. You know what I'm not interested in? Dancing. If the GCSE Performing Arts lesson call down with an issue with the laptop, projector, etc, I can head down there and fix it with no issue. Could I tell you about their routine? Could I explain why the certain warmup stretches they were doing are important? Would I be able to replicate what they're doing? Not a chance. Not one. Okay, dancing isn't applicable to most people in their everyday life, so the example isn't perfect (I could use cars, but I know when I eventually get one I'll tinker and explore because it will be an important machine to me) but the point being people know more about what they're interested in. A dancer would be willing to try a move that I might look at and think "Err, that looks a bit dangerous (for your body), is that safe?". I would quite happily open a computer and start to replace an OEM heat sink with a water cooler, then swap out the memory for good measure. A dancer would probably watch what I'm doing and think "Err, that looks a bit dangerous (for the machine - or maybe me), is that safe?"
Computers are, in all fairness, going the same way as tablets are. They're becoming very much consumption-orientated devices. No longer is the computer just for the data-crunching corporate office, or the news studio green-screening the weather forecast, or the architect rendering his latest building schematic. It's more than commonplace that Joe and Jane Bloggs Public have a PC at home, to the point that people are actively shocked if otherwise! So yes, I agree that someone at home needs to be able to set up and maintain a small network and be versed on the perils of the internet, but not everybody. Think about here, at school. Everyone isn't a techie - just us. There is a (theoretical) ratio of technicians-to-non-technicians that allows us to keep things running properly. So why should it be different on a home network? Yes, people should read error messages and be taught how to properly report an issue. Yes, everybody should know the 'basic' and common issues (layer 1, mostly) and understand how to troubleshoot them. Should users know what a proxy is? Probably. But should everybody be expected to know how to work the CLI, or how to build a machine from scratch? No. I wouldn't say so. His own example of cars proves this. He uses his car, but he wouldn't have a clue how to build one from scratch. Motor vehicles are just as important as computers in day-to-day life, so why should it be different?
Regarding 'Techno-Dad to the rescue!' I do have to agree with him to some degree. Kids learn by tinkering, breaking and researching something they're interested in. For me, it was PC's. For my brother, for example, it was his bicycle. I can't count the amount of times I saw him dismantling his. I remember him sat in the back yard with his bike in bits as he replaced the chain and brakes. Me? I just got on my bike and rode it. I took care of it, so it didn't need repairs, but I know if I'd have needed a part replacing I'd have likely asked him to do it, which is precisely my point. "I don't know what I'm doing. $someoneElse does, so I'll ask them. It's safer that way." Admittedly, the better approach if you wanted to learn something would be "I wonder if $someoneElse would be willing to show me how to sort this out?" (which is the approach I always try to take where appropriate). The thing is we're often not demonstrating what we're doing to the person we're fixing the issue for. That's their fault for not taking interest, and that's our fault for not making the subject approachable, which is their fault for being scared of technology, which is our fault for having a walled garden, which is malware vendors fault for crafting malicious files, which is the users fault for not learning about PC's, which is our fault because we do everything for them - You see where this is going. The blame can go round and round in circles but there needs to be work done on both sides, not just one.
As for the supposition that things would be better if we gave the wheel back to the user and stopped with all the lock-down, heck no. Not in a million years. The kinds of data we have on our networks mean we need these controls, and some phishing attacks and counterfeit websites are so convincing that you can't expect someone who didn't devote their working day to technology to be able to cover their own ass all the time. In this kind of environment, it's just not safe to let users tinker and break things. They can go ahead and do it to their home PC fine, but not our systems. They have a job to do, and our job is to provide them with the tools to do it and to ensure those tools are safe to use. Giving them the reigns means we're not doing that. Any corporate system (which ours essentially are, too) simply cannot open itself up to that many possible avenues of attack, and to propose such is nothing short of absurd.
Rant over. Gee-gee well played.