Quoted from this ZDNet entry and I must say I agree to an extent. I mean, you must be lacking a little bit in the IQ department to choose a platform with a proven history of serious vulnerability when there are better alternatives out there.
OK, on a more serious note… I would like to think that Linux, my OS of choice, are used only by computer science experts worthy of nobel prizes. However, I know that this is absolutely untrue. What I do know is that Linux has sane defaults and a community that is more than willing to share experiences with new converts. One of the earliest nugget of information often passed to Linux newbies is: “Don’t run everything as root!”.
When it comes to IT, it’s often very easy to look for purely technical solutions when it comes to solving problems. The bad thing about this approach is that education, which to me is way more important, is often overlooked. Programmers, engineers and technical document writers can take five year courses specialising in areas of their expertise but more often than not, they tend to forget the foundation of education that they’ve learned in primary school.
I’m sure that many of you still remember the compositions that you were made to write. You know, those with titles such as “My Family”, “My Hometown” and “What I Did During Term Break”. Those are called descriptive writing.
To me, this is the problem when it comes to technical documents for software. Technical documents, especially those produced by Microsoft are not written descriptively. They are more like troubleshooting guides. This implies that you should only refer to the documents when you face problems… ie. when something messes up. Documents should be written in a manner to avoid problems, not as a remedial guide.
So, what is really the problem; stupid users or stupid documentation. I’d say it’s the latter. What do you think?