What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Don Saklad]

Please explain the instructions for folks completely unfamiliar with computers, for complete novices how to setup gnus... for example for grandparents unfamiliar with computers.




.

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Thorsten Jolitz]

Don Saklad <dsaklad@gnu.org> writes:

> Please explain the instructions for folks completely unfamiliar with
> computers, for complete novices how to setup gnus... for example for
> grandparents unfamiliar with computers.

Easy instruction for your complete novice grandparents:

,-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Buy some Apple product, e.g. an iPad, and never ever touch Emacs nor Gnus.
`-------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
cheers,
Thorsten

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Stefan Monnier]

> ,-------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Buy some Apple product, e.g. an iPad, and never ever touch Emacs nor Gnus.
> `-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do not promote proprietary software on gnu.* newsgroups.


        Stefan

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Thorsten Jolitz]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> ,-------------------------------------------------------------------
>> | Buy some Apple product, e.g. an iPad, and never ever touch Emacs nor Gnus.
>> `-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please do not promote proprietary software on gnu.* newsgroups.

I did not mean to promote proprietary software, I just reported some
empirical evidence from real life: I witnessed first hand how this
famous fancy proprietary hardware/software product was adapted by a
group of 70+ year old people that never had anything to do with
computers, and how it spread joy and excitement among them, how they
told all their friends and family members who all bought it too, and how
quick this flat fancy tablet made them part of the modern world of
communication and information. Thats REAL usability, proprietary or not.

On the other hand I remember pretty well how hard it was to learn Emacs
even for someone with years of Windows experience, and that configuring
Gnus has been a real challenge, so I find the idea of exposing innocent
grandparents to Emacs and Gnus quite funny. The OP's question most
likely was a test-run for 1st of April 2014 anyway, wasn't it?

-- 
cheers,
Thorsten

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Please do not promote proprietary software on gnu.* newsgroups.
> I did not mean to promote proprietary software,

Yet, you did.  Please be more careful next time.


        Stefan

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Carson Chittom]

Don Saklad <dsaklad@gnu.org> writes:

> Please explain the instructions for folks completely unfamiliar with
> computers, for complete novices how to setup gnus... for example for
> grandparents unfamiliar with computers.

Absent some other compelling fact of which I am not currently aware, I
don't think "grandparents unfamiliar with computers" should be using
Gnus for mail.  I don't say this from some elitist conviction that they
should already know how to use it or any such nonsense.  But Gnus'
defining feature is its configurability, and therefore complexity:
because it's so complex it's *hard* and you have to be able to read the
instructions, by and large, to do much that's useful.  Just to pick what
is to me the obvious example, when you start Gnus by default it does not
show you mail you've already read.  To say that nearly all other email
clients behave differently is not a complaint, just an observation that
Gnus is more complicated.  You cannot make these theoretical
grandparents put up with an excess of complexity and still expect them
to actually *use* the software, unless you're willing to act as
technical support all the time; and even then the barrier may be
unsurmountable.  I've learned that you cannot (not should not, but
*cannot*) make people accept complexity except to the extent to which
they are willing.

For nontechnical users like you posit, I would recommend either
Thunderbird or, on a Microsoft platform, Windows Live Mail (or whatever
they're calling it these days).  Thunderbird in particular does a pretty
good job of getting in the server info right just by putting in your
email address in the initial startup wizard.

Of course, if they're willing to read docs and spend some time, that's a
different question altogether.

configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Drew Adams]

> But Gnus' defining feature is its configurability, and therefore
> complexity: because it's so complex it's *hard* and you have to be
> able to read the instructions, by and large, to do much that's useful.

Hm.  I hear you, and though not very familiar with Gnus I can
sympathize to some extent with this point of view.

But I think that the goal should be something that (I think) Emacs
achieves pretty well: it is configurable as hell, and it can be as
complex as you like, but it ALSO lets uninformed users pick it up
and start using it right away, out of the box.

Others will disagree, but I think that, yes, you CAN pick up Emacs
and just start using it, in particular if you make use of the menus.
And (others will disagree, but) that is a good thing.

Others will disagree, but I think that it is important that users
be able to access something that can be complex at different levels,
including virtually total ignorance.

It is important to try (TRY, at least) to hide complexity and reveal
it only as needed, on demand.  Users should not NEED to configure
something and grok its innards before they can use it.  They should
BE ABLE to configure it and learn progressively about its guts and
advanced features.

Knowledgable users should be able to fix and reroute the plumbing
at will, but users also deserve some porcelain and should not be
REQUIRED to be plumbers to be able to open the faucet etc.

And yes, I also hear that last qualification you wrote: "to do much
that's useful".  The "much" is relative, however.  A new and naive
user of Emacs can already do a fair amount that is useful, as soon
as s?he opens the box.  Maybe not so useful in the eyes of a more
knowledgable user, but useful all the same.

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[W. Greenhouse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1505 bytes --]

Don Saklad <dsaklad-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org> writes:

> Please explain the instructions for folks completely unfamiliar with
> computers, for complete novices how to setup gnus... for example for
> grandparents unfamiliar with computers.

Gnus configuration is very simple (a few lines) if you intend to use it
"like RMAIL" (i.e. reading mail delivered to local system maildrop, and
writing mail to be sent by the system's mailer).  Then, assuming grandpa
is using a terminal/workstation that's managed by a competent admin,
it's simply a matter of choosing which kind of local mail storage you
prefer.

(setq gnus-select-method '(nnml "")
      mail-user-agent 'gnus-user-agent
      message-send-mail-function 'message-send-mail-with-sendmail)

would be enough for such a configuration.

Hopefully this tiny example also helps explain why things get more
complex when messages are being retrieved from multiple sources
(i.e. Usenet, RSS, etc.) or when Gnus is responsible for mail retrieval.

Also, in a more global sense, I would focus on turning such users into
people competent to read documentation and support themselves.

Also, please consider
http://coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-computers/
when you assume (a) that it's grandparents who are the ignorant users,
when they may have more experience than their grandkids with general
purpose computing, and (b) that it is a wise long-term strategy to cater
to user ignorance.

--
W. Greenhouse
gpg --recv-keys 2E8B1B740D2D3F9E

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Carson Chittom]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> But Gnus' defining feature is its configurability, and therefore
>> complexity: because it's so complex it's *hard* and you have to be
>> able to read the instructions, by and large, to do much that's useful.
>
> Hm.  I hear you, and though not very familiar with Gnus I can
> sympathize to some extent with this point of view.

For the record, I do believe that Gnus is "worse" (for lack of a better
term) than Emacs as a whole.  

> But I think that the goal should be something that (I think) Emacs
> achieves pretty well: it is configurable as hell, and it can be as
> complex as you like, but it ALSO lets uninformed users pick it up
> and start using it right away, out of the box.
>
> Others will disagree, but I think that, yes, you CAN pick up Emacs
> and just start using it, in particular if you make use of the menus.
> And (others will disagree, but) that is a good thing.

To a certain extent, I'd agree.  An "uninformed user" (to use your term)
can *definitely* use Emacs as a text editor with no prior experience,
particularly by using the menus (or if cua-mode is on).  But that same
uninformed user could equally well use something else, if that's the
only necessary task.

> Others will disagree, but I think that it is important that users
> be able to access something that can be complex at different levels,
> including virtually total ignorance.
>
> It is important to try (TRY, at least) to hide complexity and reveal
> it only as needed, on demand.  Users should not NEED to configure
> something and grok its innards before they can use it.  They should
> BE ABLE to configure it and learn progressively about its guts and
> advanced features.

Again, I don't disagree--in fact, I agree totally!

To maybe illustrate what I was getting at before, though, I conducted the
following thought experiment:

        I pretended that I have never used Emacs, but I know that in
        addition to editing text it can do many other things; and I am
        seated at a machine on which it is installed.  I am a reasonably
        intelligent person, who has some experience of computers on some
        platform or platforms.  What questions occur to me just as I
        browse through the menus?

        File
        - Why do I have five print options, and what's the difference?
        - Why when I click "New Window Below" do I not get a new window?
        
        Edit
        - What's a "face"?

        Tools 
        - Why do I read Net News with Gnus and send mail with Gnus
          but *read* mail with RMAIL?
        - Why doesn't encryption work?[1]

I don't mean to suggest these questions don't have answers--clearly they
do.  But these are things I thought of in the 30 seconds it took me to
conduct my thought experiment, and I only actually tried to do two
things: open a new window (i.e., what I "thought" was a window was a frame
and vice versa) and use the menu to encrypt a file.  I'm sure there are
more.  

If I try to start from a blank slate (via emacs -Q) and then select Gnus
(Gnus being what the original question was about in the old thread), I
get 
  
    nntp (news) open error: '>>>(error Unknown host "news")'. Continue?  

That has the virtue of telling me what's wrong, but gives me essentially
no information on how to fix it.

Complexity itself is not a problem, per se; but the presentation of that
complexity can be, and usually is.  I just think Emacs in general and
Gnus in particular needs some work in that regard.

But managing to understand that complexity is clearly not insurmountable
by somebody willing to put forth the effort: I'm posting this using
Gnus, and it's not like I'm some kind of uber-technical user.  Heck, I
work in HR.

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

[1] Incidentally, I appear to have discovered what might be a very minor
    bug in 24.3, as well; when you select a file to encrypt but gpg is
    not installed, you get a "permission denied" error, not a more
    accurate "file not found" error.

RE: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Drew Adams]

> For the record, I do believe that Gnus is "worse" (for lack of a better
> term) than Emacs as a whole.

Sounds like it, in terms of being new-user friendly at least.

> To maybe illustrate what I was getting at before, though, I conducted the
> following thought experiment:
> 
>         I pretended that I have never used Emacs, but I know that in
>         addition to editing text it can do many other things; and I am
>         seated at a machine on which it is installed.  I am a reasonably
>         intelligent person, who has some experience of computers on some
>         platform or platforms.  What questions occur to me just as I
>         browse through the menus?
> 
>         File
>         - Why do I have five print options, and what's the difference?
>         - Why when I click "New Window Below" do I not get a new window?
>
>         Edit
>         - What's a "face"?
> 
>         Tools
>         - Why do I read Net News with Gnus and send mail with Gnus
>           but *read* mail with RMAIL?
>         - Why doesn't encryption work?[1]

Consider suggesting specific improvements for menus:
`M-x report-emacs-bug'.  Seriously.

> I don't mean to suggest these questions don't have answers--clearly they
> do.  But these are things I thought of in the 30 seconds it took me to
> conduct my thought experiment, and I only actually tried to do two
> things: open a new window (i.e., what I "thought" was a window was a frame
> and vice versa) and use the menu to encrypt a file.  I'm sure there are
> more.

Mouseover text can sometimes help describe what a menu item does.  For
`New Frame', for instance, it could say "Open a new frame (window-manager
window)" instead of just "Open a new frame".

But that probably won't help much for an item like `New Window Below'.
I suppose it could add "(frame pane)" or "(pane)" after "window" in the
help, but at some point this becomes too much.

So yes, there is a certain amount of terminological difficulty that only
help (e.g. `describe-key'), the doc (e.g. the manual), the tutorial,
Emacs Wiki, or trial and error will teach.

The terminology is a bit of a special case, however.  Once past the basic-terminology hurdle and the how-do-I-access-help hurdle, things go more
smoothly.

> If I try to start from a blank slate (via emacs -Q) and then select Gnus
> (Gnus being what the original question was about in the old thread), I
> get nntp (news) open error: '>>>(error Unknown host "news")'. Continue?
> 
> That has the virtue of telling me what's wrong, but gives me essentially
> no information on how to fix it.

My advice is to file a (usability) bug: `M-x report-emacs-bug'.

> Complexity itself is not a problem, per se; but the presentation of that
> complexity can be, and usually is.  I just think Emacs in general and
> Gnus in particular needs some work in that regard.

I think Emacs is pretty good in that regard, but it could be improved
(and has been improved, in fits and starts over the years).

I cannot speak to or for Gnus.  My impression from hearsay accords
with what you say.

> But managing to understand that complexity is clearly not insurmountable
> by somebody willing to put forth the effort: I'm posting this using
> Gnus, and it's not like I'm some kind of uber-technical user.  Heck, I
> work in HR.
> 
> Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Thanks for it.

> [1] Incidentally, I appear to have discovered what might be a very minor
>     bug in 24.3, as well; when you select a file to encrypt but gpg is
>     not installed, you get a "permission denied" error, not a more
>     accurate "file not found" error.

Please `M-x report-emacs-bug'.  Seriously.

Re: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Jason Rumney]

On Wednesday, 14 August 2013 03:01:03 UTC+8, Drew Adams  wrote:

> Hm.  I hear you, and though not very familiar with Gnus I can
> sympathize to some extent with this point of view.
> 
> But I think that the goal should be something that (I think) Emacs
> achieves pretty well: it is configurable as hell, and it can be as
> complex as you like, but it ALSO lets uninformed users pick it up
> and start using it right away, out of the box.

Gnus used to be like this, as a Usenet reader.  But most organizations and ISPs no longer have a server with an alias of "news" that runs an nntp service, so it no longer works out of the box for most people.

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Rustom Mody]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:47:44 AM UTC+5:30, W. Greenhouse wrote:
> Also, please consider
> http://coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-computers/
> when you assume (a) that it's grandparents who are the ignorant users,
> when they may have more experience than their grandkids with general
> purpose computing, and (b) that it is a wise long-term strategy to cater
> to user ignorance.

Ha Ha! V Funny, though a bit harsh.

A view from the other side: http://www.proxios.net/pdf/ITDoesn%27tMatter.pdf

Also related to Bell's law:

> Roughly every decade a new, lower priced computer class forms based on a new
> programming platform, network, and interface resulting in new usage and the 
> establishment of a new industry.

Combined with generation gaps we get these effects.
eg I know how to use a computer better than the average kid of today, whereas they usually know how to use a phone better than me.

emacs belongs to the generation in which people assumed that to use an artifact -- maybe software or hard -- one had to read a manual.

Today's kids dont know whats a manual and dont know how to read

Re: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Yuri Khan]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

> Mouseover text can sometimes help describe what a menu item does.  For
> `New Frame', for instance, it could say "Open a new frame (window-manager
> window)" instead of just "Open a new frame".

Oh no! Now poor grandpa has to know about window managers. And now
Emacs explicitly calls two different things “windows”.

> But that probably won't help much for an item like `New Window Below'.
> I suppose it could add "(frame pane)" or "(pane)" after "window" in the
> help, but at some point this becomes too much.

For me, the point of too much is immediately when alternative
terminology is included in parentheses.

Why can’t we rename windows to panes and frames to windows?


> The terminology is a bit of a special case, however.  Once past the basic-terminology hurdle and the how-do-I-access-help hurdle, things go more
> smoothly.

Problem is, the user won’t read help. At least not for features they
expect to “just work”.

Re: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Rustom Mody]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:49:02 AM UTC+5:30, Yuri Khan wrote:
> Why can’t we rename windows to panes and frames to windows?

+1

Re: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Stefan Monnier]

>         File
>         - Why do I have five print options, and what's the difference?

Because Emacs doesn't offer a good way to print, so we offer various
workarounds (I wish I were kidding).

>         Edit
>         - What's a "face"?

I don't see that word in the menu.  The closest I see is "Text
properties", which is indeed probably not what current non-Emacs users
expect (they'd probably expect some kind of customization panel).

>         Tools 
>         - Why do I read Net News with Gnus and send mail with Gnus
>           but *read* mail with RMAIL?

Good point.  This is the kind of thing you can report via M-x
report-emacs-bug.

>         - Why doesn't encryption work?[1]

Not sure what that means.

> I don't mean to suggest these questions don't have answers--clearly
> they do.  But these are things I thought of in the 30 seconds it took
> me to conduct my thought experiment, and I only actually tried to do
> two things: open a new window (i.e., what I "thought" was a window was
> a frame and vice versa) and use the menu to encrypt a file.   I'm sure
> there are more.

No doubt.  It's very helpful for users to report those things, because
most Emacs coders hack on Emacs for their own benefit and taking a step
back and trying to imagine oneself as a new user can be time-consuming
if not difficult.

> Complexity itself is not a problem, per se; but the presentation of that
> complexity can be, and usually is.  I just think Emacs in general and
> Gnus in particular needs some work in that regard.

Very much agreed.  Help is welcome.

> [1] Incidentally, I appear to have discovered what might be a very minor
>     bug in 24.3, as well; when you select a file to encrypt but gpg is
>     not installed, you get a "permission denied" error, not a more
>     accurate "file not found" error.

Actually it should say something like "can't find gpg".
That also can be reported via M-x report-emacs-bug.


        Stefan

Re: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Stefan Monnier]

> Why can’t we rename windows to panes and frames to windows?

We can, but it's hard: Emacs is structured in such a way that the user
is exposed to the names used in the code.  So renaming windows to panes
means renaming functions and variables, which leads to backward
compatibility problems.

For the same reason, Emacs does not try to speak in your own language.


        Stefan

RE: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Drew Adams]

> >         Edit - What's a "face"?
> 
> I don't see that word in the menu.  The closest I see is "Text
> properties", which is indeed probably not what current non-Emacs users
> expect (they'd probably expect some kind of customization panel).

I think perhaps he meant Edit > Text Properties > Face.

Re: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Rustom Mody]

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:32:06 PM UTC+5:30, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >         File
> >         - Why do I have five print options, and what's the difference?
> 
> Because Emacs doesn't offer a good way to print, so we offer various
> workarounds (I wish I were kidding).

Ha! Refreshing to hear some straight talk!


> > Why can’t we rename windows to panes and frames to windows?
> 
> We can, but it's hard: Emacs is structured in such a way that the user
> is exposed to the names used in the code.  So renaming windows to panes
> means renaming functions and variables, which leads to backward
> compatibility problems.

A technical and a social aspect to this.

Technical: Yeah, I see that its harder than I thought....
Still, taking a cue from python's 2to3 converter, it should be possible to have a 24to25 converter that among other things looks up a table of old-names and renames to new ones, for arbitrary elisp files.  Yeah I understand that presence of eval makes 100% coverage theoretically impossible.

Of course I am not seriously suggesting that this one trivia is worth this effort. Scale it up by the dozens of such oddities and the picture changes somewhat.  Brings me to the next...

Social: 
As analogy consider that at one time emacs only ran on unices.  Porting to windows -- hardly a core constituency!! -- would have driven the user population up by some factor, is it not?  And then some of those folks become core devs.

Likewise, reducing the combo of weirdness+steep learning curve (combined with some good PR!) would bring some valuable people into the fold (IMHO)

Re: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Ken Goldman]

On 8/14/2013 1:14 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
> Social: As analogy consider that at one time emacs only ran on
> unices.

Is that right?  Although they came around the same time, I thought emacs 
first ran on some early DEC computer running a non-Unix OS.

Even if that isn't quite right, emacs was certainly multi-platform from 
the beginning.

Re: configurable means hard? [was: ... easier explanation how to setup gnus ...]

[Rustom Mody]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 12:10:00 AM UTC+5:30, Ken Goldman wrote:
> On 8/14/2013 1:14 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> >
> > Social: As analogy consider that at one time emacs only ran on
> > unices.
> 
> Is that right?  Although they came around the same time, I thought emacs 
> first ran on some early DEC computer running a non-Unix OS.
> 
> Even if that isn't quite right, emacs was certainly multi-platform from 
> the beginning.

Well ok. Does not change the point, viz that spending dev-resources on widening the user-base is not an expenditure but an investment.

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Glen Stark]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:41:51 +0200, Thorsten Jolitz wrote:

>>> ,------------------------------------------------------------------- |
>>> Buy some Apple product, e.g. an iPad, and never ever touch Emacs nor
>>> Gnus.
>>> `-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Please do not promote proprietary software on gnu.* newsgroups.
> 
> I did not mean to promote proprietary software, I just reported some
> empirical evidence from real life: I witnessed first hand how this
> famous fancy proprietary hardware/software product was adapted by a
> group of 70+ year old people that never had anything to do with
> computers, and how it spread joy and excitement among them, how they
> told all their friends and family members who all bought it too, and how
> quick this flat fancy tablet made them part of the modern world of
> communication and information. Thats REAL usability, proprietary or not.

I feel compelled to point out that your original post did not report any 
evidence for anything, it gave facetious advice.   

Your advice was to recommend the use of non-free software to people over 
free-software.  This is the very definition of promoting proprietary 
software.  While you are free to do this, it's pretty rude to do so on a 
gnu.* newsgroup, as Stefan pointed out.  

In your justification for your post you related an anecdote, which might 
qualify as anecdotal evidence, but certainly doesn't qualify as empirical 
evidence.  None of which is at all relevant to either the question posed 
in the original post, nor to the purpose of the gnu.* newsgroups which is 
(indirectly) to make the modern world a little more free, not bring more 
people into an unfree world.

-- 
Glen Stark,
Human Being

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Thorsten Jolitz]

Glen Stark <mail@glenstark.net> writes:

> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:41:51 +0200, Thorsten Jolitz wrote:
>
>>>> ,------------------------------------------------------------------- |
>>>> Buy some Apple product, e.g. an iPad, and never ever touch Emacs nor
>>>> Gnus.
>>>> `-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Please do not promote proprietary software on gnu.* newsgroups.
>> 
>> I did not mean to promote proprietary software, I just reported some
>> empirical evidence from real life: I witnessed first hand how this
>> famous fancy proprietary hardware/software product was adapted by a
>> group of 70+ year old people that never had anything to do with
>> computers, and how it spread joy and excitement among them, how they
>> told all their friends and family members who all bought it too, and how
>> quick this flat fancy tablet made them part of the modern world of
>> communication and information. Thats REAL usability, proprietary or not.
>
> I feel compelled to point out that your original post did not report any 
> evidence for anything, it gave facetious advice.   
>
> Your advice was to recommend the use of non-free software to people over 
> free-software.  This is the very definition of promoting proprietary 
> software.  While you are free to do this, it's pretty rude to do so on a 
> gnu.* newsgroup, as Stefan pointed out.  
>
> In your justification for your post you related an anecdote, which might 
> qualify as anecdotal evidence, but certainly doesn't qualify as empirical 
> evidence.  None of which is at all relevant to either the question posed 
> in the original post, nor to the purpose of the gnu.* newsgroups which is 
> (indirectly) to make the modern world a little more free, not bring more 
> people into an unfree world.


Please don't feel compelled, I don't think that thread was meant so
seriously (including my post). But if you want to expose your
grandparents to the world of computers for the very first time, and you
love them more than you love RMS, maybe you should consider my anecdotal
evidence ...

-- 
cheers,
Thorsten

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Jambunathan K]

You committed a grave sin. 

Now sing Hosannahs to Gnus - the awesome mail client that "I AM" posting
with right now.

If you don't do that I will lynch you. 

OK?

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Jambunathan K]

> None of which is at all relevant to either the question posed in the
> original post, 

Did you help OP with Gnus configuration?  If you did, you are awesome.

> nor to the purpose of the gnu.* newsgroups which is (indirectly) to
> make the modern world a little more free, not bring more people into
> an unfree world.

Gnus is awesome.  In much the same way that other's children are
awesome.  

Now convince me to use Gnus!

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[W. Greenhouse]

Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz@gmail.com> writes:

> Please don't feel compelled, I don't think that thread was meant so
> seriously (including my post). But if you want to expose your
> grandparents to the world of computers for the very first time, and you
> love them more than you love RMS, maybe you should consider my anecdotal
> evidence ...

My grandmother (and presumably many people's grandparents) used
computers for work, and they were command-line based with monochrome
displays.  Why assume that touchscreen GUIs are inherently intuitive?
(Hint: the fact that they don't come with manuals is not evidence of this).

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

wgreenhouse@riseup.net (W. Greenhouse) writes:

> Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Please don't feel compelled, I don't think that thread was meant so
>> seriously (including my post). But if you want to expose your
>> grandparents to the world of computers for the very first time, and you
>> love them more than you love RMS, maybe you should consider my anecdotal
>> evidence ...
>
> My grandmother (and presumably many people's grandparents) used
> computers for work, and they were command-line based with monochrome
> displays.  Why assume that touchscreen GUIs are inherently intuitive?
> (Hint: the fact that they don't come with manuals is not evidence of this).

Well, people the age of my grandmother have been using GUI almost all
their live too.

I'm afraid, the gran'ma argument can't be used anymore in computing, our
pioneer are already dead (RIP John McCarthy, Dijkstra, Backus, etc).


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[W. Greenhouse]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:

> wgreenhouse@riseup.net (W. Greenhouse) writes:
>
>> Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Please don't feel compelled, I don't think that thread was meant so
>>> seriously (including my post). But if you want to expose your
>>> grandparents to the world of computers for the very first time, and you
>>> love them more than you love RMS, maybe you should consider my anecdotal
>>> evidence ...
>>
>> My grandmother (and presumably many people's grandparents) used
>> computers for work, and they were command-line based with monochrome
>> displays.  Why assume that touchscreen GUIs are inherently intuitive?
>> (Hint: the fact that they don't come with manuals is not evidence of this).
>
> Well, people the age of my grandmother have been using GUI almost all
> their live too.
>
> I'm afraid, the gran'ma argument can't be used anymore in computing, our
> pioneer are already dead (RIP John McCarthy, Dijkstra, Backus, etc).

Also a valid point.  It's ageist, sexist, and doesn't even really make
sense anymore.

--
Regards,
WGG

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Rustom Mody]

On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 2:56:04 AM UTC+5:30, W. Greenhouse wrote:
> 
> My grandmother (and presumably many people's grandparents) used
> computers for work, and they were command-line based with monochrome
> displays.  Why assume that touchscreen GUIs are inherently intuitive?
> (Hint: the fact that they don't come with manuals is not evidence of this).

Not sure what you are saying.  It appears to me that the definition of 'intuitive' is exactly this -- not needing study. See for example:
http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dictionary/intuitive.php

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[W. Greenhouse]

Rustom Mody <rustompmody-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> writes:

> On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 2:56:04 AM UTC+5:30, W. Greenhouse wrote:
>> 
>> My grandmother (and presumably many people's grandparents) used
>> computers for work, and they were command-line based with monochrome
>> displays.  Why assume that touchscreen GUIs are inherently intuitive?
>> (Hint: the fact that they don't come with manuals is not evidence of this).
>
> Not sure what you are saying.  It appears to me that the definition of
> intuitive' is exactly this -- not needing study. See for example:
> http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dictionary/intuitive.php

But modern GUIs do require study and experience to develop facility with
them.  They just don't come with documentation, meaning that the study
is by rote only.

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Rustom Mody]

On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 8:14:47 AM UTC+5:30, W. Greenhouse wrote:
> But modern GUIs do require study and experience to develop facility with
> them.  They just don't come with documentation, meaning that the study
> is by rote only.

Dunno what rote means then...
Millions of kids today are buying phones -- thier firsts -- which are full-featured (ie Turing-complete) computers and using them without anything remotely like a manual.

When I started teaching programming in the late-80s we used turbo-C and PC-scheme.
The manuals were outstanding. And nobody dreamed of being able to use such stuff without non-trivial amount of study.

The situation is reversed today -- the modern kid expects everything to run without study.  This need not be a good thing -- the 'intuitive' interface may in fact be the stupid interface; does not change the fact that its the universal expectation.

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Richard Riley]

wgreenhouse@riseup.net (W. Greenhouse) writes:

> Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Please don't feel compelled, I don't think that thread was meant so
>> seriously (including my post). But if you want to expose your
>> grandparents to the world of computers for the very first time, and you
>> love them more than you love RMS, maybe you should consider my anecdotal
>> evidence ...
>
> My grandmother (and presumably many people's grandparents) used
> computers for work, and they were command-line based with monochrome
> displays.  Why assume that touchscreen GUIs are inherently intuitive?
> (Hint: the fact that they don't come with manuals is not evidence of this).
>

To even begin to suggest its as easy for the majority to manipulate the
command line as it is to use a well designed GUI front end is somewhat
silly. Regardless of what your Grandmother may or may not have done :
the idea they might understand elisp and the gnus way is a little
shortsighted and intransigent ;)

-- 
Sent using Emacs/Gnus from home ...

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Richard Riley]

wgreenhouse@riseup.net (W. Greenhouse)
writes:

> Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 2:56:04 AM UTC+5:30, W. Greenhouse wrote:
>>> 
>>> My grandmother (and presumably many people's grandparents) used
>>> computers for work, and they were command-line based with monochrome
>>> displays.  Why assume that touchscreen GUIs are inherently intuitive?
>>> (Hint: the fact that they don't come with manuals is not evidence of this).
>>
>> Not sure what you are saying.  It appears to me that the definition of
>> intuitive' is exactly this -- not needing study. See for example:
>> http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dictionary/intuitive.php
>
> But modern GUIs do require study and experience to develop facility with
> them.  They just don't come with documentation, meaning that the study
> is by rote only.
>

Now you're being silly and "1337". Of course GUIs need some
understanding but sensible design, relevant icons etc make it a LOT
easier for most than arbitrary command line commands and flags and bash
pipeline knowledge.

 

-- 
Sent using Emacs/Gnus from home ...

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Richard Riley]

Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 8:14:47 AM UTC+5:30, W. Greenhouse wrote:
>> But modern GUIs do require study and experience to develop facility with
>> them.  They just don't come with documentation, meaning that the study
>> is by rote only.
>
> Dunno what rote means then...
> Millions of kids today are buying phones -- thier firsts -- which are
> full-featured (ie Turing-complete) computers and using them without anything
> remotely like a manual.
>
> When I started teaching programming in the late-80s we used turbo-C and PC-scheme.
> The manuals were outstanding. And nobody dreamed of being able to use such stuff without non-trivial amount of study.
>
> The situation is reversed today -- the modern kid expects everything to run
> without study.  This need not be a good thing -- the 'intuitive' interface may
> in fact be the stupid interface; does not change the fact that its the universal
> expectation.
>

And for a good reason. The majority of people want to *use* SW not learn how it works or
figure out its internals. Of course most of us here are emacs users so
we're not normal - but I'm always a little surprised when a dinosaur
then thinks everyone should be that way as if its somehow "better" - its
not. Most people *use* the SW to be productive in something else.

-- 
Sent using Emacs/Gnus from home ...

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Stefan Monnier]

> Most people *use* the SW to be productive in something else.

I lost you here: what do you mean by "something else"?


        Stefan

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[W. Greenhouse]

Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com> writes:

> Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

>> The situation is reversed today -- the modern kid expects everything
>> to run without study.  This need not be a good thing -- the
>> 'intuitive' interface may in fact be the stupid interface; does not
>> change the fact that its the universal expectation.

> And for a good reason. The majority of people want to *use* SW not
> learn how it works or figure out its internals. Of course most of us
> here are emacs users so we're not normal - but I'm always a little
> surprised when a dinosaur then thinks everyone should be that way as
> if its somehow "better" - its not. Most people *use* the SW to be
> productive in something else.

The problem is that the expectation that they can use computers without
study is, simply, a wrong expectation.  The fact of the matter is that
those kids just can't use computers.[1]  Or they can, but only within
very limited parameters.  The notion that they are "digital natives"
thanks to touchscreens and GUIs is simply false.  They are digital
troglodytes, digital Neanderthals, because our countries have failed to
teach them to be anything better.

As for workers in various fields who use computers as part of their
work, they don't think of themselves as technical workers, but
nonetheless, they are expected to be highly competent with certain
software, and even hired on the basis of experience with certain
software.  So, it turns out that as far as doing real work, you need to
put in years of practice with the technology anyway.  Dealing with
customer support tickets in a phone bank or running optimization
problems in a spreadsheet are not even jobs that we think of as computer
programming jobs, but nonetheless they are, and the people doing them
either received training, or they blundered their way through years of
learning the best practices for that job.  Either way, some GUI did not
teach them how to do it in a Blinding Flash of the Obvious.

Gnus may be a very poor choice of mailclient for someone whose needs are
really met by the increasingly limited interfaces of popular webmail or
mobile applications (want not to top-post in Gmail?  Sorry, you can't
anymore!).  But for users like the ones I describe in the second
paragraph, who are in jobs that make high demands of their computer
skills but don't call themselves computing jobs, an Emacs-based
mailclient was and remains an excellent choice.  Discussing Amazon's old
Emacs-based interface for customer service employees, Steve Yegge wrote:

> People still love it. To this very day, I still have to listen to long
> stories from our non-technical folks about how much they miss
> Mailman. I'm not shitting you. Last Christmas I was at an Amazon party,
> some party I have no idea how I got invited to, filled with business
> people, all of them much prettier and more charming than me and the
> folks I work with here in the Furnace, the Boiler Room of Amazon. Four
> young women found out I was in Customer Service, cornered me, and talked
> for fifteen minutes about how much they missed Mailman and Emacs, and
> how Arizona (the JSP replacement we'd spent years developing) still just
> wasn't doing it for them. [2]

And again, these were not people whose job is to write software, or who
necessarily know anything about writing software.  These were precisely
people whose job it was to be productive in something else: dealing with
upset customers.

Go back to your iPad, Richard.

Footnotes: 
[1]  http://coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-computers/

[2]  https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/tour-de-babel

--
Best,
WGG

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Jambunathan K]

wgreenhouse@riseup.net (W. Greenhouse) writes:

> Go back to your iPad, Richard.

Greenhouse, you are breaking the rules of the house.

Re: What's an even easier explanation how to setup gnus ...

[Rustom Mody]

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 1:43:49 AM UTC+5:30, Jambunathan K wrote:
>  (W. Greenhouse) writes:
> 
> 
> > Go back to your iPad, Richard.
> 
> Greenhouse, you are breaking the rules of the house.

Heh! Good catch!

OtOH if you break a greenhouse you get less of greenhouse-effect