On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:52:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [rapskat] on Saturday 17 September 2005 11:36 \__
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:58:27 -0500, Linux User wrote:
>>> I wanted to switch her to one of the "easier" versions of Linux, but, I
>>> think it is best to keep her with what she already knows and understands.
>>> This is especially the case since she wants her computer "the way it
>> Ultimately, you have to do what is in the user's best interests. You
>> can't switch a person to Linux just because *you* want them to, it has to
>> be a case where Linux could and would offer the best option for them given
>> the circumstances.
>> If a person is hostile to it from the beginning, then chances are they
>> aren't going to stay with it anyway. Setting up a dual boot system or at
>> the very least providing them with a LiveCD of some distro would be an
>> option for when their Windows eventually takes a dive.
> Good point. I am tired of trying to convince my mother that she should use
> Ubuntu. No matter if it takes her _days_ to have someone restore her
> machine, she insists on using that same pile of garbage that got her there
> in the first place.
These days I don't usually do tech support on Windows for family and
friends any more, but take a "tough love" approach. If they want to stick
with Windows, that's fine - but it means doing their own recovery (or
paying commercial rates for it).
If they want to try a saner operating system, then I'll help them
transition to Linux (or Mac, for that matter), and if they do not wish to
do so then I walk away. That way I can live with myself, whereas
I'd find it ethically very dubious if I knowingly help perpetuate the pain.
Would you help your friend or relative shoot up with drugs, if that was
what they wanted to do, even though you believe they are harming
themselves by doing so?