Slashdot Mirror
Bridging the Digital Divide with Linux
mpawlo writes: "I think you would be interested in a story on Advogato submitted today, discussing the digital divide and the role of Linux: "With respect to locating parts with lowered cost on software. There is one candidate the would evenly fit the requirement. As of this writing, there are several OS out there having those properties, but there is only one having a large developer base and community scattered around the globe that can act as support contacts. The name is called GNU/Linux. ... Bridging the Digital Divide requires an enormous amount of work for the techonology sector. A huge responsibility is placed on those who wish to take up the challenge. Current technologies in software, specifically, the Linux OS is a good candidate to play the role." Read the entire story."
Linux helps, but it's not everything. Hardware is a much larger up-front cost than an OS, and there are always ongoing fees such as for internet access.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
There _IS_ no digital divide.
:) Heh, hard work and determination paid off. :)
Period.
Listen
When my family was making UNDER $20K A YEAR, hell, WELL below 20k a year, we still managed to afford a PC.
Why?
PRIORITIES. Simple.
If a family puts their childern's EDUCATION before _EVERYTHING_ else then they can do just fine. No new fancy assed $200 nike shoes (WTF is up with poor people expensive ass almost disposable quality nike shoes?), no CANDY (I saved _ALL_ of my money up for new computer HW. Every penny. Take advantage of Free Lunch programs if you have too), NO ski vacations, NO going on an airplane to visit relatives, and so on.
Repeat
THERE IS NO DIGITAL DIVIDE that CANNOT be overcome with HARD WORK AND DILIGENCE.
Now medical coverage on the other hand. . . . . grrrr.
OBTW: It was a nice feeling to be 12 years old and have more cash in the bank then your parents.
Of course aluminum went for alot higher price in those days too, heh.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
It would be better to combine both operating systems to create a new OS that would compete better with Microsoft.
What is the point of having two seperate development projects of a compatible UNIX operating system? Wouldn't it be better to have just one OS base like Microsoft does when they ditched the Win9x base?
Instead of splitting development on two different OS's, one OS would be able to bridge the digital devide much better.
Many people here were complaining about the project where a computer in every home was promised.
The biggest complaint was Linux upkeep, and hardware. Hardware doesn't have to include GeForce cards, or even x86 machines. Any cheap maybe even diskless machine could be enough.
In my area, one of the neighborhoods that need help is adjacent to the downtown area. Many of the people live in a relativly small area too. It's also within blocks, including surrounding blocks, of our main library branch.
A network of computers could be linked the this existing system. I also suggest that the 'net' should be wired with/to the library. You can fight over small details such as what type of connections should be used - but if we are talking a 'kick start', much isn't needed.
We all know that an old[er] machine can run linux well, and even better; they can be controlled and configured from a distance.
Why give away free computers to play quake? Give people enough to get on the internet easily and quickly. Because we have all the source-code available, anyone can tailor the computer to boot into the gui and give maybe, a few icons to point you to the web or other services.
Don't give anyone 'root' passwords. The computers are public property and are managed by the library. If the user wants a printer, they can get one. If they want to save things that are private: use a disk. Restrict snooping by the city, but simply remind the users that it's not 100% safe. Logs will be kept, but not reviewed unless asked by a judge.
The users basically have no rights on the system. They can play games, go to uproar, even post to slashdot. But since the library controls the system they control the software, the maintenance, and access.
Maybe offer two DNS servers and let the user just hit a button: "Restricted Access" or "Unrestricted Access". Once set, it's set. The computer pics the correct DNS server with the correct DNS entries.
Basically, no frills, no problems. After initial setup, one skilled person could maintain all the computers. Journaling filesystems save the computer from crashes and if something breaks, the user reboots it with the CD in... reformatted, reinstalled.
If the city chooses to do so, offer a place to save settings online.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Trying to eliminate the digital divide directly is akin to going to a homeless person on your street corner and handing him a Palm Pilot with Internet access. He's not in a position to use it to his advantage. His problems are deeper than that.
Great point. Assist these people in finding work, shelter etc... Bring them up to a(an economic) level where they could benefit from it. The people speaking about the dgital divide are incapable of seperating need from want. I need the internet...or how would I get up to the minute stock quotes?!?
I think that senators believe that solving the digital divide issue would be easier than solving unemployment etc...that is why they place so much emphasis on it. It is one of those problems where simply throwing money at it will help.
What a lot of people want is a machine where they don't really need to get help. What they want is something that is about as complicated, or even easier, than programming a VCR.
1 -- require Microsoft (and other software companies) to make abandonware revert to free-use by anyone. Don't require company to necessarily make old versions available for download at now cost, just eliminate copyright protection for versions that are no longer supported.
2 -- Change copyright protection for software to a maximum of 5 years. Abandonware would simply accelerate the push into public domain.
3 -- Eliminate shrink wrap agreements, these are onerous burdens on uneducated consumers. Specify a standard commercial conduct code for shrink-wrap software.
4 -- Eliminate patents for software. Copyright protection is nearly automatic, favors the small developer compared to patents, and would eliminate a large cost of software development.
5 -- Encourage other governments to follow a similar set of reasonable rules.
My personal comments on these rules follow.
Microsoft might actually have to innovate to provide enough value to make consumers but software within the shortened copyright period.
Maybe Borland would revert to like a book license agreements -- in fact, that sounds like a good criteria to be included under point 3 above
Linux -- no damage here, if its all about freedom for the developer and consumer, Linux would be unaffected directly, although stiffer competition from a revitalized commercial sector may inspire more insanely great software here too.
I've spent some time in Morocco. Not a third world country, but certainly not first world either. There are large towns, cities, where the majority of the community shares a phone. (I've been absent a few years, so forgive me if things have changed.)
Digital divide?! Most people in world don't even have telephones!
So, the argument goes, we must, with all due haste, do all we can to make sure that anyone anywhere can reach anyone else anywhere, at anytime. We must make all information available to everyone at all times.
Well, maybe. But, despite my white male American technoliterate sysadmin background, I don't give any of these objectives high priority.
What is life like, when you can't drive? Can't make ad hominem (sic) social arrangements with your friends across town? Can't keep pace with the gyrations of the NYSE? Well, you probably know your neighbors.
Answer this: What are your neighbor's names? Where did they grow up? What do they do for a living? What are their ambitions? Are you good friends? Could you, with all of your magical technological sophistication, do something to make their life better? Do you think maybe, if you got to know them, techo-illiterates though they may be, they might be able to make your life better?
I have a sick number of computers at my disposal. Throw them all in the river, and give me tajine on the mountains overlooking the beaches of Agadir. For all our wizardry, we are still existential infants. Don't let your sophistication get to your head.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
You address a massive issue. Consumerism, industrialization, modernization, digitalization, all fine ideas. But do they provide any sort of happiness. Fundamentally, a professor of mine once described our desires as the desires of the aristocracy, from a Foucaultian perspective - to own a castle (house), segregate our personal lives from that of those around us, and choose our fate to a tea or tee time. What has happened, perhaps, is that we did not in our individualization ask whether or not the aristocracy was happy.
From a paleolithic perspective, we are certainly anything but in our element - packs animals that do seasonal hunting and foraging and farming. We turn nowadays to television, and in cases internet, for the elements of our physio-psychology in derth. Yet we are supplementing artificial inventions for natural (presumably natural) environments.
One case in point is a family of refugees where I live here in Canada, a man from Berundi and his wife. The man's ex-wife was killed, and some of his brothers, sisters, cousins, were killed in war, he cannot see his children and cannot afford a vehicle and relies upon donations for essentials. Yet he is the happiest person I have met.
I enjoyed reading your note on the matter.
You make an interesting point about piracy, though. I read somewhere recently that in a lot of countries that are currently bootstrapping themselves into into the digital age Windows is fairly popular, mostly because it's all pirated. Linux is often a popular choice as well, but has no economic advantage since Windows is free-as-in-beer also.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I will just try to spark some discussion, here is a few points to consider followed by my own thoughts on this matter. Open Economies participants will recognise the content of this submission.
I think theses issues are worth to address to try to find some common ground (or than again, maybe we will not) to take action from.
1. Is there a gap? What is it then?
2. Where is the gap? Are we talking about the gap worldwide in developing countries or even on a national level in welfare countries with internal differences and gaps (i e USA or Sweden)?
3. Should we bridge the gap? (Should you answer no to this question, the rest of the questions may not be useful.)
4. Do we have a responsibility as humans to brdige the gap? Why / why not?
5. Are there any negative consequences of bridging the gap? Do we (i e the rich filthy bastards) profit from the differences?
6. Are there any positive consequences of bridging the gap Do we (again the rich filthy bastards) profit from minimising the differences?
7. How do we bridge the gap in short time with lack of funds?
8. How do we bridge the gap in long time with lack of funds?
9. How do we bridge the gap in long time with lots of funds?
10. Name one measure you can initiate today to bridge the gap. Will you do it?
- - -
I will try to address some issues to get the discussion going. I hope you do not mind me doing this.
>1. Is there a gap? What is it then?
Yes. There is a gap in countries and between countries and between continents in respect of:
1. computers
2. access
3. general IT knowledge and
4. use.
If one of the factors 1-4 is missing in any given community, the digital gap will eventually evolve. In a community with high rates of 1-4, the digital development will flourish.
>2. Where is the gap? Are we talking about the gap worldwide in developing >countries or even on a national level in welfare countries with internal >differences and gaps (i e USA or Sweden)?
I think the gap is relative and could be applied and considered both on a domestic and international level.
>3. Should we bridge the gap? (Should you answer no to this question, the >rest of the questions may not be useful.)
I think we should consider the world throught the John Rawls veil of ignorance. Rawls is well-known to all scholars of jurisprudence and most likely all of you, but just to make sure we are on the same page: the basic idea is that the choice of the pinciples of social organisation is to be made by persons who have no idea of the actual position they will occupy in society or of their interests and inclinations. Rawls is wideley critised, maybe best by Nozick, but I still consider his ideas as a good tool and framework for any regulatory or policy discussions.
Seen through the eyes of Rawls we should bridge the gap at least if we do enjoy the benefits of a digital society.
>4. Do we have a responsibility as humans to brdige the gap? Why / why not?
Yes, according to the answer to 3.
>7. How do we bridge the gap in short time with lack of funds?
I think we should be very generous with our knowledge. It will not cost us much to set up web sites spreading our knowledge and works to other communities. The open source and free software movement could be the most important step towards digitalisation of Africa. Sweden is one country spending a lot of funds on financial aid directed towards developing countries (often referred to the Group 77 countries). Maybe we and other nations should refocus and educate and ditribute or knowledge instead of cash.
At the United Nations Millenium Summit the prime minister of India, Shri Vitar Bhapal Vhajpayee stated:
"A 'New Economy' drives the world today. Yet, nearly a quarter of the people this Assembly represents have neither prospered nor gained from these developments. Often,they find themselves further marginalised and more vulnerable as development economics gives way to unbridled market economics and social objectives are erased by profit motives."
>8. How do we bridge the gap in long time with lack of funds?
Actually, the same answer as 7. We also probably could donate a lot of outranged equipment to the Group 77 countries or to less fortunate people in our own contries.
>9. How do we bridge the gap in long time with lots of funds?
I think we should address these issues through the United Nations or a similar organisation and fund a special program aiming to wire the world.
>10. Name one measure you can initiate today to bridge the gap. Will you do it?
I have translated the GNU GPL v 2 into Swedish, which - to my surprise - was very much appreciated by Swedes lacking knowledge of the English language. If you are not a programmer, easy things like this could actually improve the world, although it may seem simple and naive on the verge to pathetic. I have also published some of my works online, which has turned out to be helpful to a few people. It is not a huge effort, but if we all do something it could have some impact. You do not have to go into Pay it forward-sleazy movies extremes .-)
My new task will be to write easy to grasp guidelines to use computers with free software or open source software. It will cost me a few hours, but hopefully someone will be helped.
If you read this far, I am very impressed. Thank you for your attention.
Best Regards
Mikael
Pawlo.com
You can give a computer to a Homo Habilis, and he'll use it - but he'll use it to crack nuts.
What educational value does a computer provide to someone who may not even be able to read?
If you assert that it's "better" to get the news from cnn.com than from watching TV, that's fine -- but people with poor reading skills won't start reading cnn.com because they have a computer, they'll continue to watch TV. They won't "learn" a damn thing until they want to. (They'll play Quake on it, they'll enjoy MP3s, they'll get advertised at by AOL, but they won't learn unless they want to learn.)
Anyone (poor or not) who does want to use a computer to to learn stuff, or to educate their kids, has probably already spent the $100 for a Pentium-class PC and pirated the educational software required.
I see the "digital divide" as a red herring. As others have pointed out, it sounds good, and it's a problem that can be solved by throwing money at it. It's a problem in search of a solution in search of a problem, if you will. The only ones likely to benefit are those who take your money for the solution.
It's a literacy divide, not a digital one.