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."

Comments

Solving the wrong problem

[soundsop]

I think that spending large amounts of resources to eliminate the "digital divide" is a waste of time and effort.

The real problem in the world is that the economic policy of rich countries (the G7 countries---but primarily the US, given the demise of the Soviets) serves to keep the majority of people in the Third World impoverished.

Promote education, health care, and worker's rights throughout the world, and we'll be in a position to eliminate the "digital divide."

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.

Re:Solving the wrong problem

[soundsop]

Are we actually going in there and destroying capital? (I'm not talking obvious situations such as war (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, etc).

Well, those obvious situations are just extensions of less obvious situations. Look at Afghanistan. Certainly, the Soviets/Russians are largely responsible for the current plight of Afghanistan. But the US backed the mujahadeen fighters against the Soviets. It got the Soviets out of Afghanistan but then the mujahadeens helped form the Taliban government which was possibly the the most oppressive government that existed at the time.

Supporting oppressive and corrupt dictators such as Saddam Hussein (pre-Gulf war), Manuel Noriega (pre-Panama invasion), Marcos of the Phillipines, etc. who toe the American line is one clear and direct affect US policy has in promoting poverty around the world.

I can't think of any US economic policy that is somehow keeping the Chinese poor. I place the blame for their poverty, squarely on them. (I think they need to kill their leaders.) But if you've got some evidence I haven't heard of, I'm all ears.

I wasn't thinking about China specifically. Instead, take for example any Central or South American country. The US has a huge influence on local policy through the IMF and World Bank. Once money is owed to the IMF or World Bank, they start to dictate policy, and the policy usually is to exploit workers and natural resources to pay off the debts. Don't bother with education or health care because that would just be a drain on debt repayment. Only in extreme circumstances, like the present situation in Argentina, can countries suspend debt payments (it will be interesting to see how long this lasts in Argentina).

All this negative talk merits some disclaimers. I certainly don't believe that the US is inherently evil. I'm Canadian, and if Canada wasn't such a small country we'd probably do the same. (In fact, Canada tries its best to promote poverty. Some of Canada's biggest oil companies have a notorious record of cooperating with oppressive regimes in Africa with the Sudan being the most prominent example.) Certainly there are positive humanitarian steps that are taken throughout the world due to US efforts, but unfortunately they tend to pale in comparison to negative effects.

The US is essentially a colonial power--albeit a modern, 21st century-style, colonial power. (I live in their favourite colony--Canada!). When you look at the Soviets, it was obvious to us that they were a colonial power (until they fell). It's just that since we live in North America we tend too be blind to the fact that the US is a colonial power.

The "Digital Divide"

[GigsVT]

I don't buy this whole "Digital Devide" concept. Back in high school, I worked in a grocery store. There were many adult co-workers that would be considered the bottom of the working class. Some of them worked two jobs.

One day one of them brought up that he wanted to get a computer for his son, but he obviously couldn't afford anything new. I sold him a 486 class PC with monitor and modem for about $100, which was around what they cost back then, maybe a little less than what they cost. He could get on the Internet, and his kid could get computer experience.

If a man working minimum wage can get a system from the trash bin of a geek who also worked for minimum wage, for a couple days pay, then all these people whining about the "digital divide" are mostly rich people who couldn't imagine what it is like to actually have to work hard to get the things you need.

There are many other examples, some of the people I chat with on IRC are what would be considered very poor in the US sense, and have basically put together computers from with others have thrown out.

They have the exact same access to information that someone with a 2Ghz P4 does.
It may not be as fast, or as flashy, or a "rich media experience", but that stuff isn't important anyway, when you are arguing that this underclass won't have access to the same information that the upper classes would.

I don't know how it is in other countries, I don't claim to, but here in the US, the "digital divide" is a fabrication.

I know, you will say that I didn't sell him an OS license with the computer. That is true. The only thing left that can create a digital divide is software that costs too much to buy, and ways to prevent users from running unauthorized software.

So while I argue that there isn't currently a digital divide, laws like the SSSCA could easily create one by ending piracy by people who really can't afford the software.

As far as free software goes, I couldn't have put Linux on his computer. First off because this was 1995 and I didn't know what Linux was, and second off, he would want to be able to install commonly available software. I don't know what this says about free software, but when people get stuff from their friends, they want to be able to use it in their computer. Sneakernet is still big among the non-geeks. People pass around software programs, just like the 1980s C64 user groups. They want to be able to run this software.

I don't know if this message has a point, at least upon re-reading it, it seems pretty disjointed, but I hope it makes sense.

Re:The "Digital Divide"

[sam_handelman]

I don't buy this whole "Digital Devide" concept. ... people I chat with on IRC are what would be considered very poor in the US sense, and have basically put together computers from with others have thrown out.

That is vaccuous reasoning.

It is true that poor people can get computers (my parents managed when I was a kid) but that does not mean that there isn't a digital divide. A well organised, informed or minimally well connected working class person can get health care for their kids - it may not be great but it will meet their basic needs. Are you going to argue, therefore, that the lower vaccination rates among poor children don't reflect inferior access to health care? After all, the resources are theoretically available to vaccinate all those poor children.

people whining about the "digital divide" are mostly rich people who couldn't imagine what it is like to actually have to work hard to get the things you need.

I'm a whining rich person because I want to see their kids vaccinated, while I get health care from my fellowship?

The fact of the matter is - and the article has these statistics so I'm not going to repeat them - poor people are less likely to have computers. This has a number of impacts on their lives, both economic and cultural, which have also been rehashed endlessly. If ways can be found to get computers for more of them, or to reduce the economic sacrifices they have to make to get them, can we all agree that it is a good thing?

In terms of overall benefit to the culture of the net - which is richer in human content (as opposed to fast, or [.] flashy, or a "rich media experience", but that stuff isn't important anyway) the more people are on it, we're better off spending resources to get the working class connected, than on any buzzing, bleeping toy (like the 40+" flat screen I've been eyeing, ) you could imagine.

It isn't as huge a deal as the failure to get children vaccinated (criminal to my mind - but my background is in biology), but that doesn't mean it is nothing.

Minority children have less computers in their schools. This digital divide is definitely narrowing - and the very poorest schools (in terms of percent children in poverty) have more computers per student than average, because of all the federal money they get; however, most of those are alternative or remedial schools, and I doubt they have more computers than alternative or remedial schools in wealthy districts.

Anyway, as we are well remember from all that fallout with companies supplying computers to schools in exchange for running ads (there was a slashdot story about it but I can't find it), the money for schools to pay for computers is still a major issue, especially in poor schools. That is where organised promotion of open source can really make it's mark - and, hopefully, propogate as an ethic among the next generation.

Re:The "Digital Divide"

[MrResistor]

There is a HUGE difference between being poor in North America and being poor anywhere else in the world. It's the poor in the rest of the world who are truely suffering from the Digital Divide. Anyone in the US can get access to the internet if they want it, even if it means using a terminal at the local library. The same is not true in, say, Nigeria.

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.

Re:The "Digital Divide"

[Tackhead]

> poor people are less likely to have computers. This has a number of impacts on their lives, both economic and cultural, which have also been rehashed endlessly. If ways can be found to get computers for more of them, or to reduce the economic sacrifices they have to make to get them, can we all agree that it is a good thing?

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.

The Global Digital Divide Illustrated.

[tcd004]

The digital divide is often an ethereal concept without any hard facts to show its actual existence. However, it is easy to see when various indicators are compared and contrasted. Take this "Globalization Index" prepared by Foreign Policy Magazine. The results are very much skewed towards countries with advanced tech sectors. This chart of the gulf in the digital divide over the past 5 years is particularly interesting.

Re:Sure, Linux is nice ...

[Eloquence]

I don't think hardware is really much of a problem in the long run. Consider the things you can do online:

• mail and news
• browse the web
• access ftp sites

These are really the primary applications. Multimedia is of limited relevance in third world countries. None of these applications requires a high-end computer. Even web-browsing can be done on an old 486 if text-mode browsing is acceptable (and thanks to open-source developers, browsers like links, lynx and w3m keep getting updated and are capable of viewing most online text).

So anything from a 486 onward can be used to access the Net (and to develop software) if you use a low-footprint system like Linux. We're talking about computers that can be bought for 20 bucks and less. Add another 30 bucks for an old 14" and a modem, and you`re all set - the software is free.

The "digital divide" is only a symptom of a far larger problem, the economic divide between the north and south. If you can't afford food, you are unlikely to care about Internet access. However, if you have your basic needs met, getting a cheap system set up is completely viable.

The real problem in doing so with Linux is knowledge: While there is information about everything you need to know somewhere, the information you find online and offline is of very varying quality. Without a rating database to find the most relevant texts (such as this free Linux book from South Africa) people will simply not know how and where to start. Future Linux distributions will have to become knowledge portals, guiding the user to information about everything from software development to system administration. While the distros already come with a lot of docs, many of them are not introductory, and many of the good free books are missing.

Two important considerations:

[MsGeek]

1.) Linux with a major-league GUI (Gnome/KDE) is getting almost as resource-hungry as anything out of Redmond or Cupertino.

2.) Most Linux distributions are pointing themselves towards the Latest And Greatest hardware, not towards making elderly machines useful again. There are 486en being ground up for scrap every day or winding up in landfills.

The answer to this would be a distro specifically designed for old machines. Much of the groundwork has already been laid by attempts (both successful and not) to bring Linux into an embedded environment. It's not as sexy a project as writing kewl games but it's NEEDED. The old computers that enterprises throw out on a daily basis could be put to use by the less fortunate. However, the big distros aren't gonna get it for this old iron. Certainly not Mandrake. Maybe not Red Hat. Maybe not even Debian or Slack.

If you want to really DO SOMETHING to help the less fortunate get wired...this is what it takes. I'm not a programmer, so I really can't be a part of this. But not being a programmer doesn't mean I can't see the need.

What do non-american/uk say about this article?

[BrookHarty]

This is going to sound like a broken record, but its hard to have a computer when you don't even have electricity.

Id like to hear people from countries where they had to skimp and save for computers, like India, where even thou the pay is low, people still buy computers and Internet access.

I have a friend in Croatia, and he talks about how he seen people get killed in the local wars, worried about getting drafted, and not being able to finish college. Digital Divide, how about stopping the damn race/holy wars so people can at least progress from the iron age.

-
War is not nice. - Barbara Bush

The real problem is not hardware or software

[Graff]

I work for a Boys & Girls Club in one of the more depressed cities in the Unites States. We get tons of equipment and software donated to us from all sorts of companies, organizations, etc. The real problem is not the cost of the items, but rather the cost of the support and the lack of qualified people who want to work for a non-profit.

It's all well and fine to say that Linux costs next to nothing, but it is much harder to find people to support it. I know most places would rather use software which cost more up front but didn't need a software guru to set up and maintain. Sadly, we don't get the volunteer support we need to use most of the free software out there.

I know that there are some distributions of Linux out there that are pretty easy to use and set up, but they still don't compare to Windows or MacOS in overall ease. Sad, but true.

BTW - If anyone is in the Bridgeport, Connecticut area feel free to look up the Boys & Girls Clubs of Bridgeport. We have piles of old donated equipment and only limited time to fix and set up. Any help would be a godsend! Thanks.

You are not interested in 'solving' the "DD"

[mr]

* Shift the cost away from the consumer.
* Lower the cost making it affordable.
* Minimize parts to near zero cost.
* Subsidize the cost.
* Use parts having zero cost.
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 are 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.

The author is so desperate to push a GNU/Linux adjenda that he is willing to warp reality as shamelessly as a Microsoft PR employee.

To make a claim that the ONLY choice is GNU/Linux is a flat out lie. *BSD is an equally fine choice. Why? Given most of the user space and user applications are the SAME across the UNIX space, if the statement "community scattered around the globe that can act as support contacts" is true, and most of the code in a complete GNU/Linux system is the same across the UNIX world, then *BSD is as good a choice as *Linux.

The Author even KNOWS he's lying, look at his verbage. He states "there is one candidate [that] would evenly fit the bill" Ok, so he's establishing there is one. Then he says "But there is only one" - this is the slip up in verbage. He'd already established there is 'but one choice' then he claims only one has the 'global reach'....why make the claim if there is only one?

Having the GNU blinders on, means the author misses the reality that wealth is built on Intellectual Property. The idea behind the GPL is to tear down IP. Using a BSD licence and BSD software means you can create economic value by choosing to protect IP. By actualling having IP to bring to the economic table, the "digitally divided" have IP to barter for money.

As you can see, the author doesn't actually CARE about the global condition....unless the answer to that condition is GNU/Linux.

A modest proposal

[gewalker]

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.

The foundation for my existance is not "digital"

[wfrp01]

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.

Digitial Divide is not the Problem

[simm_s]

Poor people are going to be less likely to own a computer than, richer upper class people. Well Duh?

I cannot believe people even question the existence of the digital divide, it is something that anyone with reason could understand.

Why even bother categorizing this problem. There have been disenfranchised people since the day humans stopped hunting and gathering and turned to an agricultural system.

The problem with this article is that it assumes that the digital divide problem is software related. It is not even a hardware problem. The problem is poverty. Yes I do know that point is obivious! But it is a social problem that world leaders have failed to fight directly.

The problem is that politians constantly restate the problem of poverty by categorizing diffent it into different subsets. It is as if catogerizing poverty into different subpoints helps solve the problem. I think politicans and civil rights leaders are ill equipped to solve the problem directly, so they divide it into subpoints inorder not to be held accountable for their inablility to fight it.

A poor kid in the shanty town in South Africa with a computer, is still a poor kid.

By "bridging digital divide", you do nothing to address what caused the divide in the first place. "Bridging the digital divide" does nothing to affect the infrastructural problems that allow the poverty to exist in the first place. The resources that could be channeled into finding a soultion to poverty, are waisted in a futile effort.

I bet, when the radio started to overtake written forms of communication, people started to worry that there were not enough radios for everyone. Once the radio problem was solved, TV appeared. When there was a TV in every home, computers appeared an so-on. The problems derived from poverty are dynamic an complex, once you solve one, another appears. To solve only a subset, but not the root, is a futile effort at best.

We could wire every house in America, but without an infrastructure to support it, it will fall apart. In order fight poverty you have to provide the direct cause of the poverty not the results.

Agreed, its a hackneyed political prop

[Ars-Fartsica]

No one has clearly told me where the divide is. Is it people on welfare? Well they all have cable TV, so clearly they are just picking a noninteractive diversion over and interactive one.

Politicos come up with props like this precisely because they know no one will ever pick the scab off and determine what they mean - its treated as self evident. Now that its treated as a given that the divide exists, it can be used as leverage in government spending bills.

In any case, this begs an entirely other different question - why do we care if people have computers at home??? Do we concern ourselves with a "TV divide"? How about an "SUV divide"? Home computers, particularly those connected to the net, are primarily used for entertainment, and you know what I'm talking about.

Re:The foundation for my existance is not "digital

[debrain]

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.

Re:A machine for the masses

[MrResistor]

People who don't even have a computer would find Linux a lot harder to use than either of those two commercial operatings systems.

I think this is a common misconception about Linux. It's probably based on the fact that most people who have used Linux had a hard time learning it because they had to learn something different from what they already knew. Everyone I've ever met who has used Linux used a different OS first. They were already experienced computer users. When they started learning it they discovered that most of the things they took for granted before no longer applied, little things like hotkeys and how to cut and paste are different, so they get frustrated and it seems harder than when they were first learning how to use a computer. It isn't. As you say:

A lot of people don't even have much comprehension of Microsoft Windows or Mac OS, that runs of the computer they have.

They have so little comprehension of their OS because it doesn't matter that much. People will learn what they have, whether it's Windows, MacOS, or Linux, and any of them are equally bewildering to the beginner. Once learned it's just as easy to use, too.

Linux is not hard. It certainly was at one point, but we've been past that point for at least a year now. With a modern distro one no longer needs to ever see a command line, even during installation and configuration.

No one is proposing that we hand people a pile of old hardware and a slackware CD and send them on their way. That would be an equally rediculous proposition if we were to hand them a Windows or MacOS CD. We're talking about prebuilt systems with Linux preinstalled and configured to work out of the box, just like the one they'd get from Gateway or Dell except it costs them $100 less for the same hardware, or even much cheaper for lesser hardware which would be unbearably slow under Windows. I don't know of anyone offering such a thing, all the preinstalled Linux boxes I know of are meant to be servers or high-end workstations, and seem to start at about $1500. There's no reason it couldn't be done, though.

As long as we're on the topic of installation, though, having recently upgraded several Windows and Linux machines (Windows 98 to Windows 2000 and SuSE various to SuSE 7.3) Linux was by far easier. Much of that has to do with the fact that with Linux everything is there on the install disk(s); driver, utilities, applications, etc. Not so with Windows 2000. All that stuff had to be hunted down and installed seperately. Never mind the fact that having to reinstall all your drivers when you're upgrading a working machine is completely asinine. Installing SuSE 7.3 from scratch is incredibly simple as well, again because everything is right there. All my hardware was autodetected without a hitch. The only thing that might complicate it is if you have a windows install you'd like to preserve. Much easier than installing Windows.

La-La Land LLamas & Harsh Realities

[Jeppe Salvesen]

The reality of the matter is that even if you provide poor people with internet access, they are unlikely to use it in any way beneficial to themselves and their lives.

Take a look at all the factors keeping them down (and I do realize that there are causal factors in play that to a large extent excuse their behavior) - crime, alcoholism/drug abuse, abusive parents, gangs, lack of jobs and corrupt government, along with general bureaucracy that raises the bar for starting your own business.

Now ask yourself : what will the internet provide that a library doesn't for these people? or discussing with your peers at a café?

And finally look at library usage in poor areas. Then look at how many of them watch Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake, and not the news or PBS. Are you sure Linux or bridging the Digital Divide can do anything to help this?