kill-bill.jpgLike many of you, I have needlessly suffered through incompetent software from Microsoft (and the Windows world in general). I expect we have all experienced the needless complexity of Word, the inexplicable inabilities of Outlook, the security nightmare of Internet Explorer, and the glacial (and expensive) pace of software updates.

I know. I’m only scratching the surface.

Technology is not the only problem. The dominant culture of computing is also at issue. This culture penalizes the average user. If you exist somewhere between novice and programmer, then your cyber-world is one of endless frustration. It is akin to middle-class taxes. The wealthy and corporations pay comparatively little compared to people with modest incomes. [Of course, the poor shouldn’t have to ‘pay’ in either computing or taxes].

In the public’s eye, Apple is a stellar exception. It excels in terms of user-friendliness, advanced features and aesthetic appeal. Yet the directors and stockholders of Apple have let personal enrichment sidetrack the original vision of computing for ordinary people like me. So Apple has never become more than a demonstration project for what software and hardware ought to be.

To be fair, Apple is also the maker of some nifty devices like the iPod!

Is there hope for user-friendly computing that is not usurious outside of Apple? I think it may lay with the free and open source movement. This movement emerged in the early 1980s in reaction to the growing corporate control of computing. Its goal is to create platform-independent software with standards of technology that are openly available to the global community. What this means in practice is the replacement of expensive programs and restrictive licensing, with software that is freely available for use, distribution and editing under some version of a public use license.

Examples of this kind of software include operating systems such as Linspire (www.linspire.com; replacing Windows), Open Office and Star Office (www.openoffice.org and www.staroffice.org; replacing Office), Firefox (www.mozilla.com; replacing Internet Explorer), Thunderbird/Sunbird (www.mozilla.com; replacing Outlook), Tufts University Science Knowledgebase (www.tusk.tufts.edu; replacing Blackboard).

There are real differences of opinion within the overall movement. The dominant streams at the time are ‘open source’ and ‘free software’. The primary distinction between the two is that open source emphasizes the technological superiority of its software over that offered by corporate giants. The free software movement emphasizes the liberation of computing from corporate control altogether. Putting it this way may overstate the case, however, and if you are interested in finding out more, look at the relevant articles and links at Wikipedia. One I recommend in particular is an article entitled ‘Free Software vs. Open Source’. You might also want to look at the websites of SourceForge and the Free Software Foundation.

As an ethics advisor and geographer, I am sympathetic to the critique of corporate computing that fuels the movement. Global society needs alternatives of all sorts to wrest control from the homogenizing and repressive elements of corporate culture. I am especially pleased that governments like Brazil are adopting free and open source standards as a way to economize on costs, obtain a better product, and contest monopolistic economic practices.

At the same time, I’m not opposed to proprietary software, private business, corporations per se, or market forces. Properly understood and operated, such products and institutions can contribute to the well-being of the body politic. Nonetheless, we have let propertarian values run amok, and it is time to restore some balance between the economic and other sectors of global society. If different streams of the movement want to emphasize different goals - software liberation versus technical superiority — I think that is just fine. Both will contribute to a better world.

So after yet another frustrating evening of dealing with poorly designed Windows technology, I’ve decided to commit myself to using free and open-source technology. As part of this commitment, I’ve also decided to phase out my use of Microsoft products as much as possible. A metaphorical ‘Kill Bill’ if you will. I made a tentative start several months ago with when I dumped Internet Explorer for Firefox. My ultimate goal is to replace my Windows OS altogether.

I have no doubt this shift will at times be frustrating, but I doubt it can exceed my frustrations to date. And I know this shift will take time. I’m not a computing wizard, and there are many new programs and operations to learn. Yet if the free and open source movement can contribute to a better world, then my small effort in this direction will be worthwhile. True, it may be a drop in the bucket, but then again, that bucket is made up of many drops.

cheers, Bill

Photo: Publicity shot from ‘Kill Bill’ 2003.

William Lynn :: Jun.04.2006 :: Ethics, Politics :: 1 Comment »