Earlier this week, I was having a conversation with a friend about how we’re so used to Windows, we don’t even notice it. Most of us believe that Windows is a ubiquitous part of computers. Computers can’t run without it. “What, you’re not on Windows? How are you chatting with me, then?”. I hear that a lot.
I believe the reason is that we’ve been virtually “brought up” with Windows. Our idea of computer literacy is “My Computer” and “Microsoft Office”. When we have a problem with our computers we turn to our friends. Our friends know Windows. The guy at the computer shop on the corner knows Windows; and does not shy from showing off his “IT” skills by frequently refreshing the desktop while an application loads. Of course most of the troubleshooting means either turning your computer off and on again, or reinstalling Windows. (Recently, I have had the pleasure of having to reinstall Windows on our family computer three times during the last year alone.)
Having extremely lax (read non-existent), copyright laws helps of course. If Windows were priced the same as in other countries we wouldn’t be able to afford it. Windows is more expensive than most Pakistanis’ salaries. (In such a scenario, I’m sure we would be more open to Free and Open Source Software.)
Therefore we know Windows. If we have any problems, we have loads of people to help us out. But nobody knows about any alternatives. We dont even realize that we’re missing anything.
If a child were to be raised in an environment where he/she were to be exposed to alternative computing systems, they’d know the difference. They’d appreciate the options and realize there’s more to computers than refreshing your desktop. And this is not just some geek fantasy, the world we’re living in is increasingly computerized. Our whole lives revolve around computers. Its only logical to assume the next generation of kids would be even more involved with technology.
So the question is, does a child grow up with a monopolistic, closed behemoth of an operating system; the future progress of which is ensured by the underhanded tactics employed by its parent company (ala OOXML); or an open, creatively charged atmosphere.
It is actually very difficult to ensure the latter, as Terry Hancock’s broken toys prove. Here’s some excerpts.
To make a long story short, the company, for some obscure and counter-intuitive reason, decided it would be more economically sensible to waste engineering time on designing their very own USB mass storage device interface, instead of using the free one that is made available to all hardware developers worldwide. Uh-huh. Real smart.
So, even if I were running Windows, this lovely toy would attempt to compromise its security for me. Furthermore, just to trigger my paranoia a little more, the AUTORUN.INI file isn’t even fully readable—aside from a one-line message at the top that warns me not to touch the contents of the file, the rest is binary gibberish (which is pretty weird in an INI file, at least the last time I used Windows. Admittedly, that was last century, but still).
If big producers are willing to waste engineering time and drive up costs in order to ensure that their customers are locked into a particular platform, then I suppose we just can’t expect to rely on them much longer.
What cost can you evaluate on the disappointment of a child? Or on the value of avoiding it? What does it teach our children when they can’t have the things other children take for granted, simply because it was designed not to be compatible?