A goal that, at a first glance, could even seem to be desirable.
But, is this the purpose of the information technology? What would happen if everybody really were to suddenly own a computer?
It isn't so difficult to figure it out. To understand this, let's step back to the Eighties for a moment.
It's hard to think of an epoch with a faster development of computer-related technologies: every few months revolutionary and competitive new solutions were showed to the public, and there was a strong impulse towards innovation in all branches of research and development.
Within six to seven years we evolved from ZX Spectrum's simple keyboard-oriented interface to NeXTStep's Postscript, object-oriented GUI (1).
At a time when no low-cost "standard" solutions from specialized producers did exist, each computer
firm was free to offer newer and newer custom hardware systems, often a real quantum leap if
compared to the competition.
The rudimentary "ROM instruction sets" of home computers were superseded by complex operating systems
with more and more advanced features whose ingenious implementation would deserve to become the matter of
a software engineering class. (2).
Without staying too generic, it should be enough to notice as in 1983 the most advanced system a common user could buy was monotasking and 8-bit, while in 1986 it already was multitasking and 32-bit (although the so-called "serious" computer world did choose very much later to follow the same path).
But what was the source of such a fervour of research and development? What did feed such unceasing efforts towards the new and the never tried before?
One thing in my opinion, and only one.
Computers were a product for few enthusiasts, machines for experienced people.
This favoured enormously the birth, in those times' computer community, of a great "pioneer-like" spirit, always the only true impulse towards progress, in any field.
Such a spirit did vanish in recent years, thanks to the "monopolization" and the "massification" of computer products, performed (or perpetrated?) by few, let's say two, companies which are more interested in monetary revenues than in technological progress.
Monopolization strangled the pioneer-like spirit of other companies, and forced them to follow
"standards" imposed more by strength (of wallet) than by reason, thus preventing them from proceeding
along the research and innovation road.
This way, hardware development became simply a search for a greater clock, in the software field
addition superseded enhancement, and more generally, quantity ended up prevailing over quality.
Of course the user himself, with such an availability of low-price mass products, did lose the
pioneer-like spirit that before drove him to become an "active" part in the development of his platform
(whichever it was). One must not be amazed by this: it is natural that people, if they are offered
ready-made solutions (no matter how much really valid), feel no more motivation to make other ones by
themselves.
Do we have to remember the computer magazines of early Eighties? All of them featured many pages with
reader contributions in form of programs and code. Now that readers are increased, these pages, on the
contrary, are nearly disappeared.
How many still devote their time to develop software that they can, with less effort, purchase in a store? It matters little if after the software they must also buy themselves a new computer to make it run decently...
So computer owners are more and more "users" and less and less "developers"? Alas, the feeling is just that. But there is more: with the increase, in percentage, of the users, the time available to developers for innovative research, also, continues to decrease, as it must be rather invested into the maintenance of the "popular" products the market demands (and depends on).
While the proportion is in the order of a developer for a hundred users, it remains conceivable that the developer is able to program "standard" software at work, and then, maybe in his free time (surely without remuneration!), he can also work on something really innovative. But when the proportion becomes a developer for 100,000 users, there is no doubt that all of his time will be absorbed by the work having to satisfy mass "needs".
So the "progress" concept itself disappears, replaced by a more banal "powering up", that is just a part of it (and probably the worst one). Alas, the mentality imposed by the current state of things induces many people to mistake that part for the whole, thus feeling satisfied by such a situation... in some cases praising and admiring just the ones who keep causing information technology's degradation.
Looking at such a perspective it appears less desirable an indiscriminate diffusion of computers such as the one Bill Gates dreams of for the masses.
Let's go back to the initial question: the purpose of information technology is to "bring a computer into every home"? Now the answer should be obvious.
The answer is NO. The purpose of information technology should be, in my opinion, to make everybody able to understand and use rationally a computer. And this certainly is not the same thing as just to give one to everybody.
Before "bringing a computer into every home" it would be advisable to bring there some Computer Knowledge (note the capital letters) so that people learn to make their own decisions about what they really need, and especially about which ones are, in the various cases, the best solutions in order to obtain it. This includes the ability to develop it by themselves, if and when it's necessary to do so.
All this doesn't mean that computers should remain elite products. It's exactly the opposite. Cars,
also, nowadays aren't certainly for few people.
But to use a car you need a driving licence. And to use a computer?
Surely it won't be necessary to come to that, but it would be equally wrong to consider computers just
like generic household appliance. They're much more complex devices and therefore they require a higher
level of knowledge from the user.
And this knowledge, in a way or another, must be given to the public. Introducing information
technology into school is of course a first step towards this goal, but we have still much more to do if
we really want to "bring computer knowledge" into future's society.
To increase the knowledge. This should be the purpose of information technology, just like every other scientific
discipline.
Do we want to have more computers... or more individuals UNDERSTANDING THEM and ABLE TO USE THEM THE RIGHT WAY?
It is clear that in such an hypothetical state of greater "consciousness", many "status-symbols" of today wouldn't be able anymore to influence the mass to the advantage of few (very few) big companies.
Considering that, one shouldn't be surprised at all by the seemingly "noble" and "praiseworthy" aim of Mr. Gates, which built his whole fortune on mass ignorance and on people's consequent inability to think for themselves.
A computer in every home? Probably it will happen. But we, and not Bill Gates, will have to want it...
hopefully also knowing why.
Written by: Massimo Tantignone e-mail: tanti@intercom.it
Via Campagnoli, 4
28100 Novara
ITALY