Selective Control

This is not about computers, but relies on human interaction with computers as the primary example of seeking selective control.

Everyone wants convenience. That is, we want to avoid bothering with mechanisms, however necessary, which enable spending time doing what registers to us as important. Every bureaucracy is founded on the unspoken principle of reducing variations in the humans being processed through the system by refusing to acknowledge those variations. Managers imagine this makes things more efficient; there are X number of categories and acceptable responses listed with check boxes on the forms. Pick one. If none of them fit you, that’s your problem; pick one or be crushed. One man’s convenience is another man’s inhumanity.

Welcome to the hive culture. This was bluntly proposed as the good and right thing to do with the population of America a century ago, and today we live with the results of that philosophy. In Scripture this has been condemned, particularly in symbolic references to Rome. Indeed, the very foundation of Western Civilization is this very dehumanizing assertion of control. All of the East depended entirely upon the endless variation in human character, but the West made it illegal.

I have just spent a week running Windows 7 on my laptop. The hardware never worked better. It was pretty fast and light, and everything was convenient. That is, everything except my needs. I’m not going to say it’s evil by intent, but it was uncomfortable for me. During the whole week I tried to embrace what was possible, explored numerous avenues making sure I hadn’t left out some optional choice. It was usable, but I didn’t have control over the things which mattered most to me. Quirky I am, but I have a work flow, a set of habits and assumptions based on what I need to control. The reason for that control arises from my sense of calling and character. I’m sure there are plenty of self-deceptions, but I am at least trying to understand the fellow in the mirror, and I am not comfortable just taking what the corporate bureaucracy of Redmond and partners want to offer.

The details won’t matter to you. The point is, it wasn’t “home.” I’ve held residency in more than a hundred structures in my life, but few of them were actually home for me. The factors varied, but if I had to compromise on what really mattered most in life to me, it can’t be home. So it is with computer operating systems and the software running on them. It’s not really about the collection of choices, but whether those choices help or hinder my pursuit of that burning sense of mission. I have “Microsoft” stamped on my keyboard, but not on any of my software, so it’s not about whether I see Microsoft as evil incarnate. It’s not a boycott fired by some moral indignation. It’s a rejection of what I see as unnecessary constraints.

Do you really need a Microsoft OS? Hey, I know where you can get a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate for free. You like MS Office? I can get that, too; what version do you like? You name it — I can probably find it. And I really don’t care about copyright and intellectual property rights. It’s a matter of I don’t care for how that stuff works in the first place.

It only matters partially whether the likes of NSA has a back door to every Microsoft product. The problem there is the existence of a back door at all is a threat. It’s a threat to my choices, my control. I’ve already made the commitment to transparency, as one of the pillars of Christian Mysticism. Want to know about me? How much time to do you have? I’ll tell you all you want to know, and plenty you may not want to know. What I don’t want is for some miscreant to be able to change how my computer works without first discussing it with me. It’s not that Linux or BSD don’t have holes, but it’s how likely they are to be exploited, which is just about nil. If attacks start piling up against Linux and start succeeding, I’ll be moving to another OS.

That other OS will have to offer some of the same tools, though. There are two issues here. One: Can I get and keep sufficient control over interferences which are assumed the norm in this fallen world? I don’t have to understand all the elements, the nuts and bolts of security in computer code. What I need to know is just enough to evaluate how much time and effort will be siphoned off by threat management. In Linux, and more so with BSD, that’s not very demanding on me.

Two: Can I get and keep sufficient control over the various tools so I can get some work done? I have an investment in habits. Could I have continued using the old Enable office suite on DOS and meet the needs of number one above, I would still be doing that. I had hundreds of keystrokes memorized, and what that software produces is still acceptable to me today. But the hardware ecosystem has long ago left Enable behind, so I’m forced to learn new stuff. The new stuff is not better, not faster, not more efficient in terms of what I need to do. It’s possible I can still get hardware which would run DOS, and software for numerous tasks, but I can’t imagine DOS being secure enough to take care of my needs. Not even the newest incarnations of FreeDOS and friends will work for me, though I admit I would be willing to play with it if I could find the right equipment.

It’s not simple nostalgia. It’s the collection of habits which were carefully considered and well tested, not layered on willy-nilly. I’ve gained some new ones, and they’ve all been carefully honed, as well. Those habits don’t migrate to Windows very well. Not just the habits of work, but the habits of which issues I want to confront. I don’t fear digging into Windows security details, nor am I too lazy. I keep track of it every day. But my experience and reading from others who love Windows has taught me it can’t be trusted. Indeed, that’s why I keep track of it in terms of my computer service ministry. As often as possible I encourage clients to switch to Linux, and some have. It sets them free, and I don’t spend as much time fixing their systems as I do helping them adapt. For those who can’t adapt, I do what I can to secure their system for the uses they make of their computers, for the habits they have, whether carefully considered on not.

They need control over the things which matter to them. I’m trying to manage selective control for folks and their computers.