Message-ID: <v01510100ad11dc0eec51@[205.246.26.10]> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 14:45:26 -0500 From: Frank Baitman <mailto:fbaitman@MARS.SUPERLINK.NET> Subject: Re: TRS-80 Computers To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Bruce:I couldn't agree with your analysis more! Since your note this a.m. it's interesting to see that a number of others have jumped in to since the praise of the TRS.
This is not an issue of technology, as many in this newsgroup seem to want to make it. Nor is this an issue of giving junk to Africa. It is really more basic: this debate is really a microcosm of the debate surrounding aid, isn't it?
There are certainly types of foreign aid that are *abusive* and that's what many of us oppose. They may be abusive because they cause the recipient to act against his best interests, or simply because they demean the recipient. I hardly think that sending surplus computer equipment to Africa is in any way abusive. If it's junk, it'll end up in the trash. If it improves someone's situation (perhaps by making them more efficient, providing skills training, or in this case, making someone's job just a bit easier) they will make use of it!
I believe that it's all to easy in the development community to take on a partriarchical role. It's too easy to say that old computers demean the recipient. Well the bottom line is that there's no way we're going to find ourselves shipping new Pentiums to Africa. Like it or not! (And to get into a discussion on this specific matter: 28.8 modems are superfluous, odd sized batteries can't be replaced, and today's laptops are far too fragile to travel in the field, etc.)
What the development community really must ask itself is whether they are trying to empower others to change/improve their situation or whether we plan to dictate the *appropriate* future for the aid recipients.
Frank Baitman
At 19:26 1/3/96, Bruce L. Geisert wrote: >I wanted to clearup a point about the TRS-80 article I forwarded. I sent
>the article as an example of a possibly misdirected attempt, not in support
>of the idea. As a group we have discussed how, and when, computers are
>useful tools for countries. The point is by what standard do we evaluate
>the best resources to be "donated" if they are available. The issue of the
>TRS-80 being outdated, and unsupportable, may be applied to any 286/386
>machine provided as part of a project.
>
>I've seen two biases in talking about providing equipment for projects: 1)
>"use an older generation" on the assumption that somehow these can be better
>supported; and, 2) a snobbish reaction, that the equipment being used is so
>out of date. We need to review our own assumptions, and be very clear about
>our intended impact when developing system plans. The issue shouldn't be
>whether WE would want to use a system, but rather would the system be useful
>to the recipient; that's the goal. If it's useful, then why not?
>
>Comments, ideas are welcome.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>============================================================
>Bruce L. Geisert, MIS Consultant P.O. Box 254
>p/f) 1-540-937-3651 Amissville, VA 22002
mailto:>bgeisert@lifestat.net\Frank Baitman\ \Cranbury, New Jersey\ mailto:fbaitman@mars.superlink.net