Archive for October, 2007
Note to self:
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007
If – and I would like to stress the conditional nature of this statement – if in the future you decide to climb around on a sloped corrugated metal roof that was first installed by US forces in nineteen-fricking-forty-one, with nothing between you and the cement floor thirty feet below, do be sure to watch carefully where the other guy steps. This way, you will be able to get by with only one pair of underpants per day.
Sunday picnic
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007
Eratap Island
Tuesday, October 30th, 2007
Santo-bound
Sunday, October 28th, 2007
I’m off to Santo for a couple of days of fire-fighting. I’ll be intermittently online, but likely very distracted.
Where there’s a will there’s a way!
Sunday, October 28th, 2007
blog blong Vivienne: Good Sports in Vanuatu
Friday, October 26th, 2007
Seeing the light
Friday, October 26th, 2007
It looks like Microsoft is finally starting to get over its initial contempt for the One Laptop Per Child project and their XO laptop. I’m not yet ready to temper my original reaction to Microsoft’s approach to international development, though.
Microsoft’s behaviour in this context has bred more than a healthy amount of distrust. Take away the shiny Gates Foundation work – it’s really nothing to do with Microsoft, anyway – and what you see is a consistent, concerted effort to protect the MS hegemony, with little or no regard to actual benefit to the user.
Now, let’s be clear about one thing. I’m no fan of Microsoft. I was once, but I haven’t been since about 1998, when the integration of ActiveX into network-enabled apps made possible such travesties Outlook’s use of Word as an email editor. Their utter disregard for the longer-term costs to consumers was willful and determined. It came amid an outcry among geeks, who rightly pointed out that the depth of insecurity was positively sinful. When the ILOVEYOU worm came and went and still there was no attempt by Microsoft to mitigate their vulnerabilities, I made the decision never again to support their software in any mission-critical role. To this day, I treat Windows workstations as disposable, and use Linux as a bulwark against attack. (The truly security-conscious will no doubt relish the irony of that statement.)
Microsoft Windows is, in my considered, professional opinion, one of the single greatest liabilities facing businesses today. Hyperbole? Not a bit of it. It may be that your Windows PC has never been infected (neither has mine), it may be that in hypothetical cases, Linux and Apple machines are just as vulnerable as the average PC. But measured in terms of actual, right-now liability, there is no more significant vector for attack on our information systems than the typical Windows workstation. Seriously: The single most effective step you can take to reduce malware is to stop using Windows.
Microsoft – not stupid users, not lazy admins, not naive developers, nor any other red herring that’s been trotted out in the past – Microsoft has already cost businesses more in terms of time lost, resources wasted, information stolen than any other software maker. It’s an obvious, inarguable metric, and it amazes me that it’s not mentioned more often.
So how should I feel when Microsoft announces that they’ve seen the light and that they plan to support the XO laptop? Honestly, I don’t like it. I’m not going to practice Fox-style balance in this assessment, because frankly I don’t think MS has earned that right. In order to merit the benefit of the doubt, they would need to demonstrate that:
- Their software will run reliably in locations where technical support is days away. They have trouble operating in places that have instant help-desk support.
- Their software will not be subject to trivial exploit. Even in a flashed, read-only environment like that of the XO, I find it hard to believe that they will be immune to drive-by malware.
- They will not charge money for the right to install it on the XO. Asking even a few dollars per copy is literally stealing from the very children they claim to be helping. Every dollar that a government gives to MS is a dollar less spent on its people. You see, the laptop is already there, already has a custom-designed free operating system and application suite on it. So MS needs to demonstrate why Windows XP improves on this offering, and why it’s worth any money at all.
- Their software is more suited to exploration and learning than the custom-built Sugar interface, especially with regards to localisation and literacy. I would be especially interested in seeing how the collaborative application-sharing capabilities of the laptop would be expressed using the old-fashioned desktop metaphor.
I could go on, but really it all comes down to this: Microsoft once again finds itself caught by surprise by an idea that should be obvious to anyone: There are 4 billion people in the world not using Windows. With characteristically loutish clumsiness, they will elbow their way into the dialogue, and to my continuing sorrow, I and others will find ourselves once again explaining to people who should know better why using Windows in the islands might not work as well as the MS rep suggests.
And I will be the bad guy. I will be the one who lacks balance, pragmatism, understanding. I will be the one blinded by ideology and partisanship. Again.
Update: What right have I to get so snitty about this, some have asked? Why does any of this matter? Because even the most trivial problem in the islands can become insurmountable. And when someone is denied access to information for any reason, the opportunity cost is immeasurable. We really are playing with people’s futures here. The bottom line is what is best for the children using these computers, and I have seen no evidence that Microsoft is giving more than lip-service to this fundamental issue.
Gulp
Friday, October 26th, 2007
The Wisdom of Crowds
Thursday, October 25th, 2007
The successful development of Vanuatu in this day and age is contingent on improvement in communications. In geographic terms, the majority of Vanuatu has little or no access to even basic communications services. In terms of population, the situation is better, but not by a lot.
We’ve known about this problem for a long time. We also have a very clear understanding of the limitations we face. Those of us who are devoted to solving technical problems in Vila, Santo and the islands have an intimate and detailed knowledge of the problems that can afflict us. Those working in development in more general terms have become adept at working around the shortcomings that poor communications place on us.
It’s clear as well that most – if not all – of the stakeholders in this game have some pretty clear ideas about how these problems can be addressed. It’s therefore difficult to understand why these issues continue to dog us as they do. A couple of examples:
The PFNet project in the Solomon Islands has demonstrated itself as an effective, even admirable way of providing low-cost access to information in island communities. We’ve known about this project since its inception, we’ve done the ground work, we’ve measured interest, identified the best partners and done significant ground work to pave the way for an implementation here in Vanuatu. And yet, after four years of preparation we have absolutely nothing to show for all our efforts.
There are good reasons for this. A quick analysis clearly demonstrates that the problem lies not with local partners, but with a donor organisation whose inertia has stopped the entire project dead in its tracks. Attempts to address this problem through numerous avenues have all proven ineffective. Some of those involved in the project have therefore moved beyond frustration to apathy. We’re stymied, in effect, because one partner’s inability to care has infected us all.
Likewise, mobile phone service in Tanna has been in planning for years. It was originally supposed to happen within a very short time of the initial service roll-out of service in Port Vila and Santo. Instead, more than four years later, we’re only just beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Again, the reasons for these delays are clear. Speak with anyone from TVL, and they’ll quickly state that the slow roll-out has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of desire on their part. Land disputes, coupled with the need among everyone involved to be absolutely sure about the status of the project, have led to what would appear to be unconscionable delays anywhere else in the world.
Anyone who has spent any time at all working in Vanuatu knows very well that things proceed at a slow pace here. And those who stop to think about it will realise that there is wisdom in this patient approach to change. The rest of the world could actually learn a thing or two from the careful consensus-building that is so common here.
In village life, nothing is more important than maintaining the peace. We all have to live together, so for better or worse, we have to find a way to continue getting along. The Christian message of turning the other cheek is not easily ignored in a place where everyone not only knows everyone else, but is also family with a great many of them.
In a big city, it’s possible to get away with being anti-social, because if push comes to shove, one can simply move on into another community. This is not an option for the majority of people in Vanuatu. So it makes sense to practice a greater degree of tolerance than others might, to be patient beyond the comprehension of most outsiders.
No social system is perfect, of course, and such patience and tolerance comes at a price. It only takes one reluctant individual to cause problems for the entire community. A single namele leaf, a single signature on a document, even a few words in a public meeting can stop an undertaking dead in its tracks. Without considering whether this reluctance is the right choice or not (that needs to be decided on a case-to-case basis), we must recognise that this effect can often slow development to a crawl.
But let’s look at this from the other side for a moment. When the traditional form of decision-making does work, it’s a formidable thing. We don’t always remember the good things, but if we take a moment to reflect on the number of times a family, a village or an island has united itself to act, we have to recognise the power and effectiveness that collective action has unleashed. It’s not necessary to look further than the Independence movement to see what’s possible.
Some very fashionable thinkers in the technology world have been rediscovering what they’re calling the Wisdom of Crowds, but which we in Vanuatu might prefer to call Kastom. According to James Surowiecki, the man who coined the term, the Wisdom of Crowds consists of a number of concepts that ni-Vanuatu will recognise immediately:
Cognition is the term Surowiecki uses to describe the fact that combining many perspectives on a particular problem is the most effective way to find the most appropriate solution. Anyone who has attended a meeting at the village nakamal knows that our chiefs rely implicitly on exactly this process.
Coordination, according to Surowiecki, is achieved when groups of people with a common understanding organise themselves in ways that are more effective than any imposed order can achieve. The most effective organisations in Vanuatu all recognise that we here in Vanuatu are perfectly capable of taking on significant tasks with little or no overt structure, provided that a common understanding and purpose exist.
Cooperation needs no explanation in Vanuatu. Here, we call it family. It is a powerful unifying force, impossible to ignore.
Nothing is perfect in this world, and this kind of organising principle comes at a cost. Disunity lies at one end of the continuum, but equally dangerous is the lack of incentive to approach problems creatively and dynamically. These problems are well understood by those who work in Vanuatu, and the best leaders manage to maintain a proper balance at all times.
The biggest tension that exists today, however, is that between Kastom that we know so well, and the traditional European ‘business model’, consisting of arbitrary groupings of individuals given legal rights and mandated to operate in particular areas. People are united for the purpose of commercial gain, and their roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. This is an effective and efficient way to deliver products and services, but it does not always serve to foster coordination and cooperation.
Most importantly, when decision-making is limited to a few leaders sitting together behind closed doors, it’s possible to make decisions quickly, but it’s also possible to be very, very wrong. Surowiecki describes this phenomenon thusly: “Put a bunch of smart people into a room and they emerge dumber than when they went in.”
We have a tremendous opportunity right now in Vanuatu. While the rest of the world is just beginning to rediscover what we already know, we can charge ahead. In technological terms, there are tons of collaborative tools available that will allow local groups to create a virtual nasara.
The Vanuatu IT Users Society (VITUS) already does this, and we would be happy to assist others. We invite all IT stakeholders to join in the ongoing dialogue. With a little time and a willingness to work in a manner that’s appropriate to Vanuatu, we will all emerge from the room wiser than when we entered.
National unity and common purpose have been difficult to achieve in the past, but improved communications makes the idea of a national nasara a possibility. All it takes is a little coordination and cooperation.
