I've been following with interest the discussion about sending computers to the Third World.
The rationale is clear: * many countries are desperate for computing power, for schools, training, productivity, but cannot afford the latest hardware and software * literally millions of computers are being trashed in rich economies, that still have years of life in them. As Daniel Makundi has said, Windows 95 plus Star/OpenOffice can run fine if slowly on anything faster than a 486 machine. * So the "obsolete" hardware of richer countries could, with care and planning, be well used in the Third World. It may cost more financially, to recondition and fit-out used computers than to buy new ones (at least in the US), but it would certainly cost less if environmental and social costs and benefits were factored in. So you have a potentially valuable asset available to marginal, disadvantaged groups or economies. The problem is, with computers as with any donated equipment, that we well-meaning donors think we are doing such a great thing to send hardware - any hardware - without looking at local needs, compatibility issues, and local capacities for maintenance in recipient countries. If we were to do a good survey (physical or virtual) of the needs and the capacities country by country, then work on all the exported machines to make sure that they were compatible with those needs/capacities, then we might be getting somewhere. Even better, establish relationships with local groups. The success stories mentioned in other postings - Swaziland's Computer Education Trust, and the Goa Computers project - have clearly involved longer-term capacity-building together with equipment donation: but I know from experience, that for each of these success stories there might be 10, 50, 100 failures. And yes, it's not much use sending "free" computers if local governments just see computers as something to tax. There is much that local users can do to change the official climate and lobby for fairer conditions for computer and Internet users. This all needs a much more holistic approach to bridging the digital divide, and some very un-technological, fuzzy skills and capacities in human relations, organising, and training. Surprise, surprise. Roland Lubett Last-First Networks Armidale, Australia http://www.lastfirst.net ------- linking practitioners ï activists ï organisations ------- ------ in holistic development ------ ------------ ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/>
