Svensson on 'Stubborn Computing'

Self-described computer nerd Carl Svensson lays out his thoughts on computing, and they resemble my own in many ways.

While I'm not sure I'd necessarily have named the approach stubborn computing, I'm glad he lays it out as a positive choice, rather than allow others to label it contrarianism or any number of other things:

Image by Sigmund, via Unsplash, license.

Stubborn computing isn't about rejecting what's new; it's about embracing what's good. The stubborn user realizes the benefits of faster hardware, better encryption, higher resolutions, more colours and increased bandwidth, but will practice extreme caution when discerning between change and improvement. Stubborn computing appreciates real improvement, but is wary of unforeseen danger and thus careful to rely too heavily on it initially. Stubbornness builds slowly.

...

... [T]he stubborn user doesn't fire up xterm in a fit of nostalgia. They do so because it's something they've been doing all their life, and because they haven't, so far, found another similar program worthy of replacing it. Stubborn programmers write code in Emacs, vi, Acme or any other editor of choice not because of the thrill in transgressing the mainstream or because it increases their nerd cred. They do so because their way of approaching their craft is helped by a tool that has shaped them as much as they have shaped it.

Stubborn computing is about working -- sometimes hard -- towards maximizing personal computational enjoyment. The stubborn user may present initiated comments on the current zeitgeist in hard- and software, and offers helpful advice if asked. However, stubborn users do not preach indiscriminately, nor do they dismiss the choices made by other stubborn users. [bold added]

I'd be tempted to call this selfish computing and indeed Svensson himself states Stubborn computing is about using computers the way you want to.

But the term I find so tempting is overly general: Most people don't want or have to focus much at all on computers and don't care that much about what tool they use when they do: Adequate is fine for them, and that's not a choice to be dismissed, either.

This is somewhat analogous to the difference between a hobbyist mechanic who builds kit cars or fixes up old ones: Those guys don't fuss over what the rest of us use because they're too busy having fun. And they know that most of us just want a car that will get from Point A to Point B.

Maybe stubborn computing isn't such a bad name after all...

This reminds me of something I wrote years ago about selecting a new browser -- which is still my first choice today:

For most writing-related software I use, I demand the following: (1) It runs at least on Linux and Windows, and preferably also Apple platforms; (2) It is under active development and has some critical mass of users; (3) It is capable of fitting in with my usual ways of doing things. In the case of web browsers, the last criterion would entail me being able to enjoy the full functionality of the accounts I have on a small handful of web sites. Oh yeah, and a web browser needs to allow me to have multiple tabs open without completely freezing my computer.

Yes. The new and the good aren't always one and the same. Values aren't intrinsic: The question of whether something is good implies an answer to the question Good? For what?

A word processor with a "ribbon" that takes up half the screen, but spares a reluctant or sporadic user having to remember very much about functionality might be good -- for making word processing capabilities available for people who don't like or know much about computers. But it will be awful for people who don't need such help and want to see more of what they're working on.

The stubborn computerist isn't focused so much on how others might use their computers -- but might find having a succinct expression of his thinking useful. It can help him clarify his own thinking -- and both explain himself to others and save himself from exasperation about the not-so-stubborn.

-- CAV