Posted on 06/11/2005 5:54:46 AM PDT by QwertyKPH
"How do you deal with society when its paradigm of what is right is so dominant?" Doug Engelbart, the 1960s computer visionary asked me the other evening. It's a question he has pondered many times over the past 20 years or so, ever since his research funding was taken away.
Mr Engelbart and his teams of researchers at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) shaped the look and feel of the PC, as John Markoff chronicles in his latest book What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry.
Mr Markoff's book raises the profile of Mr Engelbart, well known as the inventor of the computer mouse, and less well known for his seminal work in creating many of the concepts later found in the personal computer. Mr Markoff returns credit to where it is due.
What the book does not chronicle is how the rise of the PC killed funding for Mr Engelbart's work.
By 1979, he had lost all funding from SRI because of unfavorable peer review.
"The other research groups said what I was doing could be done better with microcomputers or through machine-based artificial intelligence. That was the dominant culture at the time. What people don't realise is that there are many different cultures and not one is right." Mr Engelbart told SVW.
As a result of his experiences, he questions whether the past 20 or so years of his life have been a failure.
That's how long Mr Engelbart has been trying to raise funding to continue his research into human machine interfaces and solving large, complex problems using networked software.
But the culture of our time has been unfavorable to his ideas of developing human-centric computer applications using one big powerful computer with many users. The paradigm of the PC revolution is that everyone gets to have a computer, no time-sharing needed.
PC emerged from revolt against institutions
Mr Markoff points out that the PC revolution grew out of the turbulent times in the 1960s, from the free speech movement, the anti-war protests, and the drug culture. The implication is that out of this internal societal war between the generations - the old and the young - good things emerged such as the PC.
At a recent promo event for Mr. Markoff's book at Xerox PARC, Mr. Engelbart and the pioneers at SRI and Stanford AI Labs (SAIL) described the events of those times.
Lee Felsenstein, one of the computer researchers mentioned in the book remarked "We were caught up with what was going on around us, we were against the institutions."
Personal computer concepts appealed to this generation because there was no centralized control; power would be brought back to the individual through a personal computer.
In fact, the PC would topple massive institutions, they believed, including the Soviet Union, because the power of the PC and desktop publishing would make it impossible to control the publication of information.
What the Dormouse didn't say
However, it is possible to take a different view, a counterculture view. I could argue that the turbulence of the 1960s, reached deep within the military research labs of SRI and Stanford university, and resulted in killing the development of advanced computer systems.
And it was because time-sharing represented the same model - central institutions mandating/controlling access to resources - that the campus protesters railed against in their political lives.
Within the computer research labs, power to the people was translated into power to the personal computer. And it is only now, 25 years later, that we are able to appreciate what was lost.
I could argue that the move to develop the PC smashed the work of leading thinkers such as Doug Engelbart, and set back the clock to near zero.
Power to the PC meant going back to square one, developing the languages, the operating systems, the applications, the user interfaces from scratch.
And now we are coming back full circle. Now, the paradigm has shifted again, and the big computer shared by many users is back. And it is better than the PC. What is Google?
Don't miss part 3 of the SVW Doug Engelbart story/interview series.
Part one is here:
Another thing he doesn't understand is the youthful (primarily male) desire to control machines and impress their peers through mechanical achievements. Just look at the generations of improvements in racing as an example.
Hey, Qwerty, you need to work on that bottom row... (grin)
UNIX is a good example of "individuals against the institutions" meaning GUIs. But even that is changing because of how influential WINDOWS and that GUI have been to the growing computer market.
I can see that "impress your peers" in my 17 year old nephew who is a computer geek. He lives in a small town where he is the "king of computers". Next fall, he will go to a good size University (my Alma Mater) and will likely get the "sh**" kicked out of him. He'll be fine when he recovers but he needs this reality check.
I've never understood why some people think it's good to destroy "big institutions," other than the thrill they get from exercising their own power.
I always thought that the mouse resembled a sperm both visually and in concept....It wiggles around through a channel until it penetrates the right "mark"...and wham...it comes to life!! Just my wierd mind!!
Describing the PC as some sort of grand counter culture movement is ridiculous. The only remot evidence for it is the fact that some of those founding the PC industry were not social butterflies. Bill Gates was looking for cash not to make a statement. Steve Jobs, a well known hippie, and then drug user, but not inventer of anything on the PC, was looking to change the world but only in the sense of making computers freindly, inviting, fun, and there was certainly a sound profit motive to him as well. The PC was no designed revolution, it was the result of self minded hackers piecing together systems they could afford an, like Apple I inventer Steve Wosniak has admitted with regard to the Apple I, making them easy to program and great for games; for THEIR personal use. Marking to them to the masses was the work of profit driven capitalists, not some hippe anti mainframe drug binging counter culture movement. Anyone who could be so confused as to think so has already given a big clue as to why their funding may have been dropped, and discredited by their peers.
Why does the link in the bottom point to pictures of Boeing airplanes?
Actually, you need to read the rest of the article ... Englebart is not a hippie, the writer of the article is pro-hippie.
The reason is because it is the nature of such institutions to ultimately exercise power for it's own sake - which comes to feel quite repressive. The feeling of throwing off repression is always exhilirating (though the results may not necessarily be).
Any government money that left UI research turned to the development of the Internet (nee ARPAnet), which ain't chopped liver.
have you ever sought professional help? :-)
So these researchers were against the "oppressive institutions", yet expected to be funded by institutions...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.