Posted by tante
https://tante.cc/2026/01/08/personal-computing/
https://tante.cc/?p=7719
When computers entered the homes it was often as toys or toy-like artifacts: These machines, usually called “home computers“, were often used like gaming consoles with magazines giving you code to type in to have simple games on them. Their use was limited to people who wanted to play arcade games without losing all your money or people who just loved technology.
After a while and through some marketing the term personal computer was established and describes the machines people have at home till this day (Apple probably would disagree since they love to always invent their own lingo to claim to be unique, but TBH fuck Apple). The personal computer was a stand alone system that people could run at home for their personal (but of course also professional) tasks: Word processing, some simple data management, gaming and later media consumption and the web.
I find the prefix “personal” a bit underexplored. As I remarked in my post about my attempts to untangle my personal infrastructure from billionaires and fascists:
I think that infrastructures are deeply personal because our needs and wants are personal. The way we have pushed for a harmonization of everyone’s digital life through centralized platforms for the last decades has been a deeply inhumane endeavor.
I thought it might make sense to dwell on this a bit more.
The Platform Age
My family got their first computer when I was still in primary school so somewhere in the middle/end of the 1980ies. It was an Epson 80286 with an amber monitor. It came with some software for certain tasks and I remember my mom getting the word processor she was also using at work because she knew how it worked.
Even with later computers: Whenever you got a new device (think a Sound Card – those didn’t used to be built-in) you got some new software with it, there was the shareware scene where you got little programs and tools on disks attached to magazines or something. But what was interesting is how nobody’s computer looked the same. Sure. At some point everyone had Windows 3.11 or even Windows95 at some point but the sets of tools were a lot more local. I remember how when one got to a new school, met new kids that they’d use completely different tools for the same things and one would (not usually legally) share whatever nifty thing one had access to.
The software landscape wasn’t ideal or maybe even better, but it was highly personalized. Mostly based on software being not that easy to get.
Then came the platforms. Not only did Microsoft win the battle around office tools but web platforms created these very streamlined, homogenized infrastructures that – because many were free – everyone adopted. Think Google Mail and Docs for mailing and collaborative editing. Operating Systems kept getting more and more locked down – mobile platforms being the worst offenders in this regard – and the app stores with their ratings would make sure that everyone would pick the same tool when searching for he same thing.
The promise of the “global village” was manifesting through centralized platforms everyone was on: How could you be a digital participant without a Facebook or a Google account?
Criticism against this is often framed in terms of anti-monopoly rhetoric: It’s bad if everyone is on the same platform because it harms the market and one player gets too much power and all that. But I think it’s also very inhumane, very violent in a way. We are different, our needs and wants, our skills and willingness to endure friction in our computing are different. And all that heterogeneity is made invisible, untouchable. It’s not that these systems actively fight our individuality, they make expressing it, make perceiving where you want to reshape something harder.
The monoculture of digital infrastructures has made people forget (or never learn) that software is by definition malleable. But the iPad taught people to just be good consumers and shut the fuck up. (Not just the iPad but I love hating on those devices. Grant me some fun here.)
The Anything Systems
There has been a response to those thoughts. Because of course we all see ourselves as brilliant individuals who have specific desires and needs. I call those the “Anything Systems”.
Some of you might know Notion but there’s a whole bunch of systems like that. Notion allows you to build your own workflows and data structures: It’s not a knowledge management system with clearly defined processes and capabilities. It’s more a set of building blocks for you to express yourself.
Not this might sound like a great approach: You can now build exactly your workflows and tools even without programming. But we are losing something when end-user software no longer carries semantics.
Stephen Farrugia (follow him) could probably go on quite the tangent here but you are stuck with me so here it goes: Anything Systems are not tools. As I have written about when it comes to generative “AI” systems, a tool is not just a thing that you maybe can use for a specific purpose. A tool is designed for that purpose, it contains assumptions about the problem space, you as the user of the tool, it is often the current iteration of a long line of attempts to optimize a certain tool for specific use cases. When people want to talk about tools and they are looking for a simple example they often use a hammer but if you have ever worked on a construction site you will know that there are many different kinds of hammers for very specific use cases, materials, contexts etc. “Hammer” is not an object but a category of objects.
Anything Systems claim to help you built the best workflow or solution for your case but they disconnect you from the experience and expertise that goes into the design and development of tools: A good tool brings with it an understanding of how to solve a problem the optimal way. That sometimes takes a bit of learning or the realization that a specific tool and its approach does not work for you or your context but it is a large part of what makes tools so good: You are not poking in the darkness hoping to figure out a good solution on your own, you are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Anything Systems give you a great box of toys to play around with but when things do not work for you, it’s your fault for not configuring it right. It’s a form of refusing to take responsibility for the things you put out into the world. The opposite of what I consider engineering to be. Anything Systems will keep you busy though: You can keep dicking around with your processes and structures for the rest of your life without ever really being happy with it. Maybe if you add just another thing then it will be perfect? Those systems are absolutely fantastic if you want to mask the bullshittiness of your job but are you really making progress? Or are you keeping busy?
The Everything Machines
We are not in the age of what the journalist Karen Hao calls “Everything Machines”, the age of so-called “AI”. This is an interesting amalgamation of the platform logic and the Anything System: Modern “AI”s want to turn everything into a chat interface (JUST LIKE IN STAR TREK!!!11). There is just one way of setting up digital interfaces: As chatbots. That is the future. And the present.
But those systems are not exactly specific. When you open ChatGPT it basically tells you to ask it anything. The interface and UI claims the system can do everything. Which is true if you don’t know much about the thing you are dealing with or are willing to accept garbage solutions. But that’s of course not the promise. The promise is that you have a subservient, willing slave-genius at your disposal – for a small fee.
Recently one of the banks I have an account with changed their whole interface. I can no longer see my account information on a website or in the app. I have to ask a chatbot for that information. Because chat is the only interface left. How could one just build a small form on a web site that allows me to change my address or anything? That’s past shit. Legacy design. Everything needs to be a chatbot because chatbots can do everything. Well. There’s still that asterisk.
Personal computing
As I wrote in my article on rebuilding my digital infrastructure: That article is not a howto. You probably should not do what I did because your needs are different. Maybe some things I did make sense to you and you can apply. Some might not fit your needs, budget or are things you don’t want to deal with. That is very healthy thinking.
I think it is important to share more about or computing with each other. But not (only) in the form of howtos but more as a small tour with explanations. Why did you pick certain tools and not others? What did you want to achieve? Which inconveniences are you living with?
I was very lucky. I grew up in a time where digital infrastructure wasn’t so standardized and locked down. Where I could experience the digital as something to built and shape and change. When I look at my 5 year old son I wonder if he will have that opportunity. And I want him to have that, I want him to experience that digital systems can be humane and can enhance our lives as long as we can shape them around our needs and that that reshaping is possible and doable.
I still really like technology. I like building systems for myself or others that work based on what the users want and need. And I don’t want to glorify the old days too much: Yeah, everyone’s system was different but it was often hard to collaborate and share. Because file formats and whatever.
Personal computing must be based on individual human or group needs but also on the technology side based on open standards that allow different tools and infrastructures to connect and share and collaborate. And it’s a social project of all of us building things, trying things, learning from one another. So we can built upon each others successes and failures. It’s “human needs, community sharing and standards” instead of “platforms” or “everything machines”.
That’s what I want to keep pushing more towards.
https://tante.cc/2026/01/08/personal-computing/
https://tante.cc/?p=7719