Take a step back, I'm thinking in broad strokes before thinking about all the 'whatabouts' of security concerns/etc. Of course we want some degree of commonali

Take a step back, I'm thinking in broad strokes before thinking about all the 'whatabouts' of security concerns/etc. Of course we want some degree of commonality for the sake of minimizing resource use, but there's a huge question of what types of software would look like if it was developed by other cultures for different goals. Regarding dynamicland, I think there's space for both a mix of personal and communal computing - we already have personal computers while working on wikis, google docs, etc. It's too early to tell what dynamicland or similar efforts will grow into, remember it's current state is "One step in a 50-year project". > "So I'd split your question into two - why do people seem to prefer personal computers to public access systems, and why isn't there more investment in developing novel human-computer interaction paradigms?" Perhaps it's partly because personal computers already lay better within the context we already live in - we live in homes generally with at most a nuclear family. Households do have shared television computers / home assistants but they're generally oriented around content consumption. > "All things being equal would you really prefer to do your personal coding, writing, reading, online shopping, or other private activities on a system someone else controlled?" Today we're already doing plenty of things on systems someone else controls - I think the idea is to do more activity on platforms with shared stakeholdership. This means having a commons for doing those activities, per Elinor Ostrom's 8 principles ( http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-princi... ).