>And the solution to cavities is to increase self-dentistry literacy?

This is what is done, in practice. You teach people at a young age how to take care of their own teeth and gums. The majority of the problem is preventative, you don't outsource the management of your health to some monopoly. And it's not unimaginable that the average person would have the ability to fill a cavity or something. If anything, dentistry is less archaic than computer software, the reason it's a profession is a more a matter of skill.

>The solution to a bridge collapsing is to increase civil engineering literacy? The solution to a plane crash caused by a cracked turbine blade is to increase casual aerospace engineering literacy?

I think that the difference in this situation is that anyone can play a role auditing and changing computer software they use (and recognize malware vs well built open software), but not everyone gets to build the bridge that everyone uses.

You might say that a lot of the world's software right now exists in the form of services, and you would be right. The goal is to make a world in which people are less dependent on centralized services. I think that most programmers here get paid to think in terms of client-server architecture instead of directly create useful software which is harder to monetize.

>When people were coming up with the idea of computer literacy being ubiquitous like math, they meant math like addition and subtraction. To make the kind of impact that "free/libre" advocates want the everyday Joe to be responsible for, Joes need to know the CS equivalents of perturbation theory and how to solve partial differential equations.

Not really, I think most computer software is a lot simpler than that. And I also generally don't believe that complex topics are inaccessible to most people. If it's the kind of information you learn about in college, then you just have to read textbooks and digest the information. Thanks to the internet, information on most topics are pretty accessible. I don't think there is some sort of "IQ" cap on the vast majority of topics, and you can pretty much learn anything as long as you are reasonably intelligent and motivated.

I think you are stuck in this "consumer vs producer" mentality with regards to technology, where some part of the population is destined to be drooling serfs and we just have to design everything to accommodate them. I take the opposite stance, which is that people are generally capable of learning and adapting to a far wider range of challenging environments than exist in modern society, and that those who can't are a small minority that should be culled anyways.

It was only a couple of decades ago that access to computers was limited to the elite few who understood computers, and society seemed to hum along fine back then.

With increasing automation and access to information, you would think that people would have more time and info to study and become knowledgeable on a wider range of topics. Instead, they are even busier working fake jobs and competing in zero-sum arenas. Instead of setting lower standards for competence in society, why not increase standards and elevate the agency of the common man?

> When people were coming up with the idea of computer literacy being ubiquitous

If you require everyone to have a computer/phone to live in society for example by digital ID - then is ubiquitous and you must regard it as such.

> This incredibly selfish point of view put forth by a particular sect of _OSS polls sufficiently well at the engineer's only meeting in Palo Alto and nowhere else.

No one forces you to change your OS. No one forces you to code. No one forces you to dissemble. No one forces you to compile. No one forces you to add or remove certification authority (change the trust).

We only want to force corporations and states to allow Us to do that to device we own.

You are already responsible on code - closed source also GIVES NO WARRANTY.

> sect

the 'sect' as you called it - envisioned world in which when you get device you have driver to it and code to it.

Should manufacturer decide that you will get no new updates - you COULD go to another company and buy updates from them - because you would have ownership of software.

Should your phone manufacturer decide that you will not get no new updates - you COULD go to another company and buy updates from them - because you would have ownership of software.

Should your washing machine manufacturer decide to s-you and force you to connect to cloud via their app - you COULD go to another company and buy software that doesn't force you to do that, and let them install it for you - because you would have ownership of software.

If you want to use smart home - you could without any manufacturer connectivity bs - because you would have ownership of software.

You could decide that you trust company A for OS updates - and if they deceive your trust, change it to B. because you would have ownership of software.

Yes you would need to pay for updates and software - unless software company did sign a real deal with you for your data.

I hate when people say that Free Software is communism - it is not, it is consumer capitalism in purest form.

The whole point wasn't you SHOULD do it yourself - but you CAN do it yourself. The problem - you need market before any company can enter it. No libre drivers, no libre firmware - no such company.

And before anyone asks - yes you could extend it to cars. You would need stricter CA check (here you can make a reasonable exception that self-signed should not work) on that type of device though, but no longer ONLY MANUFACTURER. Why would you pay another company to do software updates / change when you do buy a repair / parts from third party?

This was intent - not 'increase self-dentistry literacy' - the literacy part came from the users of Linux mostly - you should think about it as after-effect.

> The solution to a bridge collapsing is to increase civil engineering literacy?

If the bridge collapsed because you have no good engineers then yes.

> How much of how many literacies will we be willing to acquire so as to balance the responsibility we ask of every other profession and even those who are low and unskilled?

You are not making good engineers/politicians/doctors etc. if you take ones who want to get paid big money - you are making good ones if the people teach are interested in their work and are willing to get better in it.

To do that you must give them opportunity to grow.

You need casual->small->big->"anti-monopoly split" company path

if you remove casual you don't have a market, you have a graveyard of one.