[dev1n]

I think the computer as an example of a closed design is perfect, and that this will soon no longer be the case. Raspberry Pi is doing, IMO, exactly what you are describing here. Allowing child-like, fearless exploration of the device. I don't understand why corporations feel the need to continue with this closed design process when there is already enough evidence provided by Raspberry Pi that this is not necessary. There is a continuous backlog of requests for the units. Clearly, according to basic supply and demand in economics, this is what people want. Looking at all the brilliant software that has been designed is astounding. Alienation is not how greatness is achieved, and Raspberry Pi IMO is rightly proving this system very wrong.

[jhuni]

Unfortunately, I don't share your optimism with regards to our immediate ability to liberate ourselves from computer systems with closed designs. The Microsoft hegemony has been here for decades and I don't see it going away anytime soon, so it looks like closed designs are here to stay for the foreseeable future.

[dev1n]

In the spirit of healthy debate, Microsoft's control of the desktop is akin to Kleenex's control of the tissue market. It will always be there because no one really expects it to change. Which is true. Innovations in desktops are lagging behind those of mobile innovations. Raspberry Pi cannot truly be classified as a desktop device, or any other classification we use for tech. The fact that it ships without a case exemplifies its versatility and wanton openness, which I believe is a key element to the OP's desire in education reformation. The Raspberry Pi Foundation has sold somewhere near one million devices since its inception 347 days ago. The iPhone sold one million devices in 74 days. Apple had nearly thirty years of market presence before hitting that benchmark. The Raspberry Pi foundation has not and I think that if the tech giants wish to stay alive, they should stop locking down their devices and software if they want increased adoption rates. Computers are the future of education and the more open their designs, the more open people will be to tinkering with them, and, as the OP puts it, no longer "Avoiding stuff I didn’t know how to do." This will help advance and educate along the lines the OP wishes to see.

This isn't to say that everything ought to be open source. Capitalism is intrinsic to certain innovations, so the need for closed designs is necessary. The openness need not be as outlandish as it sounds. Less penalizing Terms of Service might be an excellent step towards this.

[jhuni]

> In the spirit of healthy debate, Microsoft's control of the desktop is akin to Kleenex's control of the tissue market. It will always be there because no one really expects it to change.

The thing is that most software development is done on desktops and similar environments that Microsoft controls. Software development isn't usually done on mobile devices because they generally don't have keyboards. This means that developing an operating system that that doesn't alienate its users from production and that ultimately works to eliminate the user/producer distinction is something that remains out of our reach.

> Capitalism is intrinsic to certain innovations, so the need for closed designs is necessary.

When do you think it is okay to alienate consumers from the design process? Capitalism transforms peoples labour power into a commodity to be bought and sold in a competitive market. This alienates workers from their own productive lives and from one another. When is alienation which is intrinsic to capitalism ever essential to innovation?