🚀 go-pugleaf

Two computers that are very easy for me to personalize are the Xerox
Lisp machine I use at work and the Apple Macintosh SE I have at home.
The Xerox machine is personalizeable because every part of the software
is available to me.  I can change the behavior of any part of the system
by writing a little code and sticking it in my INIT.LISP file.  The Mac
is personalizeable thanks to the many shareware utilities that I have;
these allow me to change the behavior of the system by including INITs
in my system folder or by editing the resource fork of a file (usually
the system file) with an appropriate utility.

Would you call either of these machines "personal"?  Neither is really
portable in the sense that I can carry it around easily on the spur of
the moment.  On the other hand, it is possible to change the behavior of
my machines so greatly that other people will not be able to use them
easily (e.g.  by switching to a DVORAK keyboard layout or otherwise
redefining fundamental aspects of the user interface).

I take advantage of the ability to customize the behavior of my
machines.  Other users do not.  Does this make the computers themselves
any more or less "personal"?  In both cases, it requires some technical
expertise to customize these machines; does this make the machines more
or less "personal"?  I am the only person that uses either machine; does
this affect their degree of "personal"-ness?

My point is that our definition of "personal" is remarkably imprecise so
far.  Dave Taylor says "personal" is the same as customizable.  Gary
Ericson says "personal" is portable and versatile.  I think I can
personalize something that is not portable (e.g.  an office), and I
would call some things personal that I never customize or that are
single-function devices (e.g.  a toothbrush).  Can we come up with a
more precise definition of the term "personal"?

>>Dave