Why aren't computers people-literate? (Score 1)

So, I feel like most of these posts are on the wrong track. Personally, I am a geek, I find joy in open-source software, making my peripherals, and building 32-bit processors from transistors, but it's unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to be as interested in technology as I am.

So, my question is: Why should I have to know anything to be considered computer-literate?
I saw a lot of people posting comments along the lines of:
    "They should be able to update their OS"
    "They should have an idea of the file system's structure"
    "They should know where different processing events occur"

In my opinion, these should be things that the average user can know NOTHING about and still be considered computer literate. The point of a computer (in a general sense, not for /. users) is not to make you know more about computers--it should be a tool that can somehow extend your abilities. I think that if you can make a computer do what you want it to do, you're computer literate. Forget that stuff about being able to build systems from scratch and install software--that's just slashdot elitism. Software should be self-maintaining--you shouldn't have to install patches every couple weeks, even if it's something as simple as clicking the 'OK' button. Software interfaces (from the user interface to the controls to the file structure) should be intuitive enough that anyone can understand it at a glance.

The number of posts on this topic claiming that people should have any knowledge whatsoever of the internals of a computer, software, or an OS are reflections on poor hardware and software design up to this point.

my $.022