FOSS is the way...

I've been thinking about the software I would pay for, and the answer is that I'd pay for software that add value to what I do. Or, that actually enhance or facilitate what I do most often.

Also, I'd pay for technical assistance that I actually need or to build features that I don't have the time or the technical know-how to make.

But, I'd always prefer FOSS software over proprietary software. FOSS software gives me the advantage to change the software according to my need more easily, since I can ask anyone with the technical skills to do it. That person doesn't have to be part of the entity that made the software in the first place, giving me a lot more flexibility when I need to change anything.

The restrictions that FOSS comes with are a lot less cumbersome, and actually let the user use the software in ways that are more effective in meeting his or her needs. It doesn't force the user to work in the way envisioned by the original designer.

Users can adapt the software to its needs, not adapt its needs to the software.

And since software can be more readily optimized to what the user needs, the features that it contains can be exactly the ones the user ask for. Not only that, functionalities can be added or subtracted as needed faster since they can come in modules that can be plugged in, or out, as the need the need arises. And can be a lot cheaper, since one pays only for the functionalities that the user needs.

If we don't need a feature or functionality, we shouldn't be forced to pay for it and have it use resources that could be put in a better use.

More importantly, we should get what we see.

Open source in education...

One of the places where I'd love to see free and open source software to take off, is on education.

Open source software has the ability to give equal access to all students to the tools and information to receive a better education. Mainly because it gives the teachers a platform on which they can give greater access to the materials and content relevant to the curses they give.

Not only that, teacher would be better able to share between then ideas and materials to use in their respective classes in an easier and more effective way. And, since the cost of the software could be much lower than with closed sourced software it would be practical to have the most up to date versions of the software they use. And thus, granting their students access to the most current information and tools available for them.

This is more crucial than ever, since technology is moving faster than ever. Is important to give students not only with the knowledge they will need to face life with. We also need to give them the ability to adapt to the changes that are occurring faster, and faster.

And having our students learning and using older software because of cost prohibitions, and because the vendors aren't able to bring new technologies to their software, is going to have a negative impact on their chances to be able to coupe with newer technologies later on.

Open source software can be use to help students develop an open mind, and thus to cope better in a world where change is constant.

There should be standards, but this should be open as well. Since no student should be left out of accessing crucial information because he or she doesn't have the money to be able to access the class curriculum.

Open source software and standards, can give all students a level field on which they can develop their own talents and interests. The limits of what they can do, should be set by their own set of abilities.

Let's make open source software and standards the rule on classrooms.

The community gives strength...

In my mind, the best type of governance for open source projects is that comes for the community of active contributors and it's users.

Active contributors and users should at least have a voice to express where the project should go, and what features should be included or excluded. After all, the project benefits most when most of it's core base believes on what's being done and what's to make it work in the best way possible.

This approach also has to be pragmatic, since not everyone will be pleased with the choices made. And sometimes, features have to be dropped since there wouldn't be a practical way to keep them going within the project.

Discussion and dialogue should be encouraged, since when it's done in a constant way it helps to bring the community together. Also, it helps to spot errors or areas where there is a need to work on faster since things that can be overlooked by someone can be picked up by other.

When people are encouraged to collaborate with their peers freely, and on equal terms, is the way when the best results are most often achieved.

Any structure with in the project should come naturally. The structure should be allowed to be fluid, to change according to need of the moment so it can better adapt to the context of the moment the project is in.

If a project want to harness the best of the people that work on it, and use it on regular basis, it need to be open to have an easy and effective way to communicate with them. Any project is as strong as the community that supports it. The projects needs more of the people who support them, than the people need the projects themselves.

Great projects can become stronger when the community behind them come to own them, and work with them. When the community truly takes ownership of the project, it starts working harder on it to make it grow in ways than many might have not intended or seen. Some times, it may give rise to forks that take the core ideas to paths that are not interesting for others to pursue, yet still render great results.

The creations of the communities truly take a life of their own, and pull us to a better place.

Please, compete through innovation...

With all the lawsuits flying around patents on how such companies stole my idea, even though they implement it in a different way or use a different core to run them, on how people do things are suppose to be intuitive for people who use them seems to me a rather ludicrous idea.

I mean, we all do things that are intuitive in the same way mainly because we are all wired to do it in pretty much the same way. That's the main reason why it's easy to use those things in that way, since we don't have to give it much thought.

And when you look even further, more often than not innovating products combine technologies, or practices, in a way that is new. Sometimes, you just change existing implementations in ways that make more sense in a given context making it easier to use. May be, even practical.

Let's be honest, we are all influenced by our surroundings. What we hear, see and read leaves an impression on our mind. In effect, makes up the repository from which we draw to make choices and even create new things.

Something can't come from nothing. There is always something from which all innovations come from, and many times is a recombination of several things that we have experienced to that point. It is possible to come to the same conclusion from different paths. And, there is no reason why the parties that came to the same conclusion to have been in contact to come to it.

In other words, theft is not necessary the cause they came with similar implementations and conclusions. Most likely, the reason is that particular way of solving the problem is the best way to solve the problem.

The design of the interface is where one can truly differentiate between proposals. We all have preferences on how we want things to look, even though what we use behaves in the pretty much the same way. We even expect things to behave in a certain way, and when they don't we stop using them.

There are some cases when we use thing that feel awkward not because we want to, but because we have to. Here is where truly innovating people shine, they bring together different thing they have experienced in other places and times, in a way no one else has though before. Or implement a particular solution in a field that had the need, but not the way to know about that particular implementation.

Technology, and knowledge itself, is build over that what came previously. Nothing really comes out from the vacuum, everything has received influences from whatever comes in contact with it. Even from before the idea was conceived.

So, let's stop worrying about who can use our ideas, or concepts. Let's use that energy to make those ideas and concepts work better. There is always a way to improve on anything, is just a matter of looking into it.

If we don't, is just a matter of time before someone else does.

Public forum...

For me, the Internet is the biggest public forum there is by far. That's why is important to keep the Internet free and open to everyone to use.

The Internet is a place where ideas can be shared with the widest amount of people, in the least amount of time possible. Also, it allows people who are in distant geographical point to be in contact and share information and ideas between them.

For many, is a valuable because is the only way they have to access knowhow and to communicate with people that they couldn't reach in any other way. The Internet really bring the world together by allowing many people communicate and get to know things and people that they wouldn't be able to do otherwise.

This exchange of ideas between those different people can do more to bring people together than any other effort, mainly because people come together in an spontaneous way. So, they build relationships build from this interactions that can become strong and help build a wider and clearer view of the world they live in.

With this in mind, the Internet may be more valuable that the sum of its parts.

It also help to build stronger communities, since it facilitates the interaction by individuals with a wider part of the community they live in. They can coordinate actions, and share information with almost everyone in the community in the matter of minutes or hours, facilitating the response to whatever might be happening in almost real time.

It truly empowers the grassroots movements, since it gives them access to a way to organize and keep in touch with it's members in ways that traditional media can't.

The Internet has the potential to give more power to the people than we imagine, if we work to keep it free and open. And, if we use it in a way that we can organize effectively to take the actions needed to achieve our goals.

Let's make the Internet the forum of the people. The place where we come to share ideas, plan,and build a better place for us and our children.

Digital privacy...

There is a valid concern about on-line privacy, and how our computers and cell phones might compromise it.

In closed sourced software there is a real danger that back doors, or any type of code used to spy on the user, could pass undetected for long lengths of time without being noticed. All because no one outside the creators of the code can check the code, so there is no chance that other people can notice that the code is there.

This makes it greatly convenient to any organization to use closed software to keep an eye on people, and even try to censor to what we can access.

Open source software is the antidote to keep our privacy, and keep those who would like to take it away at bay. Any information that we share, should be the one that we choose to share and only with those we want to share it with.

We can loose our privacy if we aren't vigilant, and let others control how we manage and share our information. Closed source software is a tool that gives the advantage to them, since they can control tightly how the software works and no one outside those who program it can really check on it.

Do we want to give up our privacy? If you don't, be careful how you manage your information.

ACTA getting shot down...

It seems that ACTA is going under. Which is good news, since the passing of such laws are in detriment of the people.

The good thing that is coming out of this, is that people are getting together to protect the right to have a free and open Internet. But the sad part is that the industry and politicians that propose this laws are not really going to stop trying to get them through.

At the end, it seems that many don't really understand that the way to go now is to truly innovate, or bring new things to the table. The time when anyone could come with a few innovative ideas from time to time are gone, and for good.

And a free and open Internet could be one of the best tools to help to bring innovation. It makes is easier to share ideas and information between individuals and organizations, thus making it easier to come with new ways to do things. Because you have access to a wealth of information, is easier to come to solutions that you hadn't though about yourself.

It also makes it easier to bring people together to collaborate to find solutions, or simply exchange ideas. People have an easier way to find others with similar problems, and collaborate to find the best solutions possible.

Crippling the Internet, means crippling one of the tools that can bring the best chances to truly bring the world together in our quest for a better life. The Internet is forum where we can be equal in ways that cannot be on the real world. It gives all access to a wealth of knowledge that can really help many people to empower themselves with the knowledge and networking that could prove crucial to have a better life.

I do believe that the Internet stop belonging to any particular entity or group, and have come to be of all the people. So, we all should have unrestricted access to it, and use it as it best fit out interests.

Any attempt to censor, or restrict, our activities on should be avoided at all costs. We should be the ones who police the Internet, not small groups or industries.

So, make lets make sure that all know that the Internet belongs to the people now.

Why Mac OS X s third for me...

Today I used a Mac for a while, just for the fun of it. And I must admit that the Mac OS X is third on my favorite OS's, after Ubuntu and Linux Mint.

I do like the looks and usability of the OS, and hardware is really well designed. Yet, I prefer Ubuntu as my day to day OS. Though I must admit I'd like to buy a Mac Pro and install Ubuntu on it, so I could have a really good looking piece of hardware with my favorite OS running on it.

But, what holds me from using an Apple product is the way it wants to control its software and hardware. It feels that Apple wants to take away as much control from the user as it can, so that no one can make the OS like he or she wants to do so.

And that is something that I can't really take. I want to be able to be free to customize my OS as I want to, without any limitations by anyone at all. After all, I own the computer I buy to use.

So, I should be able to customize the software to make it work as I like, or need. Not only that, I should be able to download and/or install any program or application by default. There shouldn't be any need to turn any thing off to be able to do so.

It's sad, because Apple does have a great piece of OS on their hands.

Ripe for new things...

One of the things I like the most about the open source, and free software communities is the level of collaboration that come with them. This makes it easy to find a project that suits what are you looking for, or starting a new one where there is the need.

For me, this makes these communities fields where innovations can come far more rapidly and more ease than when things are done with behind closed doors. Mainly because the information, and how the software works, flows easily. Anyone who has any interest to use, or see how it works can have a look.

And because of these, it's more likely that someone comes with an answer to a problem. Or, can find a new path to solve the problem that hasn't been implemented before.

Closing the doors on this type of collaboration would do more harm than good. It would most likely hinder knowledge than to do any good at all.

Keep vigilant...

This week Foxconn was audited to make sure it meets international standard conditions, after Apple faced some protests because of concerns about the conditions workers that produced its products face.

It was reported that so far, the working conditions are above average. I'm not satisfied since above average might as well that working conditions are bad, but not as bad as in other factories.

My main concern is that it seems that our demands for the consumer goods is driving the kind of conditions for worker that called for the audits. The more things are bought mindlessly, the more companies have to produce to meet that demand. This mindless consumerism is what sets the stage for people out for a profit, try to abuse of workers.

It is to be expected that employers to give good labor conditions to their employees. But, if we all we limit to do is to consume without paying attention under what conditions the goods we buy are produced, we share part of the blame of the any abuse toward the workers.

Yes, is naive to believe that all abuse can be stamped out. There always will be people trying to play the system, and get away with as much as they can. Yet, we can help to make those cases the exception and not the rule.

We need to remain vigilant to how the companies from which we buy goods or services treat their employees. After all, it's with the money they get from us how they remain in business. We can help to better working conditions by buying from those companies that give good working condition. Also by passing the voice around of which one are the ones who treat their employees, so other people can avoid supporting those companies.

We can make the difference, and help construct a better word. All we need, is to remain vigilant and act when there is a need to do so.

Locking in your options...

Even though the Mac OS X is great OS, really good looking and easy to use, I find it disturbing that with the 10.8 Mountain Lion release you can only install Apple signed software from the Apple store by default.

For what I've been reading, there is the option to turn the option of and restore user ability to install software other the one signed by Apple, or from outside their app store. Yet, I believe that this option should be a given and not object to be taking away from the user by Apple or any other company for that matter.

Once I buy any computer with any OS, I expect to be at least be able to install any program that I want or need to work with as I see fit.

After all, we should have the right to put in any software we need to work with on any computer we want to. And if there are limitations to do so, one of them shouldn't be the OS. The OS is only the platform for us to interact with the programs we choose to work with.

We should be able to make software to work on any particular OS we want to, and to share it with who we want to without interference of the vendor who made the OS we might be targeting for. The users should be the ones who decide which programs to run, and from where they get them.

As an Ubuntu user, I've always had the Mac OS X as a second option after Linux Mint. But, if Apple keeps going down this road I won't feel comfortable using their products since they restrict my freedom to use the software and hardware I bought as I want to.

For me, it's a big deal that any one tries to tell what can or can't do with the things I buy. Once I buy them, I expect to be able to use them as I see fit.

To be honest, I would like to see Apple users to make Apple stop building artificial walls around them that limit how they can use the computers and smart phones they bought.

Give credit to the source...

Let's face it, the problem is not that someone takes an idea and make it work in ways that it wasn't originally planned or implemented in a way that the original creator didn't think of.

Doing that, is actually healthy since it drives innovation. No one can thing of every possibility on which an idea, or concept, might be put to work to provide solutions to problems. This is why if there should be any restrictions on ideas, those restrictions shouldn't be upon the use, distribution or modification of the idea.

If an individual, or group, should be punished because they take an idea and they share it. The punishment should come if they fail to give credit to the individual, or group, from which the idea originally came from.

What's wrong, is not that you make use of the idea as you see fit, but that you don't acknowledge when an idea is not yours to begin with.

Even if you are using a modified version of the work, credit is due. So, it's important to have in mind that in some case that mentioning from where you took the idea, and point the way to your source, is all that you have to do.

Yet, sometimes you have to pay to make use of the idea in any way, shape, or form.

It's important to keep this in mind, because the progenitors of any idea have the right to have a say on how you can share their idea. After all, they made an effort to come up with it.

But, it's also unfair for the authors to make to many restrictions and make they idea virtually unusable by people that might have a real need to use it in some way.

So, the main problem is how do we give the author a way to receive both credit, and income, for the idea they put out, and make that idea accessible to the most people as possible.

I don't believe there is a simple solution, or one that will work for everyone.

At the end, we'll have to work together to find one.

Things change...

One of the things that bother me the most about laws like SOPA and ACTA, is that the politicians and entities that push them forward seem to be more preoccupied on the protecting the interests of a few over those of the majority.

Those laws only serve to protect an industry that has been unable to adapt to the modern technologies, and has a model that doesn't work as it should. Instead of letting the authors of content cash in on they work as much as they could, or the consumers buy and share the content they buy as they want, it favors the middle man.

With the advent of the Internet, content creator have the opportunity to reach directly to the audience they target. The audience has the opportunity to support the content they prefer directly, and support it as they can.

But, it seems that many people don't seem to understand that things have changed. So, the business model has to change to conform to the new reality of how people discover and share content. It seems that some don't understand that they can't control, or tell people, how that content moves around. People will find a way to move the content as they want to, despite what anyone believes or has the ability to stop.

So, the real question is not how do we stop change. The questions is, how do we adapt to the changes?

It seems that the best equipped to coupe with the changes are the small and middle sized companies, and the individual artists. They are more nimble, and better able to change course when it's needed.

For all the talk of some politicians and business man about how the free market should be the one who determines how people do business, they seem to be doing a lousy job actually putting their money where their mouth is.

If their business model is doomed to fail, and other model is to fill the void, then let it be. Just let the market, which at the end of the day is us the people, choose what that market will be, and how it will look like.

Linux is not just for geeks...

It's sad to see how many people dismiss using a Linux distro because they believe that it's hard to use.

The truth is that there are several distros that very user friendly, even for user that have is just coming into Linux. Just to mention a couple, both Linux Mint and Ubuntu are really easy to use.

What's more important, is that there are apps for Linux that let you do all the things you usually do on Windows or on Mac OS X. Sometimes, the apps available on Linux are superior to the one you might find on the other OS.

In the almost two years I've been using Ubuntu as my main OS, I've had no problem. As a matter of fact, I've found it a lot more stable and easier to use. The few problems I've come across have been easy to solve, I just had to do a little research and in a matter of a few minutes all was back on track.

What's better, if you don't like Ubuntu or Linux Mint there are a load of other distros out there. There is one that will be bound to meet your needs, and will make your desktop look as you like.

That's what appeals to me from the open source community, not only Linux. That there is something to meet the need of anyone, or someone who will build the system that you need.

The nature of open source is one that foster innovation, and finding new ways to do things better.

And you can get as dirty as you want on the technical side. If you don't want to get into the gut of the software you use, you don't have to do so.

I do recommend everyone to make the jump to Linux, it's a lot easier than you may think.

Good move by RIM...

RIM is moving it's BlackBerry 10 Native SDK to open source. Which I think is a great idea, and I'd love to see BlackBerry moving more of it's software to open source.

Personally, this is a great choice from RIM. I've never used a BlackBerry handset, but I've heard good things from close friends and family members who use them. And I do like BlackBerry handsets, but the only thing preventing me from taking them more serious to have one of them is the fact that they are closed source.

But, if the new CEO of RIM continues this path and moves all the BlackBerry OS to be open source I would seriously consider a BlackBerry as my next handset.

It might not bring it back to the dominance RIM enjoyed on the smartphone market it used to have, but it would be a nice alternative to Android. And I like to have the idea of having choices not only on the handset department,but also on the OS.

At the end, true competition on the market is healthy.

The right tool...

It's a shame that some people best argument in favor to use anything, is that everyone else is using it.

As if that fact made anything good, or worth using. It seems that they have stop thinking in terms of what they need, or want, from the tools they use for any particular task.

Let's face the fact the tools that we use to achieve any task, should be made so they make our work easier. If they don't facilitate the completion of the task they are to help us perform, they are worse than useless.

This is why I prefer Open Source software. There is always a way to adapt it to what you need it to perform, making it a lot easier to use as you need to use it. And if you don't find the right piece of software that suit your needs, the nature of open source make it easier to adapt an exiting idea to what you need. This way, you don't have to create your software solution from zero unless there is no way around it.

Open source has the added benefit that it has a big and lively community. This increases the chances of finding someone that has come across a problem similar to yours, and has the experience and/or the tool to help you solve your problem. The are multiple forums dedicated to the fields you are in, making it easier to gather information and find solutions that meet what you might be looking for.

There is no reason to keep doing things just because people around you do so. Let's take a more active approach to find the solutions, and the tools, to make things work as we want them to work.

Any problem is hopeless as long you don't do something about it.

Work as a group...

It is sad to see how many people just lament how bad things are, but not do much about to take things into their hands and participate much more in order to change how things are.

Most of the time, the excuse is that as one person they can so much. While this is true, we don't have to face our woes alone or should we attempt to do so. Doing so is a waste of time and energy.

This is why we should make efforts to build groups with like minded individuals to work to reach our goals as a group. At the end, any community building is a groups effort. That's the way we should engage the problems we have at our community.

We should engage other people in order to work together. The group needs to work together in order to reach the goals set by the majority of the group.

In building closed knit groups is are best option in order to make change happen, and to build a better place where to work and live. There should as few as possible limits to how large, and many groups exits. It is normal that groups exits within each group.

Also, each individual should be able to be member of as many groups he or she wants to participate in. And to change from one group to another as the individual needs change. Most of the time, the participation of the individual at a group should be all that's needed to form a part of the group.

But, it's important for us to be active in those groups that have influence on those things that are of our interest. If we don't participate on those groups, or build those groups, there is no realistic chance to make the changes we want to do.

Let's stop waiting for other people to start doing what we believe has to be done, and start doing so yourself.

Honestly, no one has the obligation to act how we want then to act just we want them to. Or to know what our needs are if we don't express them, or act to meet those needs.

Stop waiting for others to build what you want, and take it to yourself to build what you want.

Precise Pangolin...

With each new review of Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin, I get a bit more optimistic about the direction Ubuntu is taking.

Since the 11.04 release, Ubuntu has become my favorite distro. Before that, I was torn between Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Yet, with the Unity interface I've been a lot more comfortable with Ubuntu.

And since the main objectives with Precise Pangolin are to polish Unity, return to Rhythmbox, and generally make the Ubuntu more stable, I look forward to updating to it.

Since it's going to be a LTS version, I'm seriously considering stating on it at least until 13.04. I'll give a thought updating to 12.10 if the updates are enough to compel me to do so. Though, with the new life cycle schedule for LTS versions I'm giving it a serious thought to sticking to updating just when LTS releases come out.

Since LTS versions are more stable and polished, the idea to keep updating just each time one is out seem a good bet.

Yet, I haven't across with any mayor problem with any Ubuntu version on my daily work. And, I do like having the latest features that come with each Ubuntu version.

So, for the looks of it Precise Pangolin will meet what I come to expect from Ubuntu.

Android...

In a few months time, I'm planning on changing my smartphone. I've been doing some research on the different handsets on the market, and I've made up my mind that it's going to be an Android handset.

The iPhone was discarded rather quickly, even though I like the design of the phone itself and of the iOS. But, I can't come around the idea of buying a close source smartphone. And on top of that, it makes me a lot more uncomfortable that it's a wall garden app ecosystem.

A Windows based smartphone was never on the table. And a Blackberry handset was just briefly entertained.

Android is the clear choice for me, since it's an open source OS and it gives me a lot more options in carriers and smartphone brands to choose from. And, there is a level of flexibility on the software part that is a lot more in line with I want.

Now, there are two brands that really have my attention. One is Motorola, and the other is Samsung.

I find that I like the design of the handsets of these two manufactures are the most aesthetically pleasing for me, and the specs are in line to what I need for my everyday use.

If I had to make the choice today, the clear winner would be Samsung with the Galaxy Nexus. The Motorola Droid RAZR, is a close second.

These might change when I make my final choice, but the one sure thing is that my next smartphone will be Android powering it.

True ownership...

One of the things that many people don't seem to really understand, is that open source gives them more control over what happens on their computers.

Not only that, since most of the licenses gives the user to tweak and modify the software that runs on their computers it means that they can make their computer what they want it to do. Not only that, they truly own they computer and the data they have stored in it.

With close source, users give away part of the ownership to the vendor of whatever software they are running on the computer. Most of the time, they have to agree to use it how and on which computers the vendor believes is the best. And, since you can not see the source code, one can not modify to suit the particular needs that the end user might have. The user is at the wimp on whatever functionalities the vendor decided to put on, take out, of the software it makes.

And there is no legal way to add functionalities you need on your own, or to take away those who are useless to you, but get in the way.

Also, if the vendor doesn't like what you are doing with the software it sold you, it has the legal right to make stop since you. Many times, the end user doesn't know that he agree to that when he signed the user agreement.

That makes open source a lot more flexible. It can be adapted to the end user needs with relative ease, and most often than not there is already a solution out there to meet your needs.

The system you use, can be as lean or as heavy as you need to be. Open source really can be made to suit your needs at a much more accessible cost. More importantly, there is a big and vibrant community on which to rely to get answers to most of the problems you may encounter along the way. Odds are you will find someone willing to help you, or at least point you in the right direction to fix your problem.

With open source, you are part of the community that makes the software work. You don't need to know how to code, which it helps. With you point out where the problems are, so they can be fixed you are contributing much to make things better.