Embrace tinkers...

I've been wondering for sometime now, how long will take for many companies to stop trying to keep people from tinkering with the software and hardware they produce.

It would be most useful for them to harness the work of the tinkers that work on their products, and use that work to further the development of those products. They should be working more like the lead of a greater project, by doing so they can receive benefits that would be otherwise lost.

Other benefits from embracing the work of tinkers, is that they'll be better salesmen for their products because they know them just as well as the engineers and designers who originally work on the project. And the tinkers are more trusted by the people around them, than a representative of the company would ever be.

Not only that, tinkers can actually help to spot and fix any kind of problem that wasn't seen during the development process in a more effective and timely manner. Thus freeing in-house developers to do other functions that require better equipment, or is more important to the company.

Tinkers are not an enemy, they are a valuable ally that can give a lot more back that he or she can take away.

Don't be afraid to tinker...

Linux, and FLOSS in general, have benefited a lot from people tinkering around the software they use to make it work as they want it to.

From time to time, great things come from those changes. Some don't bring important things, but actually lead to other things that end up being great. The important thing is to actually tinker on the things you believe you can improve, or change to get to work in the way you think they should.

The reality is that it's really hard to gauge the impact of any particular change, but we won't ever know if that change isn't made. And it's always better to know that the change doesn't work, than not knowing that it does.

And who knows, it might not work as you thought it would and still be of great use. That's why it's important to try out the changes you think might work.

It's also important to share and exchange ideas with others that work in the same area that you do, they might have ideas or technical information that you might find useful and put to use to be better able to work on what you love to. Also, by doing so the scope of your project might grow or have a better chance to actually workout as you want it to.

By tinkering your software, and hardware, to make it work or look as you want it to there are a lot of things you can learn. Not only that, there are a lot of good friend to be made by working in projects, or sharing your results, with others.

So, go and tinker away at your hearth content.

The power of community...

The most important part of the FLOSS movement are the communities that work on each of the projects that make FLOSS as a whole.

Without them, FLOSS wouldn't be anywhere close to where it is today. The success that FLOSS has had over the years comes from the people that come together and form each of the communities that work on make their project work. While there have been failures, because they are part of the process of learning how to make projects move forward.

That's why I take part of using and bringing other people attention to FLOSS, because of the sense of being part of something bigger that actually makes a difference. People working on FLOSS projects help to all move forward, by finding new or better ways to do things.

With FLOSS, it's main assets are its communities and the people contributing in them.

This is why I can't make sense of companies and governments keeping people to come together into communities to work any particular projects. The benefits that come from reaching to communities working outside your walls of your company far outweigh most of the pitfalls that you might encounter, most of people just want to make their favorite project work better that it currently does.

Most often than not, communities police themselves in a very efficient manner. The lead group, or company, should give direction to the project and set the main rules of conduct.

Use the power of the communities to make the best of the projects you want to make happen. And more importantly, let all who want to help join.

Security on open standards...

Another benefit of open standards, is that it's more secure that closed ones. Mainly because they can be reviewed by any particular individual or group.

This makes it harder to put malicious code into the platforms that work with the standard, since there are many eyes making sure that there are no code that could harm, or hinder, the use safe use of the standard.

Other reason is that any vulnerability can be found and patched a lot more rapidity. Since the one who found any given vulnerability can code the patch, it makes the process a lot faster. While making the whole system a lot safer.

And since no particular interest controls the standard, it's a lot harder to put into it anything that could spy or remotely control the users machines that work with the standard. In the case it does slip through, the process to alert of the existence of such a code can be made known by the one who found it. It also can be removed a lot faster.

The security of the open standards not only rest on the fact that it can be studied and corrected by a larger number of people, but by the fact that it's on the best interest of everyone to be kept that way.

So, open standards have an advantage on security.

Not just for business...

I've seen several times how open source is good for business, and while I do agree with them fully there is an aspect that there isn't much written about. It's the fact that open source is also great of the average user as well.

The average user gets all the benefits that the businesses do when they switch to open source. They get a better software for a better price, on hardware the user will be able to use for far longer than with proprietary software. With the plus that that hardware will be able to keep using the latest version of whichever OS the user chooses, with all the benefits that comes with this.

Also, the user gets to control what happens on their hardware. No longer the user has to blindly accept whatever the vendor of proprietary software chooses to give to her or him. If the current distro, or program, takes a turn that the user doesn't agree with or wants to take, the user can more readily jump to another distro o program that does what what the user wants how the user wants to do so.

The user is free to use his software as she or he wants to with much less restrictions with open source software than with proprietary software, which gives the user a lot more flexibility when comes on how to set up her or his system.

As such, the system truly becomes the users system.

Not only that, the support when something goes wrong with the system is much wider with open source. There is a large community on which the user can fall back to if the need arises, and help can come from outside the vendor or distribution from which the software came from. The user is not dependent on the vendor for help.

Open source is full of benefits for anyone who fully embraces it.

We should be building open standards...

I've being thinking about how we came to have a system that tends to focus on locking-in users, instead of building open platforms that allow users to collaborate easily with each other.

Instead of making technologies that bring people together, it seems that some are death set on keeping people reaching to others.

This, of course, is unacceptable. If we want to move forward, it's better to do so with as many people as possible on board as possible. Doing so is beneficial to individuals, as much as it is to humanity as large. We need to have as many people working together to solve common problems, and to help each other to make things happen.

We need the skills and knowledge that everyone can bring to the table. Locking in users is detrimental for people at both sides of the divide, since both are losing from not being able to reach for the expertise of the people on the other side with ease.

This is why we need open standards to help us build a better place for all. We should be able to easily share knowledge with others as we need to, and third parties shouldn't be able to interfere with the free flow of knowledge between people. It's our right to do so, and we need to be able to do so if we hope to solve the problems we face.

Any system that interferes with the free flow of knowledge is plain wrong, since it slows down or stops the search for solutions that could save lives or improve dramatically the quality of life of millions.

So, lets make sure that no company, government or group can do anything to hinder our right to share with others knowledge.

Seems that innovation left the room...

It seems that many companies nowadays are busier suing each other, rather than actually coming up with new ideas.

This atmosphere is really bad for innovation, because makes individuals and companies take precautions that they wouldn't take if the risk of being a target of a suit was lower. Coming with a new product is like walking through a mine field, there is a real chance that you could step on a patent and get blown out of business in an instant.

At the end, the biggest losers of all this are the users. We are stuck with no exit at hand, just because the risks of coming with something new are too high for start ups and established companies are too comfortable at their position to try doing things differently.

Something has to change to make innovation common place. There is too little innovation today, and it's hard to come by it. You need to have deep pockets to be able to risk to make an attempt to innovate, if not you risk to go bankrupt defending your idea from attacks claiming that they came with it before, or part of your process uses their ideas.

It's just crazy to see that companies main weapon to keep competitors at bay isn't coming with new and innovative product. But, to try scaring competitors with lawsuits if they don't stop competing with them.

It seems rather hypocritical hearing how some companies brag how about much they innovate on one hand, while they are suing all that seems to be even remotely competing with them. Shouldn't them be coming up with better products and services instead?

At the end, this atmosphere takes from the user the possibility to have products that do things in a better way. It makes us to keep using the same old things just because it's too expensive and difficult to market innovative products that solve the issues that plague current product. Something has to give, and it's using lawsuits to fend off competitors.

No way back...

As I keep using Ubuntu and Windows side by side, the more I see that I have no business going back to using Windows at all.

I've found that Ubuntu just works better for me in all levels, and I simply enjoy using Ubuntu a lot more. It makes all the task I do easier, and faster. Unity just works for me, since it doesn't get in my way and it has the level of customization that suits my personal needs and tastes.

Not only that, all the software I use on regular basis works better for me on Ubuntu. And has the plus that Ubuntu fits my ethical values, which is something really important for me.

If I had to change to another OS, it would be another Linux distro. But so far, I do agree with the direction Canonical is taking Ubuntu. The changes being made to Ubuntu have made it a lot more useful and compatible with the way I work and use my computer, making it a better experience overall.

This fact is one of the best point of the FLOSS movement in my view. That if you disagree with the direction the developers of a distro are taking it, there are several other distros out there ready for you to jump over.

So, all is a matter of finding the distro that resonates with you. Once you find it, you can enjoy all the benefits that come with your distro of choice and the FLOSS community at a large.

Perception matters...

One of the biggest hurdles that the FLOSS movement has to overcome, is not a technical or a design one. All comes down to perception, how the people see and relate to FLOSS software and what it stands for.

Many people seem to believe that since most FLOSS software is freely available, is must be because it's inferior in some way or another compared to proprietary software. In most cases, FLOSS software it's on par with what you might find on the proprietary side. What's more, FLOSS software has the advantage of being a lot more flexible.

This flexibility, allows the FLOSS software to adapt better to the end user needs. Since one can study and modify the source code, it allows for a much better fit to the needs of the users.

Many distros, and programs, have made great strides on usability and design. While doing so, they keep their technical robustness. This combination is a great thing to have as a user, since it gives her/him a system that not only works great and with great stability. It also looks great making it a lot easier and more fun to use on the daily basis.

It has been some now since the time that you had to be a hardcore geek or computer scientist to use any piece of FLOSS software. While there are still distros to that crowd, there are many distros aimed for the less technical user. The kind of user, that like me, what's his software easy to use and that just works.

As a matter of fact, is a great thing to have. There is space for every kind of user at the FLOSS movement. For me, keeping outside anybody that isn't a geek or technical proficient to a high level is a great mistake.

FLOSS should be about people getting together and just share their interest and getting to know new people. All the while fighting for the freedom to control the hardware and software we use, and collaborating with others to make it better.

This freedoms are not the realm of a few, but the right of all.

Technical vs. design...

Every time I read something about users having to choose between good design or something that just works, I wonder if that is really true or if it has to be like this.

For me, software design is about striking a balance between having a sound piece of software that works for the task at hand and how well it's design. When both are well done, users get the best software they could hope for.

While it's true that on the design part there could be several answers, on the technical side there are fewer. But, it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be software that has both. Most often than not, when software is good in only on the technical or design side it tends to be sidelined when something else comes along.

But when you have the right balance of both, you have a piece of software that people will actually want to use.

The real question is not to which side should you side with, technical or design. It is how can you bring them together to produce a great product.

Stop trying to keep people out...

It's sad to see software companies building walls up to keep others out, instead to pull them down and use the power of a wider community to push their products to a better place.

If the parent company of any given software sees itself as project lead, and welcomes collaboration from outside groups and individuals, the benefits would be enormous. The quality of the software would be greater, and far easier to assure with more people in and out of the company working on it to make sure it works as it should.

Also the investment needed to keep it working would be lower, since many coders could choose to contribute their time in order to patch and service the software as needed. While making many users more loyal, since they know that their voices are being heard in order to make change, add or subtract functionalities, or simply what should be corrected first.

If companies actually took the time to build inclusive communities to build their software, and hardware, everybody would benefit greatly. Companies would have a better product to offer, developers would have better tools to work with, and users would benefit from a better software that is constantly being updated and is robustly built.

People respond better when they feel that they are heard, and that they are part of something bigger. And letting them become part of the community around the software they use, it creates a far better user experience.

Fragmentation...

One of the best things of FLOSS, is the fact that the end user is free to choose the desktop that fits his needs and works around they way he does things.

This is an important aspect for me, because it means that the desktop environment becomes almost invisible letting the user to focus on the work at hand. But, this is something really hard to implement.

Almost any detail can derail the project, since the each user has somewhat different perception. Which means that some users will notice things that other user won't. What makes the desktop a joy to use and work with, can ruin the whole experience to another.

So, for the whole argument that Linux is becoming to fragmented desktop wise is something of an annoyance. Yes, there are several options out there to choose from and users are adopting them because they like the way they work. That users have options is a good thing, and they should also have a say on which desktops environments there should be. Not only that, the users should have an influence on how many of them should exit.

We are entitled to use the desktop we like the most, but we shouldn't be belittling others who use different desktop just because we don't like what they use. We could see what they are doing right, and port those features on our desktop if we find them useful.

The world is a big place, and we all can share it peacefully.

RIM; make it so...

I just finished watching a video demonstrating the capabilities of the upcoming BlackBerry OS 10, and must admit that I'm blown away. I liked what I saw, and it has enough things to make me consider switching to BlackBerry instead of Android.

The only but that I've, is that fact that BlackBerry is mostly closed source, which makes a bit uncomfortable. I really prefer all my software to be open sourced, on this count Android has an advantage.

But, if the rumors turns to be true and RIM really commits the BlackBerry OS fully to open source I'm sold. Mainly because of two reasons.

The first one being that I like Blackberry, and if it commits to working on an open source model it would make it a good buy in my eyes. Its software is really good and so is the hardware, though it has been stagnant for a while. If RIM delivers with the new OS and hardware, it will become a really great option and worthy competitor on the mobile arena.

The second reason, is that many of my family members and friends have BlackBerries. So, being able to communicate with them using the BlackBerry Messenger would be a big incentive to make the switch to a BlackBerry.

So, I've my fingers crossed so that RIM delivers on the OS and hardware side and that it commits to the open source model.