Tsikbal: from my perspective

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...

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 ...

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...

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 stan...

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 th...

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 f...

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 ide...

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 d...

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...

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 ...

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, everyb...

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, t...

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 man...