Community effort...

Another of the things I like about FLOSS, is that projects that are made this way become the propriety of those who form the community behind it. It stops being just the propriety of those who kick started the project, or those who manage it.

The efforts to maintain and improve the project, are a lot more democratic. Everyone that has something to say, can make it known to the community at large. If there is an interest to contribute in any way possible, there is a way to do so.

Each project truly becomes a part of those who work on it, and those who work on it become of something bigger. Both the project and the community at large benefit from each other, and everyone gets something in return from working on the project.

Most important, FLOSS gives all the people who interact with any project much more that they put into the project. We get the freedom to choose the way we interact or collaborate with people on the project, and the project. One can commit to any project to any level one feels comfortable at.

One can choose those projects that better fit what we want to do, and what one believes in. And if there isn't one that fits the bill, there is always the chance to start a project that does. There is no need to tie oneself to particular project just because there is no other way, each individual and community can make the way they want to go.

After all, FLOSS is about giving people the freedom to choose what's best for them.

Using FLOSS to reach out to others...

It's sad to see that for many people are more willing to accept increasing military budgets or aggressive moves, than to increase the budgets for education, libraries, or places for the integration of the communities we live in.

There should be more emphasis on things that bring people together to share what they want to, or to learn, exchange ideas, and work together on whatever they want to. By enabling people to come together to work together, or to get to know each other, we create the kind of environment that fosters unity and peace. We start to see others as persons, with all that comes along with that viewpoint.

FLOSS can give us a platform to help the communities to get there, since it gives everyone an equal opportunity to reach out and discover what's out there for them.

In a way, it can be the gateway not only to know others on the same community and what's going on within. It also enables the individual to reach out further away, enabling the creation of an even wider viewpoint and pool of knowledge, knowhow and wisdom to dispose of.

FLOSS can be a great enabler to a wider audience, since the point of access to it is significantly lower. Not only that, it supports most of the modern standards and has all the software that most people will ever need.

There is a need to be building bridges between communities and individuals. We don't need walled gardens, we need things to be open and transparent for everyone that wishes to be part of the community.

It's time to stop with the divisions, and bring forth unity.

Coming together....

One of the things I like the most about Linux, and FLOSS in general, is that it brings people together to work on things that they enjoy and like to do. By doing so, they can share their with others while getting feedback from people who share their passion and enthusiasm for what they are doing.

It tends to bring the best from everyone, and letting people to freely share their work and ideas with each other. The most valuable thing exchange between the people working within these communities is not money, is the knowledge and experience they have earn after hours of working and contributing to the project, or projects, they are working on.

By sharing what they know, and working on common goals, people come together and the feeling of belonging makes these communities to become close and want to help others to make things better.

I'd love nothing more than to see this kind of community at work in more areas of life. The places where we live and work would greatly benefit from people working and exchanging ideas and experience freely with each others. There is a need to create places where people can come together with ease to work on things, or talk about that are important for them or the community they live in.

The importance that most people must have easy access to these forums, or workplaces, can't be understated. If people can easily go to those places, and make full use of the installations, they are worse than useless. It can be a dedicated place, or it can change location according to the needs that the group has. And, the information of where they are, and the hours it's open should be easy to come by as much people as possible.

With modern technology, not everyone has to be at the same physical place on some occasions. Telecommunications have made it easy for people to be able to work as a group, or be part of a group of people that just likes to discuss a certain topic, without to have to be at the same place at the same time. Meetings by individuals within the group could be easily arranged if they need or want to do so.

There needs to be the will to come together, then the first step is to start building such communities.

Flexibility in numbers...

It's interesting to see how FLOSS projects seem to take a life of their own when they are managed correctly, and seem to actually surpass expectations of what can be done with them.

When there is the right people managing any given project, it can not only reach the goals it sets itself. It can actually surpass them quite easily, since people can join in and give to the project any fixes or improvements that are needed with ease.

And since the community around the project can actually have some amount of say about where the project should go, it's everyone feels more valued and more willing to keep working to make the project move forward.

If the management of a project decides it doesn't want to keep working on it, it's easy for another set of people to come in, and either take the project or fork it. Or if a subset of developers feels that the managers aren't taking the project in the right direction, they can fork it and take it where they believe it should go.

This makes FLOSS a lot more flexible, since the managers of FLOSS projects can benefit more directly from feedback from people on the field. And this feedback can come in the form of bug fixes or improvements to the code that might be hard to do by the people working on the project on daily basis.

FLOSS projects can be more flexible because it can have a wider set of people that can contribute directly to it.

FLOSS is generally more friendly to create an environment where on which the community that grows around it can make each project stronger through collaboration of its members. Of course, this level varies from project to project.

Yet, most of them are open to all to help.

Importance of open source and standards...

It's important to realize the importance of open source and standards have to give to both developers and users.

Being able to build on the work already there, helps to be able to the developer to focus on adding value to his work. By doing so, it gives him an important tool to differentiate his app from others out there and bring in revenue.

It seems that many developers nowadays spend their time trying to work bringing the solutions they need to common problems, because they can't use existing solutions already out there because they can afford to pay for the license or there isn't a license at all.

This can be a problem to independent developers, even small companies, since they have to put resources they could be using elsewhere to reinvent the wheel. Putting them at an disadvantage, because it becomes harder for them to give value, or can't differentiate, they product from others.

And not only they lose, the users lose too. Those developers could have ideas, or solutions, much needed by the users. Yet, they can't connect with each other because there isn't a way for them to do so.

On the user side, open standards are much more important. Mainly because open standards allows the user to find the software that better suits his needs, without having to worry if he will be able to continue to be able to access and use the data he already has.

And the developer can focus on giving his users the tools they need, without having to worry if the underpinnings will work.

This way, everybody is set to win.

Ease of repair and upgrading...

One of the things I consider when buying a new computer, is how easy it is to repair or to upgrade with relative ease.

I like to upgrade the RAM, or change the battery when it dies, by myself. While I could learn how to change the processor, change the screen, and other repairs by myself I don't mind having someone else doing them. Actually, I believe that is a good thing that computers and other electronics to be easily repaired or upgraded.

It's both economically and environmentally conscious that computers should be serviceable. After all, if computers could be easily made to be as new by skilled servicemen, those computers can have a longer life. This doesn't mean that the original owner can't buy a new computer if the need arises, but the computer can be used by other family member or friend whose needs are meet by that computer.

Not only that, since those computers are usually substantially cheaper than new ones more people can have access to have their own computers.

Let's be honest, the argument that you need the greatest and newest hardware to do the basic stuff that most people does is not true. And there is a lot of great Linux distros that run on that kind of machines, that actually are targeted to run on them. So, you can get the best software with all the modern safety futures that are needed for the basics that runs on substantially more affordable hardware.

Environmentally, the it makes sense to keep the computers or its components for as long as possible. This helps to keep them put of landfills as long possible, and to recycle all that can be recycled would be a great plus.

Servicemen can be a lot of help when come to be able to recycle components, since they can take those components and do the recycle process themselves. Either by using those components on other computers, or handing them to other people to do so.

But, it's important to be conscious of this, and buy only those models that are easily repaired. And when possible, try to give or sell your old computer to those who need them or can put your computer on good use.

For the love of learning...

As a geek, I love learning how thinks work and how systems work to make things happen. How changing any part of a system can alter its functionality, thus being able to make it work better by tweaking any of the individual parts.

This is one of the reasons why I've been using open source software for a long time. Because even though I don't have the technical skill to tweak much, I still can learn about how the software works from the inside-out. And I can do it in an environment that encourages the study of the source code, and if you can't contribute with code you can contribute by giving ideas on how to make the software better.

The first open source software I used was Firefox, and then Songbird as my media player. A couple of years ago I made the jump to Ubuntu, and I've no regrets.

I've fulfilled my thirst of knowledge, and I'm still learning much about software development and how the FLOSS community works. I've seen the complexities inside the FLOSS community, and I'm trilled to be part of it.

Using Ubuntu has been fulfilling, and even though there has been some hiccups along the road, it has been quite a satisfactory road. And I've a new level of respect for those who have build FLOSS and Ubuntu.

They have built quite the great piece of software.And they keep improving it all the time.

It'd be great to see people as engaged on science and mathematics as people are on FLOSS. We can really build a better world if all this was done on the open.

Ubuntu is the distro for me...

As an user that has been using Ubuntu on the regular basis for a couple of years now, I've to say that I simply have enjoyed the experience very much.

When Unity was made the default UI with the 11.04 release, I liked even more.  Yes, at its release Unity had many bugs and was not as customizable as other UI running on Linux. Yet, Unity worked for the and I enjoy using it.

And with at the maturity it has reached on Ubuntu 12.04, I can really can see myself using it for a long time coming. There's no other OS out there that works for me as Ubuntu does, or I enjoy as much using.

Ubuntu is the one distro that I'd share with people that want an easy to use OS, that is stable and easy to use. I like doing some technical stuff on my computer, but in general I just want a OS that works and is in line with what I believe. That's why I use FLOSS almost exclusively, I just use Skype to have video calls with family and friends.

There are some areas of improvement on Ubuntu, but I can see that Canonical and other developers are heading in the right direction to solve the issues I've. And if, for whatever reason, they don't take Ubuntu in a direction I don't feel comfortable with, I can rest assured I can jump to another Linux distro that does.

Chipset manufactures could benefit from Linux...

One would think that chipsets manufactures would benefit greatly by supporting all three major operating systems out there. Yet, you find out that Nvidia and ATI chipsets drivers are lacking on Linux.

Which is ratter baffling, since it would seem logical that supporting drivers for Linux would be beneficial to them in order to sell more chipsets. Linux might have a small share of the market, yet when you see the number of people and companies who run Linux on their systems it starts to make a lot of sense to support Linux.

And if they actually made the Linux drivers open source as the OS itself, they could rely more on the Linux developer community to maintain and develop the drivers needed for the chipsets to be run on Linux.

Not only that, some of the developments that could be ported to other OS because they give more stability or security for benefit to a wider sector of users.

If chipset manufactures really collaborated with the Linux community, and the wider FLOSS community, both sides have a lot of benefits to reap. Working together the development would be faster, and could have a bigger scope, if chipset manufactures and the FLOSS community created synergy by working hand in hand to get to the common goals.

At the end, both sides are not enemies.

FLOSS builds communities...

I like how FLOSS projects allow people to come together to build communities around projects that they want to work on because they believe in them.

This turns out far better software, because individuals are allowed to contribute as the can. They can either contribute their time and expertise to work directly work on the code or help manage the project, or contributing money is an option if the individual doesn't have the skills or time to contribute to the project.

There is also a possibility to help by reporting the bugs that you find along the way, either by filing the report manually or using an automated tool to do so.

This facility to be able to create communities to work on a certain project, or to create either a new project or a fork of an exiting one, give the FLOSS community its unique flavor and strengths. There are several projects at a time aiming to better, or solve, a particular problem or issue, making it progress faster and more since you have people working on it that do it because they want to make the project better.

But, most importantly is that work on FLOSS projects helps to build bonds among users. Mainly because people are working together on something they believe in, and thus they exchange ideas and viewpoints to make their collective goals come to fruition.

It also helps to develop critical thinking, since it's important to have it when solving problems or laying future plans. Also it helps to develop creativity, to solve problems in different ways when the standard way doesn't seem to be able to come with a way do so.

It helps to develop the ability to work with others as a group, to learn how to lead and how to talk with teammates.

At the end, even if you aren't paid to do a certain job, the abilities and skills you learn from working on any given project can prove invaluable later.

Linux and the distros are not the same thing...

It's somewhat sad to see how many tech commentators don't seem to get that Linux is the core than runs all the various distros out there. In a sense, Linux is the engine that powers all the distros, while each distro picks what parts will it use to give the usability and looks the distro's team is looking for.

That's why there are several user interfaces, like GNOME, Unity, and KDE, from which distros can pick the one they feel is right to get their flavor of Linux to work and look a certain way.

To some extend, the development of the Linux core and the different user interfaces are on separate tracks. Mainly because Linux interacts with the machine itself, and the user interface interacts with the person using the computer. So, their development has different targets to hit.

But, that's where Linux sets itself apart. Since each distro has the choice to use any of the different users interfaces out there, the user get a real choice of what suits his computing needs. Systems can be readily be built to suit the needs of a certain user with relative ease, and using components that can integrate a lot better with those needs.

If you don't like where a particular distro is going, there are others that can take you where you want to. As users, Linux and the distros using it as a core give users a level of freedom that Windows or Mac OS X will never give.

If you want to have freedom to choose how your computer works and how it looks, jump over to Linux. It's only a matter of finding the right distro for you.

Linus Torvalds and the Millennium Technology Prize...

Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, was awarded today Finland's Millennium Technology Prize. This prize is awarded every second year, and it's awarded to life-enhancing technological innovations.

For me that Linus Torvalds was awarded with the Millennium Technology Prize is a well deserved recognition. After all, the operating system that he created not only powers the Internet and some of the most important stock exchanges in the world. It also powers the supercomputers on which most of modern scientific research is carried out.

This way, Linus Torvalds' OS is on the forefront of the things that contribute to the betterment of our quality of life. And not only that, it has proven that free and open source software is a legitimate development platform on which people can work together and contribute to create something larger than the sum of its parts.

Personally as a Linux users, it makes me proud that the who created the core of the OS I use and love was recognized for the work and effort he has been doing over the years.

So, cheers Mister Torvalds, and congratulations for a well deserved prize!

Walled gardens are not desirable...

I wonder why people runs to walled gardens, and convinces themselves that there is no better way to do things other than they way fed to them by the owner of the walled garden.

Even though they know at some level that they are giving up many freedoms, they gladly do it just to have the most pretty gadget on the blog. They'll anything to comply to what the owner of the walled garden wants them to comply with, even when they don't fully understand what they are giving up to be part of the walled garden.

What bothers me the most of this system is the fact that you have to give any freedom to even modify, or install, third party apps that aren't approved to begin with by the vendor by default. The choice of whether doing it or not is taken from the user without the ability to opt out without voiding the warranty, or being liable of being taken action against by the vendor.

The truth is that walled gardens are desirable on only a few cases, and for a minority of users. The interests of the majority of users are better served by having free and open gardens, where a wide selection of apps are offered by a wide selection of vendors who choose to serve any particular garden.

Let the users be the ones that select the vendors who have the best products. That's the way it should work, and the most healthy way for the ecosystems to work.

Having an open garden helps apps evolve more organically, according to the changes of user needs and wants. Vendors shouldn't be making that choice for the user in any way, shape, or form. Yes, having educated users requires some time to do, but it's something that should be done.

At the end, who knows the users needs other than the users himself?

Source code should be free to study by all...

One would think that in time, software companies keep trying to keep people from at least freely studying the source code of their products.

The benefits from this far outweigh any concern, and most of the benefits would be for the users themselves. Users would get better software with less cost and development time, than with the current model. Not only that, users would have the opportunity to implement code that better suits their needs if there is a need of doing so.

Locking the source code doesn't lock the code itself, it also locks the user options to have the best software the user could possibly have. Since there is no way to know how the source code functions, there is no way for the user to know if there is a way to make the software a better suit for what the user needs the software for.

Not only that, there is no way to check if the software does what the vendor says it does and nothing more. The user has to blindly trust that there is no malicious code, or code that bridges the privacy of the data the users feeds the software.

Software companies have the right to set limits on how third parties use their source code, but third parties have the right to at least freely study the source code.

What should be encrypted and out of reach of third parties, is the private data that any feed into any piece of software.

Yet, it has come a bad habit to close the source code of the software we use to work on. This limits greatly the way we can actually work, since it make us more and more dependent on the vendor that originally sold us the software the first time.

Open source should be the natural state of the software ecosystem, sadly we couldn't be any more distant of this goal.

Open source has more benefits for all...

One of the worst thing that comes out of not being able to see how software works from the inside, is that it becomes harder to understand how it works. Not only that, it prevents to make modifications to make it work on how the users want it or to make another program all together.

What's more, it prevents any work to make any software better. In order to understand how a certain piece of software works, one need to be able to see how it's put together and how those parts interact with each other. Without that know how it becomes impossible to study and learn how it works, therefore it's not possible to work to improve or modify it by any one that doesn't have access to the source code.

This situation puts the users on the losing side, since they completely depend on a third party to keep the software not only current and safe from attacks. They depend on that third party to keep the software available to them at any moment, and have to trust that it doesn't go under taking the access to their data with it.

At the end, closing the software to the study and modification by the user is a bad thing in general. It only benefits the company that makes the software, and just on the account of keeping the users out from seeing the source code. But, it loses from any improvement that might come from an user tinkering with the source code.

The users lose the most, since they lose all the ability to control what happens on their machine and how to manage their data. They are at the mercy of whatever decisions are made by the vendor, and have to go down any road the vendor chooses if there aren't any other options to the software they use.

Having open source software is beneficial to everyone. Users can study and modify their software according to their needs, making it work better for their individual needs. Companies benefit from having third parties checking their codes for any bug or vulnerability that they could have missed, and being able to add any improvement to their code made by third parties.

Closing the source code it's a sure road to stagnation, since it makes any innovation hard to get to. It closes all roads, making hard to make any corrections in course.

It's in everyones best interest to avoid closed source, or proprietary, software. Use and support open source software, it's for the benefit of all.

Let the market decide...

The tactics that many tech companies use to handle to try to stop competitors, and how they lock the devices or software they sell.

It's sad to see that in order to keep successful products from competing with theirs, many companies use patents and copyright law to try to take them out of the market. Instead of coming out with something better and take it to the market for the people to decide what they want to buy for themselves, it has come an almost standard practice to have the courts to decide what options should the people find in the market.

The moment laws set limits to what the people can find on the market place, other than on safety and health grounds, they get in the way of having a healthy market with the options that the people are willing to sustain.

At the end, the market is the one who should have the last word on what is consumed and it's value. Companies and governments have no business doing so, their business is making the choices that should be of the market.

I also dislike the fact that many companies lock the devices they sell in order to prevent the user to tinker with it. As a result, the user loses her or his right to do as he wants with the devices he legally purchases.

If the user chooses to keep his devices as they come or to tinker them to make them work as the user wants to, is the right of the user to do so. Companies should have no say on it one the user pays for the devices, since the devices becomes property of the user.

Companies have no place on saying how I use my device, how I can modify it, and what I can in it or take from it. Much less putting in any piece of software or hardware that monitor the use or changes I make to the device, much less do something to prevent me from making them.

The government role should have users rights on the forefront, and currently it doesn't do it. We need to make sure that both companies and governments understand that the users have the final say on what we buy and use.

Anything else is just plain wrong.

There needs to be balance...

It's sad that tech companies are using patents in order to keep competitors from doing business.

To make matter worse, companies that are known to be leading innovators are the ones that engage on patent wars the most often. The current system seem to be putting a premium on those who can defend the current state of things, instead of putting that premium on actually brining forth innovative products to the marketplace.

Because of this, is no wonder than in some areas innovation seem to be at a standstill. The threat of being closed by bigger players with deeper pockets to play the system, keeps many small innovative players from even trying to put their products out.

The system needs to balance things. There should be protections to keep people from taking ideas and not compensate the one who originally put it out, while making it easy enough to use ideas on different products.

Laws need to benefit the most people, and not protect just a narrow band of groups. Things are as they are because people in charge of making laws and regulations are not really thinking on the benefit for most people.

By not letting easy use to innovate on software, the real loss to the people is difficult to quantify. Specially since is hard to put a number, or percentage, on new ideas that weren't developed because of the threat of being shut down by a bigger competitor afraid of losing some aspect of the control over the software itself, or profit that could be generated at some point in the future.

If you really want to benefit the most people and make the marketplace more vibrant, make it easier to innovators to use ideas of others while the one who came up with it can make a living out of it.

Tinkerers as a source of adding value...

Going after people that tinker with products has been proven to be impossible. They always find a way to make whatever product they choose to tinker with, work in ways that the original manufacturer or producer never intended it to do.

In some cases, they actually make it work better than it did out do the box.

So, why waste resources going after those tinkerers when they could be used of a source of knowledge and hands on experience to make those products better. The value that they bring to the table, is the insight they have to see how they can make things work better. Or, to add functionalities that for one reason or another the original creator didn't think of.

Shooting them down is a case of shortsightedness. Tinkerers are an asset, since they have all what it's needed to help you accelerate the development of your product in a much faster way. And the feedback they give back is, more often than not, more useful than the feedback of the average user.

Not only that, they can be directed more easily to a goal. If they believe in that goal, they can do great things for your product.

Bring them in, let them do their magic. You'll be surprised by the amount of value that they bring in.

Reach out to your community of users...

I can't find a reasonable explanation on why software companies won't open themselves, and seek to use the experience or expertise of the people that form the community of users.

They are losing more than what they could be winning by keeping them out. Not only on profits, but most importantly on expertise that they could tap on to make breakthroughs that are difficult to get from people working in the company itself.

Mainly because people on the outside have a different view, and can bring it to the table. Users can see things than developers inside can't, since users have a completely different viewpoint. From it, they can see things that insiders can't just because they are in a position to actually see that part of the work flow.

Not interacting with the communities that use your software can lead you too loose vital insight on how to better develop it. Instead of trying to cut people from making any change to the software, be the one who leads those efforts and make them be done in a way that's useful for the whole community of users.

If you do so, then you can focus on the core functionalities of the software while making it more safe and robust. Be the one that sets the standards of what it takes to develop add ons or build capabilities that you are not interested or the majority of the users don't want to have.

If you do, you'll find that the resources of your company will be used more efficiently. And the community that builds around you, will take care of those things that you can't take care off for whatever reason.

Done right, it's a win-win solution.

Begin to add value...

I've wonder often when companies will stop complaining about how others do things the same way they do, and start competing with each other by adding value to the products they bring to the market.

As a whole, we should be focusing on building free and open standards on which we all can work on and modify as we want without fear of doing anything illegal. By doing so, both companies and individuals benefit from having a platform that isn't dependent on the wimps and fortunes of a single player or vendor.

By having a free and open standards, there will be true freedom to choose that software or service that best suits our needs without having to worry about if the software will actually work.

This will open companies, and other vendors, to actually work on adding value to their  software. To make their software work better, or do things in a certain way that better suit the needs of their clients. They'd be able to really focus on making great products to their clients, and to work on giving a better service to users of their products.

What's the use of having the best and greatest standard, if it doesn't work as the users need it to work or it doesn't really add any value to work of the people who use it.

I really want, and love to see, vendors competing with software that truly add value to the work of their users. All the while working on free and open standard, to which we all have access to study and add value too.

If we work together, the added value should come sooner rather than latter.

Why I made the move to Linux...

Along the reason I've moved to using Ubuntu as my OS, is that on Windows and Mac I felt that the path they are taking is one on which I had to take whatever Microsoft and Apple wanted to give me.

While on the Linux, I had the choice to pick the distro which configuration better suited what I need and want on my desktop. And in my case it was Ubuntu, since it fits my needs and how I expect my OS to work. On top of that, Ubuntu is a lot more stable than Windows ever was and far easier to configure and use.

My machine is also faster to startup, and to load the software that use. While on Windows 7 I had to wait about 5 minutes for it to start, with Ubuntu it takes about 2-3 minutes to get there. And I use the same machine, so it's a question of how the OS loads.

Not only that, important update and patches on Ubuntu come regularly. Which help keep my system running safe and keep making my computer work better, while all the problems I've come across have been hiccups that where easily fixed with a quick Google search.

On the year I've been using Ubuntu on the daily basis, I haven't come across a mayor problem with it.

Therefore, I highly recommend Ubuntu to everyone who wants to run a safe and stable OS. Specially that just works, and you want to be free from impositions from third parties that believe that they know better than you. With the added bonus that it's really easy to use, and you don't want to get your hands too dirty with on the technical side.

Changes need to be made post haste..

I feel appalled with the idea of even thinking that copyrighting APIs can be a good idea, even if they are just suggesting it.

After all APIs are a set of naming and structure frameworks used to code commands to an intended for a piece of software. Without this command, most software wouldn't run correctly making it worst than useless.

Since the coding certain commands so that the software responds on a specific way, is basically the same every time you have to issue the said command many APIs end up looking pretty much the same way.

Add the fact that when you are coding for the same platform than many others, you're using the same naming and structures frameworks. So, the odds are pretty good that someone already used your API in someway or another to solve the same problem. If that person was able to copyright that particular API, everyone who follows is going to infringe the copyright no matter what they do.

This would make making any new product or service basically inviable, since you can't solve any basic problem without having to pay royalties if the copyright holder decides to license the API to you. If he decides you're a threat, and denies you the use of it he could legally close you by using the copyright law as a weapon.

If governments are really concern to help small and medium companies compete, they need to make sure that copyright and patent laws can be used as a tool to drive them out of the market by bigger companies have demonstrated they'll do so without a second thought.

Let the companies with the best products and services win, not the ones with the most money to pay for the best lawyers.