Filtering new information to get what you want..

It's amazing how much information can be accessed at this moment of time. And much of it can be accessed on the fly, either by laptops or smartphones at whatever place we might be at any given moment.

As a matter of fact, at the end of the day it's equally what you already know and if you have the ability to find relevant new information to solve problems on the fly. Experience is still valuable, and will remain so, but if you don't develop the ability to keep learning you'll find yourself at a disadvantage.

Equally important is to be able to filter all the information according to its relevance, not being able to filter it effectively can be costly and time consuming. Here is where experience come more handy, since it helps to have a better background to filter the new set of information with. Experience is one of the best tools to filter out the noise.

Information is a powerful tool if, and only if, we can correctly put it in the right context to make it relevant. If not, is just meaningless noise or have almost no use. At the end, no information is not useful by itself.

When information meets experience, they become a virtually unstoppable force. If we have the experience to better filter the information you get, the better choices you make. As with many other aspects of life, all comes to be able to balance.

All comes to applying the right filter to come to the information needed to solve almost every problem.

Open-source values...

If the open-source values of not only giving people access to the core workings, but also the ability to modify and redistribute, where expanded to all other facets of human experience things would be better.

Since all would have access to the core, solutions to the challenges we face would be a lot easier to get to with if we could modify them to work to the situation we face or want to solve. And if that new building blocks could be distributed too, the benefits of that work would reach a lot more people.

Hiding, or not allowing people, to modify the core of anything is not good in the long run for society at large.

Innovation is a lot easier if we all can access the core and work with it to make it better, or to make it work in different ways to better suit other set of parameters. Time after time a lot of projects have shown that the open-source paradigm has show that it work to foster innovation and as a business model.

If we could apply it to our communities, so that anyone can have access to the core working to work on the problem hand on could have the effect of solving our problems a lot faster.

By having the people who want to tackle the problem working directly on the core of what they are trying to solve, the answer will come a lot sooner. Not only that, we would be given the possibility to modify the workings to be better able to work it out, and then be able to redistribute it without any restriction. It would give everything a lot more transparency.

If we work like that, our problems would be a lot easier to sort out.

Control over your system...

On FLOSS the user can have a better fit on the configuration of their system, since the degree of control over the software is really up to the user.

Depending on the distro, the degree of control over what happens on your system is great. Even on the most basic distros, the degree of control is quite great since most of the most important features can be control by the user.

Having such control over what your system does, is important safe guard your privacy. Since there are many people interested on the data you have on your system, is important to be able to control how your system works and protects itself from malware.

Even if the user doesn't actually uses all the configuration options, those options should be there. There is no real reason for not including those options, or why the user shouldn't be able to have control over them. After all, the final word of what goes on the user's system should be the one of the user.

No other should have a say, other than to give information so the user can make a more informed decision on how to better configure his system.

Is our system, we should have the total control over it.

Open technology is the way...

As technology advances, we are faced with a choice that'll have greater repercussions than we can imagine at the moment.

We can have open and unrestricted technology, where the users have control over the technology we use. Or we could be facing technology that we can't control, and that only a few hands can access and modify the underpins of all the technology we depend on.

If we want a better future, a future on which we have a say, the way to go is to have one where technology is open to all. If there is a need to restrict it somehow, those restrictions should have clear and tight limits to their reach. Without putting such things on any regulations, they become toxic and stops doing what they were designed to do.

All technology should be open to everyone to study, so that people can understand how it works and what it does. And whit the knowledge gain by studying it, people should be able to modify it in any way to make it work as they want it to work.

If we don't do something to keep it open, we risk to loose the control over what we own and our abilities to defend our rights as citizens and consumers. We run the risk to be at the mercy of the governments and business want to take us, without even considering us and our needs.

That's why we have to keep control of the technology, and keep it out of the hands of a few people.

Freedom of open standards...

Let's face it, the reality is that no software is a perfect fit for every user out there. What the users need varies a lot, depending on what they'll use their computer for and how it'll be used.

Therefore, the specs needed on the software can vary a lot from one user to another. The idea of an average user is just helpful to have a starting point, but not much else. When you look the details of how the software will be used, the work done on it can vary much from situation to situation.

This is why standards should be open, enabling developers to better fit the software to the user without having to worry if the standard will work with the software his working on.

On the user side, there will be less concern if the software they're implementing will work with what they already have. Being secure that what they have will work independently of the platform they are working on, it's a great reassurance. This frees a lot of resources to actually work on what is important to the user.

Open standards benefit all who work using them, since it gives them the reassurance that they can work on adding values to what they without having to worry if it'll work.

Let's support open standards, because by doing so we get the freedom to have a common platform and having the reassurance that it'll work the way we want it to.

It's a way on which we all win.

Free from dependency...

Open source is the antidote in cases on which a particular software is dropped by the parent company for whatever reason. By being able to access the source code, anyone else can take it from that point on without much trouble.

Being capable of doing so, is not only useful to users. It actually can be seen as a safety net, an insurance that there is no dependency on any external party to keep the software they need up and running.

Not only that, since the source code is open to anyone interested in developing it the workload of doing so can be spread to all the interested parties in continuing the development of the code. By doing so, the development can continue virtually without much disruption.

Since all the users already had access to the source code, the fundamentals are well understood to begin with. With this understandings, there is a lot easier to continue development in house, or find someone else to do it.

There is no dependency on a single source of development, freeing resources to do some other things that the user needs to do.

Open source software is a key tool to keep you from being locked-in, and therefore reduce dependency, on the fate of a single source. At the end, closed source software is only good for the source of the software.

Freedom to share...

It's rather sad to see that big content providers equate people sharing their content to stealing, which is a not the same thing and a big mistake.

By branding people that share content like criminals, many of those content providers are actually alienating people from what they have to offer. When people share content, they are not stealing since they are not claiming what they share as theirs. They just want to let people know about what they like, or news that they feel are relevant.

That's why there should a clear and concise differentiation of what is sharing, and what makes it stealing. Having this guidelines in place, it would be a great place to begin with to protect people from companies that seek to harass them because they shared something with other people. Is important to have those guidelines in place make help protect everyone involved, and to create conscience that is fine to share content.

Most importantly, that sharing content is not the same that stealing it.

It's time to move forward, and create a model on which sharing content is seen as the beneficial act that it is. Sharing actually helps the content creator to make themselves known, and having the change to get their work out there.

Sharing is not a criminal act, is something that comes naturally to all of us. As such, it should be allowed to continue without any restriction.

Users should control their software...

I've found myself filtering all what I do through the lens of FLOSS, ever since I started using it on daily basis and really immersing on what it stands for.

Users should have full control of what they install on their computers, and no one should be able to tell them what can be done with the software they use on their systems. Once there the users installs anything on their computer, the user should control every aspect of the software.

Anything that takes away control from the user over his system, should be avoided. No other person, or entity, other than the user himself has the final say on what runs on their system. Not only that, the user should be the one deciding how the software runs, and when it runs. After all, the users owns the system he is using.

It's equally important, the user should be able to study the source code if he chooses to do so. The source code should be always be available to users, so that that they can know how it works and what each part of the code does.

And if the user chooses to modify the code to better fit his needs or tastes, he should be free to do so. Also, the ability to share those changes with others is part of the freedom that the users should have, and every step to enable that can be done easily should be set.

At the end of the day, the users are the ones that have the right to know how the software they use works and to modify it to better suit their need if they want to.

The rules of the Internet have change much...

It's annoying and sad how many media companies seem to be unable to adapt to new way to do business.

Instead to adapting their business model to the Internet, and how people use it to discover and share new media, they are trying hard to adapt the Internet to their business model.

Which is nonsense, since the Internet has become something to big for any single government or entity to really control. In essence, the Internet has become a living and evolving place. Users are the ones who decide its destiny, how they use it for, when they do it and with who they share what they discover.

Once any content, or media, is posted on-line the users take control of it. In a very real sense, the users take control of the fate of what all that is posted on-line. And the original creator has very little say on how the content evolves with time.

It's sad how many companies, or people, don't see that if they try to keep control of what they post they alienate themselves from the communities that they depend on. People want to be part of what happens with the content they like on-line, and when someone does something to take that from them the reaction is not good for those who take it from them.

Many users are no longer just happy consuming media, they want to part of the creative process and to be taken into account. Which is fair, since is us on who the creators depend to make their media a success.

So, if current media companies want to have any future at all they have to change their business model. It's no longer optional not to do so.

The Internet should be built on open standards...

The importance of the Internet can't be understated, after all it has permeated into almost all aspects of our life's. We use it for work or play, sometimes for both.

It's a great forum where we all come together, to share with others or to look up new things. It's a gathering place where everyone is invited, and free to engage as best he can. In many ways, is has become a place to launch new ideas to the world or to start great changes.

This is why it is vital to keep the Internet free to all, and without a central control. Information should flow freely between individuals and groups.

Equally important is to build it on open standards, so anyone can work with them and so everyone has access to the data contain on the Internet. If the standard is close, there is a real danger that any data on that format could be lost if the owner of that standard goes down for any reason or chooses to stop supporting it.

Open standards are vital because of this. Since the standard is developed, and supported, by several individuals and groups the risk that it wont be supported in the future is less likely. Not only that, because there are several developers working on it new features can be added faster, and bugs can be corrected faster.

Security would be greater, since patches can be set up sooner. Also, the code is being scrutinized by several people looking for any code that can be harmful that'll rise the red flag faster and explain things a lot more clearly.

So, let's move the Internet so open standard and keep it using them. Only then, we can have a free Internet for all to use.

Keep the Internet free and open to all...

We all want to share with others what we like, and the Internet has enabled us to do so quite easily. Not only that, it also enables us to connect with people that have same likes and dislikes.

It has really enable people to reach out further to know more about the things we love, and get the latest news about those things we are most interested about. If we find something that we think that people we know might like, or find interesting, sharing it is just a matter of a few clicks.

All of this has been possible because the Internet is free from a centralized control point, and it's built on open standards. And it should remain like that, since it enables all to have access to vast vault of information and shared knowledge.

Restricting people from freely accessing to the information and knowledge on the Internet is something that should be avoided. And people should be able to share it among themselves with no restrictions at all. In order to be able to move forward, this information exchange is vital in order to have new knowledge created.

Not only that, that people can come with come with other view points and ideas helps to have a better understanding of the world we live in. In essence, the Internet helps to bring people together and creates a better world.

The Internet should remain free of any central control, it needs free for all to access it and use to share what they learn with who that person choses to share it with.

Change of tactics to get people to adopt Linux...

I believe that it's time to change the way that non Linux are reached. Since there is an image that Linux is hard to use, many are not willing to use it.

If we stop emphasize the technical side, which is important, and start putting the things that people really care about. And there are several distros that actually do very well on what people want on their software.

Distros like Ubuntu, Linux Mint and even Android have all what the average users wants on his or her OS. They are easy to use, and have all software that they need to do what they do on daily basis.

And this distros are technically sound, and stable. Since they can be configured to work just like the user wants, they won't get on the way of their work.

There should be more focus on what the distros bring to the table that makes them easy to use, and what it can be done with each distro. Linux needs to be part of the discussion, but as the engine that runs the distros.

At the end of the day, most users will interact little or not at all with the Linux core. On the usual activities that the average users does, there is no need to actually interact directly with Linux. The distro will do it for the user, and most of them do it without any direct user input quite well.

If the idea that using Linux is hard from the majority of users minds, half of the battle to get them to adopt Linux will be won. But we need them to at least give a Linux distro a chance, and what better if they interact with one directly for a few hours.

By letting them to do so, they can see by themselves that using several of Linux is not hard to do. They don't need to have much technical knowhow to use them. And if they need help there, help is just a quick Google search away.

Openness is a great thing for everyone...

I find it somewhat ironic that some companies have grown using open source software and open standards in private, and yet it come the time to release their product they decry that they don't do it as an open source or standard. Some even decry them as being evil, and that they could mean the end of everything.

They don't seem to understand, or choose to ignore, the fact that making their code open and able to run on open standards they actually strength their position. Mainly because making keeping it that way helps to be able to concentrate their efforts on the areas that add value, and having some of the low priority development done outside the company.

On the open standard side, it gives a larger audience the chance to run the product. Since the standard you build your product to run on is freely available for everyone to implement on their system, it makes it possible for your product to be used by a wider audience since they know it will run on it without a fuss.

And if there is a way you can improve the standard, you can put it in it. This benefits everyone, since it makes the standard better, easier to use, more secure or stable.

These two factors free valuable resources on your company to work on what's really important to be useful to your users, adding value and features that actually useful to them. By doing so, you build loyalty on your users.

This loyalty will result not only them buying your products, but will make them happy to recommend them to others for use.

One unintended, but valuable, consequence is that it builds trust on everyone that work on the project or uses it. By being transparent on how your product works, and what the standards do, means that users can trust you and the code you give them.

Openness is a virtue that pays in the long run, and that all like to have.

Freedom to personalize as we please...

It's sad only companies are pushing laws to make sharing among users a lot more difficult, in some cases illegal.

For the looks of it, the awful truth is that they don't seem to understand that people want to be able to share what they love with others. And they'll always find a way to circumvent any measure, or law, that is on their way to do so.

Not only that, in order to pass such laws users stand to lose control over their own property. Companies who produce and market many of the things we use on daily basis in order to share with others, are willing to severely limit what we can do on with what we buy and how we can do things on them.

They want to have control over they products, even after we bought it. The want to make sure that you use it the way they think it's supposed to be used, and that you can't share it or give it away without them getting some kind of payment. In some cases, they even oppose you selling to someone else after you are done with it.

It seems that they can't stand having outside people making modifications to their product make it more suitable to their needs, or just to see what can be done with it. Not to mention that they really dislike users making a third party market place where they can exchange parts and accessories that aren't officially sanctioned.

That's a part of the ecosystem that grows around the product as it becomes more popular, and more people buy it. They want to make it look, and work, according to their needs and tastes. For many users, myself included, is a big turnoff when they aren't allowed to personalize their things to their hearths content.

Why on earth can't they do so? After all, it should be their choice to do so.

It's in everyone's best interest that companies open up their product lines, and let it be personalized by their users as they choose, and to the level they choose to.

After all, we do pay for them.

Welcome users to tinker with your product...

It's rather sad that companies want to impose their users what they thinks is best, without readily accepting feedback or letting users seeing the underpinnings of what they use.

Locking people out from the underpinnings of the software they use is a bad idea, since when something goes wrong the mistrust generated is great and hard to get rid of. Yet, the benefit of building their software openly with the help of their users and third party developers adds value.

People like to work together, specially on things on which they are passionate about. Time after time people have found a way to tinker with those things that they love, either just to see how they work or to make them work better for their needs. I can't imagine how many great additions to the core of any given project have been lost because the ones who made them couldn't share them with others easily, or where forces not to do so by the company that made the product.

So, open the gates to your users and the benefits will be great. At the end, if not for them your company wouldn't get anywhere.

Technology can be a great unifier and equalizer...

Computers can be one of the best technologies to enable to unify communities around a common goal, and to give all members of a community an equal chance to get their ideas out.

But for this to be fully realized, computers and the software they run should be open to be studied, modified, and distributed freely by anyone who has an interest on doing so. There shouldn't be any barrier that impedes the person who wishes study, or modify, his computer or the software it runs.

Locking people from doing so, endangers our right to really do what we want with our property and data. We should be able to freely modify our computers and software to meet our needs and specifications, and to know that our data is safe from third parties who seek to have it without our knowledge or permission.

No single entity should be the only one with lock and key to the internals of the software and hardware we use, and rely on, to communicate and use to conduct our daily lives.

The end user should have the right to study the source code, or technical blueprint, and to make any modification that the user believes necessary.

If there should be a condition to do this, is that those modifications should be shared back with where the source code came from. Other than that, there should be no other restriction whatsoever to be able to do so.

At the end, this is the most beneficial practice for the community at large.

Debate among the community...

The debate that occurs among the community on FLOSS is great, and a healthy thing to have. It's a sing that all of those with something to share, or an idea to make any project better, can give put it out there so other can consider the merits it has.

This model is way better than having a centralized group just imposing their ideas on the community, regardless of the merits of what is being imposed to the community or what the community wants or not. Most of the time, the community at large that centralized model can't even have a say on what is being done.

When the community is engaged in every step of the development process, the end product tends to be a lot better and the community at large is more likely giving it all the support needed so the project is a success.

Let's not forget that at the end of the day the community around each project is the one factor that can make or brake any given project. If the community is not heard the most likely result would be failure, regardless of what the predictions say it would happen.

So, a healthy debate with all the members of the community should be kept. This results on having the majority of the community with you, and could also give new ideas to add to the project on the ongoing development process, or on the next development cycle.

Engaging the community is a win-win situation, since the developers get the support they need and the users get the features they want. It is fool-hearted to believe that a project can run in the long run without a strong community on the long run.

An open and transparent debate with all the community is one of the best ways to build support from the community, and have a shoot of having any possibility of building a great product.

So, encourage the community to debate the merits of the project. You'll be surprised on how beneficial the practice can be.

Open source gives users greater flexibility...

While on proprietary software you get whatever capabilities come with it, on open source source software you can actually customize your software to your needs.

Many proprietary software companies just sell you the software as they deem it should be, so you're pretty much tied to whatever they sell to you at the price they set. Adding or subtracting modules is most often than not out of the question, and since the source code is out of reach making the changes in house is not really an option.

On contrary, with open source is a lot easier to pick and choose the pieces you need. And if there isn't something that suits your needs as is, having access to the source code allows you to build your system in house. Or you could hire outside help if there is the need.

Add to this the availability of open standards that are powerful and reliable, the flexibility for users is much bigger.

Not only that, the systems built this way are truly owned by those who build them. So, they can share them with others as they wish or can sell those changes as long they also share the source code.

Open source helps users by giving them a platform which allows to build ever more powerful and reliable tools. At the end, software is a tool the users have to reach a goal or do something. As such, the easier it is to make tool for a certain job the more the value of the tool.

But, it loses most of its value to the user if the user doesn't have a way to make it work as they need to work.

As such, I oppose any effort to keep users to modify the software they use in any way they need. Not only that, the user that made those changes should be able to give them to the community to study and use.

We should be the true owners of the software, and the data, that our system runs.

Current patent system doesn't promote innovation...

ACTA might have been shoot down, but we are still stuck with a patent law that doesn't help to bring innovation forth.

A system that was set up in order to create an atmosphere that made innovation possible by protecting truly innovative products and ideas, is now used to litigate rivals out of the market.

To add insult to injury, the system is set up so that the one with the deepest pockets is sure to win. The merits of the patents are usually not center stage when someone threatens with a lawsuit, since the merits come into play once you get to the trial. And then, you've to pray that you get a jury savvy enough to understand what is going on.

As usual, the users are the ones that who'll be the biggest losers. Users get fewer choices, and get less innovative products since the ones making the products we buy don't have to work as hard to get our attention.

Small enhancements, or even incremental ones, could be passed as much more. There wouldn't be anything else to compare to, so in many cases the users wouldn't know better.

The system needs to change, if it really wants to promote innovation and growth. If not, innovation will dry up and users will be stuck with whatever established companies wish to offer. A very sad fate, yet it seems that's where we are headed.

The users should be the ones deciding what product to buy and use on an open market, not judges.

ACTA defeated in EU Parliament...

ACTA, the international version of SOPA, has been defeated in the EU Parliament by on overwhelming mayor. The final vote of 478 to 39 against it, making it hard to argue that anyone other than special interests want anything like ACTA.

This is a mayor victory for the users rights, and to against having back door deals like ACTA being forced upon people.

Most importantly, that the EU Parliament voted against it practically unenforceable. Now, most countries will move away from ACTA since people have made one of the most important governments of the word shoot it down on its own backyard.

I hope the message goes out that laws shouldn't protect special interests over the people. As a matter of fact, people should be more protected from the abuses from the special interests.

Patents being used wrong...

It seems that the current patent system has been transformed into a tool that big companies use to curb the competition.

Almost every week now, there is a case of a big company suing or being sued. The worst part is that most patents are on things that shouldn't be able to get a patent to begging with. Like the general design of a certain product, or an algorithm that are needed to run many things because there isn't other ways to do it.

It's worrisome that those patents are granted, and even more worrisome is that judges are upholding them even when the claim or the patent flies against common sense. It seems that you just need to be big or popular to have the system on your side.

Patents should be granted on basis of the technical merit, not just because no patent had been granted on it before.

I just hope more people put pressure on whoever it needs to be put on, so the patent system is reformed.

Building through consensus...

Another of the strengths of FLOSS, is that most projects tend to be managed though consensus.

This is important, because it reaches to those people that will be affected by some change or have the experience required to move the project forward. On most cases, people on both camps is consulted to make the best possible product.

It's important to note that most of the time, the people that build the consensus are those who have qualifications to bring what's needed to the table. Yet, if you have something to say about what's being done, you can weigh in with your opinion or share something that you've made that could benefit the project.

There is a central group, or individual, that makes the final decision. But that decision is made using the input of those who have something to say on how, where, or what should be done.

It's important to keep in mind that not everyone will have their way. But, this makes FLOSS stronger because the projects are make decisions taking into account the voices of those who make up the community of users and developers of that particular project. And yet, there should be someone capable of taking the final decision when the time is right to do so.

There should be a balance, and the great thing is that many FLOSS projects have found it.

Part of a community or just a costumer...

When I see how FLOSS and closed source companies treat the people who use their products or develop for them, the difference couldn't bigger or more striking.

While on closed source projects costumers and developers tend to be seen just as an working relationship, on FLOSS there is a sense of being part of a community that works together as such.

Closed source project are closely guarded to avoid giving away any control of what happens behind the user side. This means that the users don't have any say on what goes on there, and are dependent on whatever the people who run the project choose to do with the software.

On the developer side of business, they are just allowed access to what the project managers believe the developers should have. This means that developers are also tied to whatever to what the project owners want the to do, or how they believe things should work without any outside feedback.

On FLOSS projects, both users and developers can have a say on every aspect of the development process and the direction of where the project should go. It truly becomes a community effort, since everyone that can add something of value to the project can actually do so.

Closed source projects want to retain as much control as possible on as few possible hands, with centralized decision making process. All decisions of where and how changes are made, and where the software is being taken, are made by a the core management.

FLOSS projects are much different. The community around the project has a bigger share on the on how the project is run, and what changes or additions are made. The management is responsible of the final decision, but the community has the chance to give a lot of feedback on what the decision should be or how it should look.

At the end FLOSS is a lot more inclusive of the community of users and developers that builds around the projects built as FLOSS. On the closed source project, the relationship is a lot more rigid. Users and developers are just to consume what the project leaders thing they should.

Personally, I just don't like being forced to use something just because I'm told to do so.