The annoyance of fanboys and over zealous critics...

One of the most annoying things I come about in the tech world, are the fanboys and over zealous critics of any device that becomes popular.

For fanboys, the company that produces the device of their devotion can make no mistake. If an issue is found with any of them, they are quick to find blame somewhere else or to point that's how the competition does the same. Instead of accepting that the device they have isn't perfect, that there is need of improvement, or that it isn't the best device for everyone, they seem to be more than happy to say that the ones who critique their beloved are just not smart enough to see the truth.

The zealous critics do just the opposite, they can't seem to be able to grant credit for what it's being done right on the device or by the company that made it. They just are out for blood, and they over blow even the most minuscule detail that doesn't even matter for the people who will actually use the device. No matter how well the device makes the job it was intended to do, those critics can't be swayed into saying that it's a great device for its intended use.

With some companies, it just go to far. In many ways in ruins the experience of using those companies' products to the average user, simply because of the expectations of its fanboys and critics have around them.

Most of us, we buy a device we like it and it's useful for what we are going to use it. We use is it because it does the job we want it to do the way we expect it to do, and sometimes it has the added bonus that looks good while it does it. Most of the times, we don't really care about some of the most technical aspects or how using it make us look cooler. We use it because we want to use it, not because we were told we had to or any other reason.

Guess that most of us just want to be able to buy and use any device we want to, and to fanboys and critics to take their petty fights somewhere else.

For a truly open fields of science and technology...

In many ways, we should be pushing for more openness in the science and technology fields. For better, or for worse, they touch every aspect of our lives, so society should be able to know the inner workings and how they're managed.

On the science side, there should be transparency on every research conducted and how it get the money to be done. All the information, and technical data, should be made available to the public as soon as possible. So that we know how things were done, and for people who want to make the experiment on their own can replicate it on their own.

Most importantly, patents on any scientific breakthrough should be limited that they can be beneficial to as many people as possible while giving some resources to the people who made that progress. We need a system that have public interest at hearth, not individual or corporate ones.

On the technology side, the need to have any technology available to be work on by people at large when is made available to the public is vital. There should be clear rules on what is fair use, and how modifications to the technology by individuals can be distributed. To completely restrict or allow any modification to any technology produced is not beneficial to anyones, so there is a need to find a way to allow it to happen.

It can be done and it can be beneficial to the original producer, as it has been demonstrated many times in the past. When the producers engage the communities that customize their products for other purposes, it actually becomes a win-win situation. But only if managed correctly, or it can be a disaster for everyone involved.

At the end, having those vital fields open for all of us to participate in is something that we should be able to take for granted.

Use new facts to strive, and become a better person...

It's sad that some people want seem bent in stopping research based not on facts, but because it threatens their beliefs by demonstrating that those beliefs are wrong. As if by challenging any belief system, would make the person who holds them bad.

The universe we live in is extremely complex, and we are just starting to understand how it works. As such, many of the beliefs we have about the universe can be proved wrong at any time by emerging evidence. That doesn't mean that we are fools, or that we are bad, because we believed something proved wrong.

As we learn about how things function, we have a better understanding on how to deal with them. This knowledge is an invaluable tool to move forward, and have a better quality of life and how we relate to the universe around us.

We shouldn't be blocking research that can give us valuable knowledge, since by doing so we might be losing key aspects of how the universe works that could open better lives for all of us. The foolish thing to do, is simply blocking new knowledge because it proves some beliefs wrong. By adapting our view with the new facts, we can become better persons.

By having a open mind, we can have a window to gaze new and marvelous views that the universe still have for us. Also, can see things in a new way that will make us under just how lucky we are to live.

Teaching our kids, and others, the value of an open mind is the best gift that we can bestow upon them.

Each user can choose he's perfect smartphone...

Every time a new iPhone comes out, it comes with the whole the best smartphone out there. But, Android devices have basically closed the gap, specially with the arrival of Android 4.0.

For many, including myself, now the question is not what smartphone is the best in itself. The real question now is what handset is best for each user, since now there is a real chance to match the users needs with the smartphone. Competition in the smartphone area is on the users side, since now manufactures have to produce better smartphones if they want our money.

In a way, we are fortunate to be living in a time where technology allows us to have many different options of smartphones. This devices truly hold the potential to revolutionize the way we interact with our family, friends, and the world at large. We can share almost anything that happens around us in real time, and in many apps we can even choose with who we want to each piece of information.

So, at the end each smartphone has it weaknesses and strengths, as such it all comes to what the user wants and needs to have on the smartphone that will determine which device would make the best match. The idea that one smartphone can do everything perfectly is ludicrous, since is not practical to cover everything.

It's up to the user to decide which smartphone is the best for him, and not being forced into buying one because there is no other.

Open source software is more than just software...

One of the things that I like about open source software, and why I enjoy using it, is that I can select the level of engagement I've with each piece of software I use.

I can just be an user on some, and with various levels of commitment on others. Those commitments can range from bug reporting, contributing money to keep the project going or some code. Being able to do this is important for me, since it allows me to better support the projects I like in the way is more convenient for me.

The idea that you can be a user of any project, or a part of the community around it, is really appealing for me. Not to mention that it resonates with the way I see software development, and how it should relate to its users. At the end software is used by people, it should allow the people who use it to interact with the software, developers and other users in any way each individual can do it.

Any software can only become alive, and dynamic, when it allows its users and developers to form a community around it to share their views, to contribute what they think they should, and be part of what goes on with the project. By allowing this, the software that comes out is something much more than just software. It becomes part of the lives of those that make the community around it their own, with all that comes with it.

Open source software is more than just software, or the interaction with it by its users. It's about human interactions, and building communities and friendships with people with similar interests. Being part of an open source software project can open the door to knowing more people that share the love and passion for the things you love.

I invite you to come to the open source software world, and have a look around. You'll be surprised about how big, and easy, to find something for you.

Open source importance...

The importance of open source, both in software and hardware, is something that can't be understated. If there is to fair access to technology by anyone who needs it, it's vital that the core of each technology used can be studied and modified by any person that's interested in doing so.

The idea of having any technology locking user to a single vendor because there is no real way around it, is appalling because it means that if something happens to that vendor all investment in time and money will be lost. Not to mention all the information that was in there.

It also means that monopolies are more likely, and if the come to be they will be more easily maintained since there is no option to go to in case of abuse or bad service.

Also, people that need especial adaptations of any software or hardware, could custom make them if that version isn't provided by the original vendor for whatever reason. This can streamline processes, and could bring life saving technologies to the people who need it a lot faster.

By allowing people to get to understand, and work on, the internal workings of whatever technology they are interested in, can have other important by products. With more people working to improve current technology, products that meet particular needs can come to market a lot faster. Also, those improvements needed by a particular group of individuals could make their way a lot faster, since they could get someone to make them with more ease.

Innovations will come faster, since there'll be more people covering a lot more technology. In some cases, it'd mean that there is a bigger chance of people will be working on fields that businesses would not take. Or NGOs could take existing technologies, and adapt them for their needs if they can't get any sponsor to do so.

Having open open source technologies is vital for us. Our society is becoming ever more dependent on technology to live our daily lives, so technology's inner workings have to be available for all of us. More importantly, they have to be easy to access by those who can do something of value with them.

If this doesn't come to happen, we run the risk of having the technology on which we depend on at the hands of a few hands. As history has shown us time and time again, that's not in the best interest of the majority.

A better understanding...

It's hard for some people to understand that lack of understanding about the working of a certain process, or why it does what it does, doesn't mean that it's proof of a supernatural forces are working. It just means that there's no answer on that matter as of yet.

There always be voids on our knowledge of how the universe works, or why things are how they are. Yet our best option is no saying that it should be that way, because there is a external force that it's at work. On the contrary, is because understanding why things are, and how they work, can lead to breakthroughs that make are lives better that an answer should be looked for.

Understanding is the best tool we have to actually have a shoot at increasing our quality of life, while we protect our environment. Doing things without understanding them, is asking for trouble that can come back to bite us hard. There is a need to understand what consequences can be expected from doing, or using, any tool.

True understanding can give benefits far beyond anyone can imagine, since it gives the tools to better use what surrounds us. We'll be able to better conserve our resources, and use them more effectively.

It also can come to strengthen our bonds, since it will enable not only to connect with our surroundings. It'll help us to connect with other people, and better share with them the resources in order to achieve both parties goals.

Understanding where things are made, and from where they come from, gives us a better perspective on the impact they have. Armed with that perspective we can give them the best possible use, at the best possible time. That's why we must be receptive to new knowledge about what we use, so we can give it the best possible uses.

Having the answers to our questions, and understanding the impact of our actions, is one of the most empowering things at the personal level.

Patent wars hurt the consumer the most...

Not a day seems to pass without at least of a couple of news about someone suing someone else on patent grounds. It seems that there is almost nothing out there that doesn't have a patent on it.

Which makes me ponder how much does this affects innovation, and ultimately consumer's ability to have several options to choose from. With a higher risk of being sued, many small companies and startups might not want to take the change of getting sued out of existence and probably not bring to market products that compete with the ones of established players.

This playing it safe attitude is not good for the consumers, since it limits our choices, or to innovation that produces better products though open and direct competition for our money.

The current patent wars need to end, they are not beneficial to innovation or consumers. They are about companies, and how to protect their profit margins.

I can't really hold a straight face anymore when corporations say that the lawsuits they make are for the benefit of consumers, so they can bring the best possible products to them. Each time they fail to mention that by barring newcomers to the market, they are effectively locking the consumer to use their products.

There is a dire need of a new patent system, one that makes it easy to innovate while protecting those ideas that are worth it. Or else, the ones that are set to lose more are the consumers.

A better understanding of science...

As science advances, we gain a better understanding of the world around us. This understanding helps us not only understand our place in the universe, but it gives the opportunity to gain a better quality of life.

Yet, many don't trust science because they don't understand how science works and many misconceptions people have regarding how scientist work. People don't really understand the scientific method, much less many of the concepts that come with advanced fields.

That's why science educations is vital on our schools, so our children grow knowing how science works and have an understanding of at least the most basic scientific concepts on several fields.

In many ways, the problem is not science. The main problem is the lack of understanding of what science is, and how it works. There is a lot of misconceptions that spawn because there is no solid knowledge of science, and the terms it uses. Much less the proper usage of those terms.

When we take into account that all the technology we use comes from scientific discoveries, it becomes more important to give our children exposure to science so to start an interest on it. This with the aim to have some of them to study science, kick starting the next generation of scientist that'll take us to the next level of understanding.

But, it's important for all to have a basic understanding of science. It's vital so we all can better function on societies that are ever more integrated with the fruits of science through technology.

Ownership means total control over your devises..

As technology advances, some embrace it and try to take it to its limits. Most people just take it as is, just doing adding or changing some minor things personalizing their device.

Though the users that go deep into the inner workings of their devices are few, that doesn't give the manufactures the right to limit the ability to do so. Having the option to do so should be at least easily accessed to make any change by the user possible without trouble, or to require the intervention of the manufacturer.

Users should have full control over their devices, even if most won't take full advantage of all the possibilities it gives the user. The user should have full ownership of his devices from the moment of the purchase.

Limitations are just beneficial to the manufactures, not the users. When impose restrictions to what you can do with the devices you bought, they are in fact controlling almost every aspect of what can you can do with the devices you own.

At the end of the day, once a device is purchased the users should be the one who decides on any changes made to it and be on total control of it.

Education, science and research are investments...

I find it to be discouraging and angering that education, science, and research are areas that suffer some of the first cuts when times get though. Worse when the ones who make those cuts talk about how important these areas are for the continued development of people and communities.

Theres is a dire need to see educations, science and research not as expenditures. They are investments, we need to have them well founded so they can bear the fruits we need them to make a better world. These are pillar that make our modern world, and without them we wouldn't have the things we have now, nor we can hope to make the world we live in a better place.

Through education, we can enrich peoples lives while making better citizens. Well educated citizens are beneficial not only to the community they live in, but to themselves since they can actually do something for themselves in various ways. They are only limited by they own imaginations and capabilities, that can help them to go far in life while doing constructive things for themselves and others they come in contact with.

Science has given us all things that have improved the quality of life exponentially in the last century, and can do much more. Yet, to be able to deliver on that, science needs to be well founded to attract the minds to work on the projects that show more promise to deliver the results.

If we can't give them what they need to work, and live, we can't reasonably expect the results needed.

Last, we need to have good research facilities if we want to be able to find a way to apply what science learns. Knowledge by itself is not very useful, if it can't be applied in some way, shape, or form to solve a practical problem. But, it takes time and money to find a way to put them in use.

If that research is well founded, and correctly managed, it becomes an investment. Research is a necessary step to bring science to use in as many areas of human experience as possible. Avoiding it is a risky move, since a potentially beneficial concept can do harm if it's not properly tuned to do its best work.

Without making substantial investments on these three areas, we have more to lose than what we can imagine. Investing on education, science and research, is not only investing on the present; but in a better future too.

Science and technology are not intrinsically good or evil...

Science, and technology, should always be at service our needs and interests first. The interests of companies should come second, while governments should be limited to manage laws and regulations to make sure that the people are not being limited in a harmful way.

Science gives us a better understanding of what happens around us. With this understanding technology can produce new things that improve our lives in several ways. It also helps protect the things that make our lives, or we need to keep ourselves and what we love healthy. There should be regulations that helps to keep science on a track that helps to have a better understanding of our surroundings, giving us the knowledge to better protect what's needed while improving our lives.

Then, we can apply that knowledge to produce technology can apply to produce the devices needed in each case. Well developed technology should produce as little impact as possible, while giving the best possible results for the intended purpose it was meant for.

We need to educate people to understand that science and technology are not evil, or harmful, in themselves. Nor they are intrinsically good in themselves, all depends on how they are applied.

The issue lies on the people who do the scientific research, and those who develop the technology that use the results from the research. It comes down to the ethics that the people involved have, and they way they apply it.

In many ways, at the end it comes down to the people. Not the tools themselves.

We need the Internet to remain free and neutral...

It's hard not to see the community building that the Internet has, since it allows people come together in ways that wouldn't be possible in any other way. In some cases it gives some people access to things, like the ability to learn or communicate, that they wouldn't have in any other way.

There is a true opportunity not only to engage people at the local level, but from your state to the rest of the world. The Internet has been a mayor factor in allowing the construction of a global village, by giving the average person the chance to engage people from all around the world without having to live their respective cities or towns.

The Internet can give people a way to share with others things that would be difficult to do, like pictures or videos with people that live far away and can't afford to see frequently. Keeping in touch is much more easy, with a variety of ways to fit the level of intimacy and what is to be shared with who.

Options consist from email to video chats, all of them becoming easier to do with each passing day. Suddenly, one can share what they want with the ones intended without having to wait to see them in person or on-line.

As with any other tool, the Internet can be used in ways that are harmful. Yet, it would do a lot more harm to just shoot it down or restrain its use by everyone. This is why its control should remain with the people, with no single government, or private entity, so that it remains free and neutral.

It's in our best interest that the Internet to stay as unregulated as possible, since only this way it'll be the tool we all need to really have a smaller and safer world.

As technology advances, it actually gives the people the chance to be more self sufficient. It helps by allowing people get to more information, and people, that helps them do more by themselves or getting in contact that can help them.

It truly helps to build communities to do what's needed to solve almost any problem, in a way allowing people to have more control over their lives. Communities build this way are becoming more powerful, and self sufficient, with each passing day. In many cases, those communities can develop the tools they need to get the job done.

Not only that, communities can also interact directly with each other to get what they don't have or the help needed to solve a particular problem that it hasn't faced before.

This could lead to communities that are more self contained, and that are self governed by the individuals that conform it. Communities would be able to truly have more control on what happens within them, and how they interact with other communities. In many ways, the individual would be the one that benefits the most with a more self sufficient communities.

Mainly because in a smaller communities give the individuals to have a bigger say on what, and how, choices are made. Not only that, when it comes to enact those choices the individual has the possibility to be active in making it happen.

Technology has the potential to truly empower both communities, and individuals, in ways that couldn't be imagined in a few years ago. I just hope we can take this chance, and make the most out of it.

Two great products, ducking it out at the wrong place...

On the mobile space there the two main operating systems out there are Android and iOS. Both are great, and bring different thing to the table.

Not withstanding what many people say, the choice between the two is mainly one of taste and which one most of your friends use. Most users won't tinker with their phones much, so at the end the choice of which one the user will choose will come down to which one gives the user the best experience.

Personally, the one that cuts it's Android. No matter how much I try the iOS, I can't seem to like it or the iPhone. But, I just love the Android in every way that matters to me. There are several handsets out there that I'd love to have, the main ones being the Samsung Nexus or the Motorola Driod Razr. These two handsets are the ones that give me the user experience that I want from a smartphone.

I really believe that some people, and some companies, should let the users make their choice by themselves. Yes, there has been some very bad behavior by Apple and should stand down of their sue everyone campaign. All of this is bad for the costumer, since it distorts what's really going and that's what really confuses the costumer.

Competition should be taking place at the market place, by companies giving information and comparing the their products with others with facts. And market observes, and experts, should be helping the users to make their choice by giving fair independent criticisms and comparisons.

We have two greats products that are doing their fight at the wrong place, the court room.

Mind your digital information....

As we share more of what we do on the Internet, we should be more careful about it. It's easy to forget that much of the information about ourselves on the Internet can actually harm us on the outside world, because the divide between the physical world and the Internet is becoming a fainter.

Many might argue that in some places, such divide longer exists. Our life on the real world and on the Internet are one and the same, since there is an easy way to be at both places at the same time. We can share what is happing to us, where did it happen and with who we are at the moment almost instantly.

So, we need to be careful how we thread. It's not longer all that sure that what we do on the Internet, will not come and bite us if we don't take care. Not only that, we should be claiming the control of how our information is handled and with who it is shared. The information we generate should remain in our control, and possession, until we give explicit permission to be used for other means by a third party.

Even then, we have the right to choose what part of the information can be used for what purpose. We should be the masters of what we generate, and be able to share it as we please.

As in the real world, we should be careful with who we share what. The interconnections that the Internet gives us can be a blessing or a curse, all depending on how we use it. So, being careful and paying attention on with who we are shearing our information is a must.

Not doing so, could mean something much worse than losing your digital information.

Let's give even more importance to the average user...

I find the idea of trying to crown a sole Linux distro as the best distro is not only shortsighted, it doesn't help Linux to grow among users. That's because the distro that is best suited for a certain group of user, is not what other users need or want.

It doesn't have to do with the technical merits of the distros, but it has more to do with what users are going to be using the distro they choose for. Not all users have the same needs or expectations from the OS they use. If they face a distro that fails them, they won't think about moving to another one. They'll just move back to Windows or OS X, because they know those OS and they fulfill the their expectations on how computers are suppose to run.

So, instead of trying to get users to adopt a certain Linux distro we need to change tactics. Let's match the distro to the user, that way users will get the experience that will make them most likely to stick with Linux.

Rather than name a single Linux distro as the king of the hill, let's separate distros into categories defined by their target audience. That will make it easier for users to pick the distro that best matches their needs and expectations, by giving them the package that better suits the way they use their computer.

What we need, is a solid base on which to build those distros. We already have the engine to run them, that being Linux. All that's left is to have to add the rest of the software.

There great web browsers like Firefox and Chrome. On the office suite side there's LibreOffice to begin with, and the list goes on.

So, let's shift some of the focus to the user experience without loosing the great things that Linux and the distros already have. We need to give users something that will not only make them want to stay, but to share with others around them. 

It can be done. If we want to see Linux being even more successful than it already is, there is no other way to do it.

Users must be the ones choosing which desktop environments survive...

When it comes to desktop environments, having several options is a good thing. I like the idea of having different desktop environments available, because it give the users a choice about which one to use.

No two people work the same, or have the same way of doing things, so being able to select a desktop environment that better fits the way the user does things is a good thing have. Not only that, it gives the user, and distros, the option to change to another one if the desktop environment developers take a road that they disagree with.

At the end, it's a good thing to have since it means that people are free to choose what fits better.

The desktop environment should shouldn't get in the way of the user's work flow as it can. It should be almost unnoticeable to the user as it can be, as if it isn't there as all.

One size doesn't fit all, and user's shouldn't be forces to accept a desktop environment just because someone else says they have to. User's should have the freedom to select what desktop environment works for them, and their choices shouldn't be limited by any one else.

A desktop environment success should be determined by how many users adopt it because they like it, and want to use it, not because it was forced to them to use.

If users flock to 2-3 desktop environments, that good. Let the users be the ones who determine which ones survive, and how many of them can co-exist in the market.

Technology has become almost invisible...

It's impressive how most technology out there goes almost unnoticed. Thing like computers, mobile phones, HD flat TVs, even cars loaded with computing capabilities that no one though possible a few years ago.

We are so used to have technology in our lives, that we have arrived to the point that we don't really notice it. We expect it to work, and since it mostly does it's notices when it stops doing what it's supposed to do. We like it or not, we have become dependent on technology to get through our daily routines.

Also, we expect it to become even more helpful, and do thing better, with each passing day. We expect, and want, that with every new version of any gadget some new feature to be added. Or at least, it does things better than the last version.

But, the catch is that we don't want out gadgets change much. We want them to be familiar, and not to have to relearn to use it with every new version. And if we need to do things differently, we expect to be able to transition almost seamlessly to the new version. After all, technology is supposed to adapt to us, not the other way around.

I do believe that most tech companies are doing a good job. They are coming with new technologies that are making life easier in a wide range of subjects. Which are good news for all of us, since this will not just make life easier for people. It will help to improve our quality of life.

Don't be a jack of all trades...

Let's face it, no software is perfect or fits every user needs. All depends what the software is needed for, and how it was developed.

It's important to keep in mind that users needs are not the same, in a sense in some case the one size fit's all isn't the best way to do things. That's why software that tries to do everything doesn't really strike the sweet point, and disappoints everyone. When you try to cover everything, you never do anything well enough to give users a good reason to adopt your software.

There are few areas where it's acceptable to cover several things in one, but in most cases it's not a good idea.

In a way that's why I think that Linux has an advantage, since it can be tailored to fit as tightly as to the target users need it to be. If they need a general purpose OS, it can be that.

But if they need something really specific, you can build it to meet those specifications with ease. At the end, it's up to what users need Linux to do and how they need Linux to get things done. After all, Linux is the engine that runs the OS you want to build.

In a sense, what you need to build around Linux is the car that suits your needs.

That you can do it, and then redistribute it, freely is what makes Linux so flexible. It empowers users to do what they need to do, as they need to do it, knowing that they can do it within very acceptable rules. Rules that don't restrict them to do things their way.

Linux truthfully gives users freedom to do.

Let's talk to people about Linux in a different way...

For me, one of the main reasons why Linux distros aren't that successful is the way they are promoted.

Many tend to focus on the technical side, which most people don't really fully understand or really care about. For most those are just numbers, or technical jargon, that means little since they don't really know how to translate on how it will benefit them.

If there is to be a gain of new users, the focus needs to change to what people want from they computers. They want them to be easy to use, and that it just works when they need them to.

To get them to realize that there are many Linux distro that easy to use, and that they come with all the software people needs or wants, direct interaction is crucial. Just telling how easy it is to use this or that distro, or showing a video, is far from enough. Hands on experience, ideally with someone that helps them understand what's going on, is the best way to get people to make the switch.

Of course technical specifications need to be given, but shouldn't be the priority or given at the beginning of the interaction with a person that's new to Linux or is just the average computer user. As I said before, their focus is elsewhere.

Let's talk to them in a way we communicate how Linux can help them do what they want, in a better way. More importantly, let's talk to them with respect. Their focus is different, but just as good as any other.

Control should be on the user's hands...

It seems that a lot of people have a problem with Linux, and FOSS at large, not having a central governing body telling users what they should be using and how they should be using it.

Rather than a central authority making all the mayor choices, there are a series of communities building what works for them. An contrary to popular belief, most of those use common code much more often than not. Only on certain areas, where there is no other way or because it was decided like that, not compatible code is made for that particular part of the program.

Linux is not broken, as much as it's customized to the needs of a particular community or group. But the baseline is compatible to all distros, so most software will work with most of them. Only the software that's coded for a specific distro, or user interface, won't be available for all distros.

The fact that communities, and individuals, can make choices about where they want to take the software they use is not a weakness. It's actually a mayor strength, since it gives the user the control over what goes on her or his computer.

Users should be the ones making choices about what they run on their computers, and forming communities around those needs to be able to service them. If they want to move to another community for whatever reason, it's up to the user to make the choice.

There is no need for a central body to direct what users need. If there should be a central body, is to give the standards to build software that can work nicely with all platforms.

Control over each user system, should always remain with the user.

A lot of bias...

There are still many reactions about the Apple vs Samsung case, and most of them seem to be really biased to Apple's side or just plainly to the closed source side of software development.

Of course there are some that are biased toward Android, claiming that Apple is all evil. Going to either extreme is equally wrong, and following that path is not a good thing for anyone. Yet, it seems that many are not that willing to see the other's side point of view.

Let's face it, Apple's lawsuit against Samsung is not only about patents or protecting any market share. Is also about feeling threatened, and instead of making their products better they want to keep their competitors out by not letting them do anything that might compete directly with them.

Yes, Samsung made their phones similar to Apple's. Yet, if you pay attention to what you are buying there is little chance any one will get confused. Most of the people that buy a Samsung's handset do so knowing is not an iPhone, making the choice because what Samsung offers is better for them.

At the end, the lawsuit wasn't just about defending their work. It was mainly to get competition out of their way.

Ubuntu 10.04 spotted...

Today I had the pleasant surprised when I spotted Ubuntu 10.04 running on a package delivery company computers. These computers are set on the reception area, where one gets the packages to be sent.

It made me feel good, because it proved my point that Linux distros can be used in any setting. Not only that, package delivery companies need software that is specially reliable and easy to use.

The need of reliability steams from their need to be able to keep track of packages continuously, and to be able to put into the system new orders as they arrive. They can't know how many packages the clients will bring, or if all will go to the to the same destination.

It's also important for it to be easy to use, since many of the people who interact with the system doesn't have advanced technical skills. So, it's crucial that the software is easy to use, but robust enough for the task at hand.

And Ubuntu has the right balance of robustness and ease of use. Because of this, for me it was no wonder that they where running Ubuntu in such a critical part of their operations.