Retina display is a high definition display...

When I heard a coworker saying that Apple's relied solely on GPU's for it's resolution I was kind of expecting for him to be joking, since he does know about computers.

Yet, he really didn't know that the GPU was only part of the game. It seems that he doesn't know that the display also plays a major role for the the high definition that Apple's computers support. Not only that, he was at a lost on the fact that support for such high definition could be implemented on GNU/Linux and Windows.

The key part is that the ability to run high definition is not only based on hardware, you also need the software to support it. If the OS you run doesn't have the implementation to run high definition, you won't get it no matter how many GPU's you have nor the fact that you have a display that supports it.

The fact that Mac OS X looks the way it does has to do with the fact that the display supports the high pixel density needed. It helps to have a GPU to help run the show, but you still need the high definition display to be able to run have that level of resolution.

Thoughts on cracking...

One thing that has been making my mind spinning, is the comments made by some people casually talking about cracking software. It basically turned around the fact that it was cheaper than buying the original, or they did it just to feel that they could out do the security of the software they cracked.

What bothered me somewhat, is the fact that one of them didn't seem to be bothered at all about stealing the hard work of other. On the other hand, that the price of that software is keeping people from using such a powerful tool as the computer can be.

Both sides of the matter are plain wrong, since they mean that people don't really benefit either from the hard work they did on making the software. Meanwhile, the price means that they simply can't afford to learn series of skills that are needed in a world where computers are ever more integrated to our daily activities at work and at play.

Yet, free and open-source software(FOSS) is a viable alternative to prevent having to use cracking software, while giving people the chance to afford a computer with all the modern tools they need to learn the skills they would ever need. It empowers, both developers and users, to have a legal and affordable way to access the software they need use without having the cost barriers  that proprietary software imposes to them.

It's not just about money, it's about being ethical and fair on how we treat others work while having the software tools needed to be able to learn the skills needed to work and play.

There are alternatives out there that can be used without having to use to cracking on 

software. We need to extend their use, and let people know that they exist and that they can be as easy to use as the software they currently use.

Project: Community Computers, an example to follow...

One in a while I come across projects like Project: Community Computers really make my day. But this project in particular peaks my interest more than usual, because it's an example on how open source can be a great tool to make a difference on peoples life by providing them with the tools they need to have a better future.

The freedom that FOSS(Free and Open-source Software) gives to organizations like Project: Community Computers, is quite impressive and not easily dismissed. It grants them the opportunity to do great things, be the agent of change they need to be in our society.

The combination of people doing something to help other and FOSS, is one that I want to see being replicated a lot more. We need to give those people the tools they need to build themselves a better future, without chaining them to a particular software or hardware. They already face to many obstacles, so why burden them with another if we can avoid it?

All software, and the hardware it runs on, should be at the service of the people who use it. If it imposes any restriction on how, and where, it can be used it doesn't fulfill  the service it should be doing for the people who use it. The people who actually use it, should be the one making all decisions in every respect on the software.

In other words, people should completely own the software they run. Companies can't have a say on how we use the software once it's on our hands.

That's why projects like Project: Community Computers are so important. If you can, please help the project to reach their goal.

Firefox OS finally comes to Mexico...

This weekend I saw that a two smartphones using the Firefox OS just arrived to Mexico, via Movistar. They are priced at $999.00 MXN, or about $75.79 USD, which is priced quite well for someone like me.

Yet, what I like the most about having a couple of smartphones running the Firefox OS, is that now there are two open source mobile OSes available on the market. Which is great news for people like me, like want open source software to power their devices.

Until now, if you wanted an open source OS you had to go to Android. The only choice was which make and model you could pick, which is not that bad but not enough for my taste. With Firefox OS, you get more room to select what's better for you. Yes, there are only two devices running it on a single carrier, but I hope that it soon will extend to more manufactures and other carriers.

At least now, I'm pretty sure I'll make the jump to Firefox OS on the Alcatel One Touch Fire model.

The Internet does not solve anything, it enables the solution...

One of the main reasons why the Internet should be free and open all humanity, is because it has become one huge library of human knowledge. As such, it's one of the most important tools to share and access that knowledge in the easiest and efficient way by all.

While it's true that the Internet in itself won't ever solve anything, it gives people access to the necessary information to be able to solve what they need to. Also, by allowing people to share information with each other in an while not having to be at the same place at the same time it empowers individuals to be an agent of change.

As with books, television and radio, the Internet is just a channel by which information flows. The main difference is that the Internet that flow goes not only to the person consuming that information, the person can actually interact with that information in many ways. And many of those interactions can be in ways that the originator didn't intended.

The Internet is constantly evolving, changing and adapting to what and how people. It's a reflection of what the humanity does in real time, and many respects that Internet is as chaotic as we. We change the Internet as much as the Internet changes us, each passing day Internet and humanity are becoming ever more integrated. It's hard, almost impossible, to say where any of this is going to take us.

I only hope we can master the greatest tool for change for the better.

Free and open source software and strong encryption, our best allies...

News about how our information is being intercepted, or how our computers can be compromised either by hackers or by back doors built into it by the vendor for whatever reason. This means that our information and rights are under constant attack, meaning that we need to defend ourselves and be aware on how to protect our computers.

This where free and open source software and strong encryption tools comes in, since this combination means that the software is our best bet that is safe and it doesn't have any back doors that could compromise our information stored on it. The encryption can give us two locks, one is that it if someone gets the information we have, they can't read it since they won't have key to it's decryption. On the other hand, encrypting the information we send over the Internet, means that if it's intercepted it will be unreadable to the people who did so.

Depending on proprietary software, and not encrypting our information, is the best way to loose control of our information and to give away our privacy away. There is always a risk that we can get our system compromised or that our privacy is intruded without our consent, but with by using free and open source software along side encryption we can minimize that risk.

Now, more than ever, it's time to start doing these two things.

That OS X 10.9 Mavericks is free doesn't impress me at all...

So, OS X 10.9 Mavericks has been released and the upgrade from the previous version will be free. If I haven't been getting a great OS for free for years, since I've been using Ubuntu for 4 years as my main OS.

It bugs me is that while the new OS X will be free as it cost nothing, it's not really free in way that respects people's rights the way free and open source software does. Mavericks is still tied to Apple's hardware, not to mention that the source code is not available to be studied, modified and redistributed by users freely.

While Apple does make some good software and hardware, it really bugs me the level of control them even after you buy them. Not only that, how some features are just being added to their software are made to seem as innovations introduced by them which have been around on other OSes for some time.

Yes, sometimes their version is more polished than the previous software; but the fact that there was software that did that before them still stands.

If you want a quality OS that cost you no money at all, while it truly respects your freedoms as an user you should be looking to GNU/Linux for it. There are several distros that are easy to use, and don't require you to be an expert programmer to be able to use them at all. If you get interested to learn more to tweak your OS, or other software, there are great tools and forum where you can learn to do so and contribute to the community at large.

Yes, that the new OS X comes for free is just means that you won't be giving any money for it. But, you're still quite giving away many of your freedoms to Apple.

The Ubuntu 13.10 upgrade has been going quite well...

I made the jump to Ubuntu 13.10, aka Saucy Salamander, since it came out on last Thursday. So far, I've liked the new version of Ubuntu and the experience as a whole has been great.

What I've liked the most, is the fact that the upgrade has been seamless. Other than minor things, like new icons, things have been business as usual. Which is great, since it means that I can keep going on as before with just a few things to have to get used to.

This is one of the reasons why I love Ubuntu, with every release things have been getting better while it keeps being pretty solid and stable. Ubuntu has become the OS of choice for me, and the one that I recommend each time I can. It's not perfect, yet it's the OS that better fits me and what I use the computer for.

It's one of the best options out there for people that new to open source software, and want to jump to an open source OS; while it's also pretty solid for people like me that know their way around a computer, but not want to mess to much with it.

If you want a modern, stable and user friendly OS, the new version of Ubuntu is the way to go.

Trademarks being abused...

You know trademark law is taken out of context when anyone can make this use of it. That BSA(Boy Scouts of America) can force Hacker Scouts to change its name, or face legal consequences because BSA holds the trademark on the world Scout.

It's quite offensive that anyone can deny the use of a word because of trademark. Specially in cases like this one, mainly because BSA is denying the use of the word Scout without a reasonable explanation on why Hacker Scouts are infringing on their trademark.

Besides, Hacker Scouts aren't some shady organization. What they do something beneficial for both society and the individual, by giving kids the skills to help be better prepared to face the world or simply enjoy it more. They job is a great way to introduce kids to the world of technology in a collaborative way, while using open source methods.

I believe that we need more people that work like Hacker Scouts do, because do all of a great service in our way to make a better society. Supporting such organization is something we should all do, and shouldn't be bullying them over the use of a word.

Please, visit the Hacker Scouts web page and support them if you can.

Lost hunger of knowing...

It's rather surprising how many people lose their sense of wonder, and just stop asking questions about the world around them. They seem contempt to just cruise by, without wanting to know more about whatever they come across. Some even feel threaten by anyone wanting to know more, even if the answers to the questions being ask could be beneficial to everybody.

Many fear that knowing how something works would make it less wonderful, that by the act of knowing you take value away. Knowing the inner workings of something would make it less marvelous, that it would make it less worthy in their eyes.

I don't agree at all with that at all, knowing actually makes things more wonderful. The fact that we know more about something doesn't take away, but adds to it. That we know more, means that we've more to wonder about. Knowledge about the universe we live in, not only our world, makes for a more wonderful and magnificent place.

That hunger of knowing how things work, and are related to each other, has made our lives fuller and worth living. It has added years to our lives, while being able to enjoy them in good health and has given us the chance to share more with our loved ones.

One thing that out thirst of knowing has shown us, is that there will be more questions to answer and greater riddles to solve. In many ways we might never know everything, which is a good thing because that way we can continue to move forward and be better. It's that never ending quest to know that will take us to new places.

Instead of teaching our children not to question, we need to give them the tools to do it in a way that will improve their lives. The sky is no longer the limit, I don't longer believe there is a limit if we keep looking for answers.

Open development for security protocols and standards...

One of the good things that came from what was leaked Edward Snowden, is that security protocols and standards are being checked for flaws and vulnerabilities. Some have been found, no doubt more will come in time, with steps being taken fix them.

With all the work being done to tighten security, and people being more aware about the importance of securing their systems to protect their privacy, it's important to keep an eye on that work so that their information is safe and their privacy respected. The importance of security protocols and standards are paramount on both cases, and thus the work to harden them is vital.

That's why there is a need to have them developed in an open way, so that they can be constantly checked and improved by as a large a community as possible. They will never be completely fool proof, but the open development can help to minimize the risk by allowing patches to be submitted sooner later later.

With more of our lives taking place on the digital realm, the protocols and standards used to protect our information can't continue to be developed behind closed doors. People need, and should have the right, actually know how what they use to protect themselves work and be able to study it freely. All development should be carried out openly, in a way where the validation of those protocols and standards takes the input of a wider community.

Security will be enhance with more people working together to make it better in an open and collaborative environment, not with less people working behind closed doors.

The right combination...

I've thinking about getting a tablet, yet I don't really think that it would be all that useful for me. My needs are better covered by the laptop smartphone combo, and tablets don't really fit my needs.

When sitting at home, the laptop computer is a lot better for me. I still use the keyboard a lot to write both on my blog or emails. While on the go, the smartphone fits my needs since it allows me to write short messages, share photos or short thoughts in a more practical way for me.

The combination of computer, smartphone and tablet is still rather dependent on how do you access information and if you need to create things using a computer. What any person should get is dependent on what they are going to do with those devices, since that device needs to conform to what that person needs to do with it.

What most people will have in common in most cases, is that we all are going to be using smartphones while on the go since they are the most convenient way to access or share information quickly when you just want do it quickly and you're aren't going to do it for a long period of time.

Tablets and laptops are easier to use for extended periods of time, just that they excel at different things. Tablets, for the time being, are better suited for consuming media and information. Their format suits better to consuming, rather than creating, content. I don't doubt that in the near future you'll be able to create content as easily on them, as you do on a computer, yet the time is not now.

Computers are still the best way to create content, specially work that need a lot of computing power. Also, it's more comfortable to work for extended periods of time on a computer than it is on a tablet.

For me, the perfect coordination is the laptop-smartphone.

What could have been...

While I was reading this article at Ars Technica, I couldn't help but to feel a bit of sadness and nostalgia. I really liked Nokia's mobile phones, and I had high hopes for their Symbian OS. By the time they released the N8 smartphone with Symbian^3 on it, I was really hopeful about the OS.

Another thing I really liked, was that Nokia had open sourced Symbian and that made it an option for me. The idea that my favorite mobile brand used an open sourced OS was very appealing, since I enjoyed using it. I would loved to see Nokia throwing it's weight behind Symbian, so that by now there would be two open source mobile operating systems at the market. The other being Android, which has matured a lot since it was released.

In a way, I'd have loved to see Nokia adopting Android when it stop using Symbian on their smartphones. In that case, I would still be on Nokia's field. In many ways, I felt betrayed when by the switch to Windows. Ever since they did so, I haven't even considered buying anything from Nokia. Before that, I was loyal to Nokia.

Now, it's to late for any kind of change. Seems that Nokia really went south, and it got lost somewhere only to become somewhat irrelevant at the smartphone arena.

It's a shame where Nokia has come, it comes to show that the future is not certain for anyone.

Sad mishandling of information...

One of the virtues of the Internet, is that it democratizes the flow of information. It allows individuals to share information, or to access it, in various ways, in any format they dim to be more convenient and at any time they have the chance to do so. Those who are interested on that information can access it the time that suits them best, and redistribute it to others that might find such information interesting or valuable.

More than ever before, the flow of information is free to flow not only from hand to hand or to a hand full of people. Now, information can be flow much faster and to much more people than it has ever been possible. Not only that, it no longer has the constraints of time and location to tie it down. Information generated at one corner of the world, can reach anywhere around the world in an instant.

It's sad, and enraging, that some governments try to limit that free flow of information or use it against the people. Even worse, is when they try to get access to private information without going through the passes they legally have to access such information.

The flow of information needs to be unimpeded by no one, but the person from who the information originated from. Each of us, must have every guarantee that we have full and total control of our information, and thus the way it flows. Our information should only arrive to our intended destination, and shouldn't be tempered on transit in any way, shape or form.

If the government thinks it needs to intercept it, it should be made to give a valid reason before it's allowed to intercept it to read it. The government shouldn't be able to do so without proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that it has a valid argument to do so.

While information is a common good, that belongs to us all, not all information should be treated like that. Some information is private to the individual, and that information should be treated as the property of that individual. All other information, specially that the is comes from public areas, needs to remain in the hands of the public.

The flow of information should be unimpeded, at all times, so we all can access it on equal terms.

Development doesn't define free software...

There is a lot of people who argue that free software should be developed on a community level, and there is a lot of resentment when it's development it's constrained to the walls of whoever needs that specific needs.

Yet, free software has nothing to do with how it's developed. It's about being able to access to the source code to study it, to modify it as you see fit, and to redistribute it without any restrictions that hinder you from doing so. If the license has no restrictions on those attributes, it's free software independently on how it's developed.

The choice of how to develop any free software is from the people who are going to be develop it, and it has to suits their needs. At the end, development is independent complying with what free software guidelines ask for.

If you don't want to use free software that isn't developed directly by the community, don't use it. But, that doesn't give you the right to go around telling people don't to use it or speak ill of those who choose to to develop their software without the help of the community.

The community should be picky about developers actually complying with what free software licenses ask them to, and not how develop their software. If they give free access to their source code to be studied, modified and redistribute it, then it's all well and dandy. That they respect what makes free software free, is far more important than how they develop said software.

Anything else than the core values of free software, it's more about personal taste than anything else.

You got to be kidding...

It's hard to take any legal system seriously, when just about anyone can sue over how a word is used to name a group or a product without taking the context of how it's used into account.

The lengths some take in order to "protect" what they think of as their intellectual property is just plain wrong. A case that comes as a perfect example of this point is the Boy Scouts of America treating to sue a group called Hacker Scouts over the use of the word Scouts.

I don't really know why should the Boy Scouts of America need to do this, since Hacker Scouts are dedicated to teach children raging from eight to 12 do protects having to do with science and engineering. Which is not the things that Boy Scouts do, but not something that is demeaning or that's unlawful.

Other than that both are Scouts, the other thing that both organizations have in common is that fact that both give out badges that earn by completing projects.

I can't see how anyone could confuse the two, or why Boy Scouts of America could have a problem with an organization like Hackers Scouts being scouts too. Both organizations are doing things that are great for both society and individuals, yet are doing so by different means.

Hacker Scouts should be allowed to keep the Scouts for their name, since I don't see them misusing the word or how they could be confused with the Boy Scouts. The organization is doing a great thing to promote science and engineering among kids, which is needed if we want to keep our world getting better for all.

I leave you the links to the page of the Hacker Scouts page and to the article in Ars Technica with the Boy Scouts of America actions against them below: 

http://www.hacker-scouts.org/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/be-prepared-to-litigate-boy-scouts-pressures-hacker-scouts-to-drop-scouts/

Spread the word, and support Hacker Scouts to keep their name.

Jumping to GNU/Linux isn't as complicated as many say...

As someone that uses both Ubuntu and Windows on daily basis, I find it odd when I hear that you can't most of the things you can do with Windows on an machine running Ubuntu(or with any other GNU/Linux distribution for that matter).

While it's true that there is some software that's only available on Windows, it's hard not to come across with an analog on the GNU/Linux camp that can do the job at least as good than it's Windows counter part. For general computer users, in many cases there are actually several options to choose from to fit their needs.

For example, on Ubuntu you can use Firefox or Chrome to browse the Internet. There are several chat clients, like Pidgin and Empathy, if you are an active user of those services. Even Skype is available on Ubuntu, you can keep in contact with those of your friends and family who use it on regular basis.

If you need a robust office suite to work with, you have the option to use LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice, among others. With them, you get all the thing you expect to come with a modern office suite.

These are just some of the examples, in many cases I've found that there are just some very specific needs that are obstacle to make the jump to an GNU/Linux distribution. The main reason I've come across, is the fact that a software needed hasn't an analog the GNU/Linux camp, or migration isn't possible because isn't practical to move the data.

After about four years of continuous use of either Ubuntu or Linux Mint, I can say I don't miss Windows at all. I found the transition to be quite easy, even thought there were some hurdles they where easy to ever come.

Most of those hurdles where just little habits, that I was able to change in a few days of constant use of the new operating system. Yet, I found that all the software I needed is available and works well. Some of the harder problems I came with, where solve fast with some visits to forums on the Internet.

It's important to note, that you don't need to have to much of a technical know-how to use Ubuntu or Linux Mint. While having it won't hurt, and helps to do some advance things, you won't be hindered on the use of Ubuntu or Linux Mint for every day shores like browsing the Internet or listening to your music.

If you want to have an operating system that gives you the freedoms that come with FOSS, and it's easy to use, I highly recommend using Ubuntu or Linux Mint. So, come on and join us on this side of the fence.

Building from a common pool...

Another of the things that are beneficial about FOSS(Free and open-source software), is that it gives developers and programmers a common pool of code to work on. Thus, their work is make easier and faster since they get to use the foundations set by other before them.

Not only that, it allows to innovations and improvements to come to the existing pool of code a lot faster. It also means that those innovations and improvements to spread a lot faster, since they are set on the common pool used by the people who actively use it to make their software. Meaning that all the software made from that pool shares from those improvements as they come.

From the user point of view, using FOSS means that they get software that is compatible with other software that draws from the same pool. In essence, it means that the user is software built from a standard that gives the freedom to know that the data used isn't dependent on a the software being used, but on the code that came from the common pool. The jump to another software can be done a lot easier, since there is the option of using another software that it's built from the same pool of code or the users can build their own software using the pool if there is no option already available.

In many ways FOSS gives programmers, developers and users a way to build standards that are freely available to all who need to use that pool of code. It democratizes software, by allowing anyone interested in using the code to use it or to give to in the best way they can.

By using a common pool of code to build software, there is more incentive to keep an eye on it by the community that makes use of it. To have robust and secure code at the pool, becomes vital to all since any vulnerability or bad code puts everyone at risk. It also means, anyone can contribute code that improves on it or secure vulnerabilities while all can check it for any flaws to make sure it adds value.

Drawing from, and giving to, a common pool means that all that do so are at least partially responsible to keep that pool healthy and safe to use.The effort to do that is shared by a lot more people, all of who have some stake on making sure that the pool is as good as it can get.

Freeware is not the same as free software...

There is the misconception that just because you can get software free of cost, it means that it's free software. This is not the case, free software can cost money and still be free software; while close source source software can be given away.

What make software free software, is not the price. What makes it free software is that the user can freely study the source code, make modifications and distribute the resulting software without any restrictions whatsoever. The price of the software isn't what makes free software, is that fact that there are no restrictions to access it's source code.

When there are restrictions on imposed on the use of software, but it's given away for free, then it's freeware. Freeware can be both, open source or closed source(proprietary) software, since it just means that it's given away for no profit.

Free software can be for profit, if it allows their users free access to their source code to be studied, modified and distributed by users.

It's sad most people don't understand this difference, since proprietary software greatly restricts users freedoms by limiting how they can use software they own. And now more than ever, there is a need to move to free software since it's the best way to keep our freedoms and privacy.

Free software is not something for geeks, or technically proficient people. Free software can be easy to use, and easily accessible for people with any level of technical knowledge. Some examples of how free software that is easy to use are Firefox and Ubuntu, or Android on the mobile realm. The point is, that free software is the best tool people have to protect and enact their freedoms.

The governments has shown how willing is to take our freedoms, and some companies have shown that they are more than willing to help the governments who do so. Free software is the best, and perhaps, the only option to at least keep them at bay.

So, let's start by not confusing free software with freeware.

The importance of privacy...

The data that each individual generates, should belong only to the individual who generates. Thus, each individual should be the one who can access it and how much of it they can see.

Our privacy is based on our control over the data we create. So, we need to keep doing all we can to make sure that our privacy is kept intact. There is no valid reason why our data should be collected and shared without our consent and permission. Every time our data is collected and stored by a third party, we should be made aware of the fact, and our permission should be obtained to do so. If we don't give our permission, out data shouldn't be stored at all.

If the government wants to investigate on us, and gather data the data we have generated, they should always have to have prove that they have a probable cause. As such, if they can't prove a probable cause it should be illegal for the government to do so.

People should be able to presume some level of privacy every where they go, at all times. Each one of us should be at control of our privacy, as such our privacy should be legally protected. If someone takes intruded on it without our permission, or a legally valid motive to do so, we should be able to do something against that.

We all have things that we want to keep for ourselves, and we need to be reasonably confident that we can keep them that way. No all that we keep private is illegal, as such we need to be entitled to privacy.

Critical thinking...

It's sad how much critical thinking is lacking, sometimes as much as common sense it seems. The lack critical thinking brings several problems, the main one being that people just accept what they are told without actually analyzing the information given to them.

The fact that people don't apply critical thinking when they receive new information, means that misinformation, even lies, become accepted by many and continue to be passed on as if they are correct. What can be more problematic, is the fact that when those pieces of information become so rooted in people's mind that are near impossible to change.

One important aspect of critical thinking that needs to be understood, is that when applied correctly the person analyzes the information handed over. It isn't about criticizing the information just because, is filtering to see if it makes sense. In a way, we are compering with the information we already have in order to see if there is something that shouldn't be there or just odd.

If there is, we need to see what jumps us as odd to see why and make the necessary adjustments.

By being critical thinkers, we aren't out there to tell people they are wrong. We are just applying a filter to new ideas and information, in order to keep the those that actually useful to apply later. In many way, it helps us to better ourselves by making sure we are get what we need in order to become better.

It's important that critical thinking becomes an ability given to every person, in order not only to build a better world. But also to give people to become better by their own hand, by being able to know what's good information when they come to it.

Critical thinking is the best tool we can give our children to better themselves, and the world, in the long run.

Curiosity should be cultivated...

Humanity has come as far as it has, because we are curious by nature. We want to know more about the world, the need to look for answers is almost an instinct.

Sadly, somehow that curiosity is hammered out during childhood. We are told not to ask, to conform with a set of answers given to us to memorize. The need to go and seek those answers by ourselves is taken away, we are told that we aren't good enough to do it.

Yet, we need to cultivate that curiosity. Instead of suppressing it, we should be giving our children the tools to look for their own answers in an effective way. Let's make being curious a good thing, something to be proud of. Curiosity brings good things for all when it's given the tools process the information found, so that the information obtained can be used in a way that benefits in as many ways possible.

There is an urgent need to cultivate curiosity, not take out. The problem isn't questioning the world around us, it's that we don't strive to understand it. If we understand the world around us, we can actually make things better for society and the individual.

It's vital for our long term survival to foment curiosity in ways that it brings positive change, we need to give it the tools to do so not suppress it. We have come so far because of curiosity, and taking away is the best way to harm our future.

How to take news about security vulnerabilities...

The thing with security in software, is not if there is a security flaw or not. It's more about how do they get handled, not to mention how fast they are fixed.

One of the things you can count upon in software development, is that mistakes will be made at some point. Some of these mistakes will be security vulnerabilities, yet focusing on them to proclaim that all is wrong is shortsighted and unfair to developers.

Instead, the focus on those security vulnerabilities should be how the developers acknowledge them and how fast they get them fixed. How they manage both of these issues is crucial for people do what must be done to secure their system by taking the appropriate actions, and to get the fix as soon as the developers get it out.

Most importantly, let's keep in mind that every piece of software out there is bound to have some vulnerabilities. So, instead of trying to find a software without them, we need to keep working ironing out vulnerabilities out. When we solve one, the odds are that another will come to take its place.

I don't trust any software developer, or company, that tells me that their software has no vulnerability at all. I trust those who keep an eye for vulnerabilities and fix them quickly when  whenever they are found. Even more when they listen to those who advice on vulnerabilities and take some action to fix the hole.

The threats that we face are also changing constantly. So, new ways to attack software to crack it open are found with time. So, we need to keep adapting to add or subtract what's needed to keep our software safe.

Software security is a never ending battle, so there will always be some vulnerability to fix. As such, we need to use and support developers that keep working on making their software safe for us to use.

Ubuntu vs Windows...

At work, I've been using Windows since it's the only option because the applications we use just run on it. I don't really mind it much, but I just can't help missing Ubuntu.

Ubuntu has become my Linux distro of choice, beating Windows by far in all the important areas for me. The time I spend using Windows at work only reinforce the fact that I'm not coming back to it any time soon, since I've grown fond of Ubuntu since it fits my computing needs and many of my views on how software should be developed.

Even though I've had some hurdles with Ubuntu, which is normal with any OS if you as me, in general Ubuntu has given me a more stable and user friendly experience than Windows ever did. Ubuntu hasn't gotten into my work flow, and with its move to Unity it has even become even less intrusive. While Windows now seems to have 1001 ways to irk me, in some cases in ways it didn't do when I was a more regular user.

I understand that Ubuntu might not be for everyone, but can think at least of a couple of more Linux distros that I would recommend even to people without prior experience with Linux. One would be Linux Mint, and the other Linux Pear. I'm not even counting the other Ubuntu based distros out there.

Many would think that having so many choices could be confusing, or that there is something wrong with some distros. Yet, it isn't the case what so ever, actually it just means that you get to choose the user interface that better suits your workflow. The core of the OS is basically the same, which means that you can run the same software regards of the distro you choose.

In a way, it's about finding the user interface that adapts to you and not you adapting to the user interface because there is no way around it.

Being able to compare Ubuntu and Windows head to head on daily basis, reaffirms that it's easier for me to change distro than to return to Windows.

Musings about what OS to choose for my next smartphone...

As much I've been having a great experience with the BlackBerry I got a couple of months ago, I can't get my find myself wanting to change to an Android, Ubuntu Touch, or Firefox smartphone when I get the chance to do so.

The main factor, is that I what my computer and smartphone to run on open source software. On my laptop I run the latest version of Ubuntu, the 13.04 release which is my favorite Linux distro.

So, I want for my smartphone to run an open source OS so both the devices that I use for my daily life follow what I believe in. It's about having devices with software built around the freedoms and ethics I want to share with the world.

In many ways, smartphones are an extension of what we believe in and reflect what we value. There are a statement of our personality and who we are, because of this I want my next smartphone to run an open source OS. The way in which open source software is developed, is how I believe all human endeavors should be pursued.

The spirit of collaboration, in a public and transparent way, should be at the core of how we should manage all enterprises we set ourselves to follow. Closes systems, that don't allow people to freely collaborate, are not beneficial for humanity as a whole.

Fortunately for me, it seem that I'm having some choice about the OS that'll power my next smartphone. And the three options fall on the open source side, a really nice thing indeed.

Common standards for a leveled playing ground...

It seems that there is a trend by some companies, to heard people to use proprietary software on locked hardware. This is bad, since it limits people by locking them to use the products of certain company and with who they can share with.

Most of those products have the habit of don't playing nice with the products made by other companies, because of a wall that really doesn't need to be there. There is no technical reason why all software can't actually play nice with each other, most of the time is a decision made to  lock people in so that they keep buying from a certain company.

That companies do this is not acceptable, and they must be stopped. We need to push all of them to build on common standards, so that we can have access to all the information available in any format, use it as we see fit and to share it with who we want. Companies, or industries and governments for that matter, have no business building walls to obstruct the free flow of information among the people. Restrictions are to be set by the people themselves, we should be the ones choosing with who and how we share whatever we choose.

The freedom to do so, empowers people by allowing them to do more by knowing more. Not only that, it mean that society can better share information and thus be more united. What's more, the simple act of being able to share with anyone else it helps to unite people together by not having artificial wall to differentiate people into groups of who has what platform.

Common standards need to become the norm, and all who wants to come play must align to the standard that applies to their field. It's in our best interest to have all players supporting those standards, so that we are free to select the best option for our needs.

On leaking governments misdeeds...

It's ludicrous that governments that proclaim that they defend the rights and freedoms of their citizens, react the way they do when one of their citizens voices concerns about some of their actions or exposes their wrongdoings.

The standard reaction to those citizens is to go after them with a vengeance, going to great lengths to get to them to assert punishments on them. They act in ways that are pretty much resemble those of, or close to, those actions of governments they tag as oppressive or irrespective or human rights. Somehow they believe that they have the moral high ground, or the right, to do those same things to their citizens.

Thus, we need to keep pushing those governments to walk the road they expect from other governments. We need to keep pushing every government to work in a transparent way, so that we all can see how they work and can't quiet down those who point to those actions that intrude our freedoms and rights.

People who brings to light those actions of governments are against to the people's freedoms need to be protected, and allowed to disclose all relevant information in formats that are available to all to access. They shouldn't be treated like criminals, since they give their fellow citizens a great service by allowing action to curtails the government's ability to take our freedoms and rights.

What's wrong is not the leaking of those actions, but the governments taking them and believing that they have the right to get away with it. The time has come to make governments aware that they can't act without the people being aware of what they do, and that the people have the right to be informed when they do something that goes against their freedoms and rights without a good cause.

It's time to take some power back, and use it to keep the governments in check

Technology gives the tools for change...

As technology that allows people to be more social, and share, almost anything permeates into society it comes with a lot of implications. One of the most important, is that authorities will have a harder time censoring or ignore our rights.

We have the chance not only to share what we do, but also share data on what the government does for good or for bad. In many ways, the people are starting to have a real chance to make sure that authorities don't do things outside of what they are supposed to do. In essence, people themselves can become the ones who keep tabs with what the government do and what they don't.

This push to make that technology freely available as widely as possible must be maintained, since it means that we can make sure the governments act in a transparent way and answer to us the people who they serve.

The world is at the verge of a power shift, and one that isn't just among states. The people can have the chance to come into the game, and have a share of that power to use it as the people see fit. The technology might not be mature enough to make that transition as wide as possible, that's why we need to keep pushing for it to come free from any government of any kind. Not only that, the companies that make those technologies must make it with free and open standards.

It's time to make governments that truly represents the will of the people they govern on, not the will of those who are in it or just a few that have the influence to pull the ropes on their favor. A democracy that truly is the will of the people, is closer than ever before to become a working reality.

The tools to build a fairer and inclusive world are either already at hand, or close to becoming a reality. We need to use the ones we already have, and push to make those that are on their way happen. Being passive is not an option, we need to go out and do something to bring about the world we want to live in.

If there is a will to change things, now we also have the tools to make things happen. Now the questions is how we do bring change along.

The true value of free software...

What many people fail to realize about free software, is where its true value resides. Most people tend to believe that the main value of free software is on the cost, focusing just on the financial side of the equation.

Cost is not where the free software main value resides, since some free software can cost quite some money and don't lose its value to the people who deploy it.

The main value of free software comes from the freedoms it gives to the users, and the fact that those freedoms make it much more flexible. This means that the user truly gets more that just the right to use or implement certain software, the user also gets the right to actually modify the software to better suit whatever need may arise at any point in time.

Any software you need, will cost you something. The cost might be money or time, but the cost is still there to be taken into account. Yet, free software gives you the power and flexibility that comes with being able to modify it without having to ask special permissions from the original developers, since those permissions are given to you to begin with.

The saying of you get what you pay for still holds some water on free software, but just by its nature it's much more flexible than any analog closed software. You just need to find the free software that better suits the needs you need covered, and have the right resources to implement it.

Free software it's not only about cost, there is so much more than that to it.

Redistribution of power...

Now we are in an turning point of history, one on which power can be redistributed in a way that it's most beneficial for the people. Not only that, we can actually take some of the power for ourselves so we can actually put to work where we need it the most.

In many ways, modern technology is allowing democracy to expand to people to have more power on their hands. There is still some way to go before we have full democracy, yet each day people has more power on their hands in order to be more self sufficient. The power of government is getting more decentralized, with much of that power going to the people.

If we want to have a more fair, and equal, society we need to be more active on this redistribution of power. Unless we act, so we can take some power on our hands, we'll lose a great chance to have a meaningful voice on the government or to be able the government itself. The government shouldn't be come from the people, it should be the people itself. In many ways, the government shouldn't just represent the people, it should be the people acting so all works according our own interests so it takes us where we want to be.

The tools to be able to do so are not just coming our way, they are getting better each passing day. Now we need to take them, and wield them in a way that allow not only to take power on our hands. We need to learn how to use them effectively, while we being able to keep the power we gain.

Our government systems need to change, since they have demonstrated that they are not the ones that we need or want to have. They not entirely represent our will, or are efficient at meeting our needs. We need to gain the the power to change our government systems, and make sure that the new systems that arise truly are the ones we need and really represent the will of the people.

We can be part of history, and not only by being in the mist of the changes around us. We can be the ones who build the world we want, in essence be the architects of our future. Are you going to be part of it, or just sit on the sidelines?

The will of the people...

The Internet, and the communication technologies that have come to run on it, have allowed to people be more empowered and have a better chance to do things without having to use traditional roads. We are able to do things for ourselves, and our communities, far more often than ever before.

People are better able to form ways self government, by applying pressure to their government officials to really address their concerns or by making them change how they did things in order for government to actually work for the people.

We are still a long way from making all the changes that need to be made to the different government systems to make them fit better the needs of their people. Yet, we are starting to make a impact on how they work and how they relate to us. Government are less able to ignore their people, or to dent the people's will for change. They have to start conceding what the people want, to a certain extent and not always as the people wanted them to.

That's why we need to keep pressuring to use the Internet in ways that pressure them to change, and start to really represent their people's will. To back down would only make things worse, since they would use the opportunity to better ensure we can't go after them and to crack on dissidence. The pressure on them to make the changes we want them to make needs not only be constant, it needs to increase as much as needed to bring the change around.

Who knows, we might come to find a better way to govern ourselves and regain the control of our lives. But we need to keep the fight on, and do all we can do to bring a better future to pass.

Standardization shouldn't be everywhere...

The extent of how much standardization should reach can be quite foolish, since it seems that many want to standardize everything. By doing so, the point of standardization is lost and made void.

While there are several things that benefit from being standardized, there are others that actually are not quite as receptive from being standardized. Standards are more of a common set of rules, that certain thing or actions should follow in order to be useful. Others have no such need, since they are going to be used in a way that it doesn't really matter if they don't play nice with others.

Standardization is useful, but it has to be applied where is needed in order for it not to become just a headache. In most cases, the standards can be applied on a limited basis in a way where it add value because it makes sense to do so.

It's foolish to want to standardize everything just for the sake of doing so. Just because in some areas standardization has done wonders, it doesn't mean that we should standardize everything. It's a matter of being honest, and be able to understand that not everything needs to be homogeneous to be good. In some cases, just the standard should limit itself to the process of doing something not the product itself.

Let's not forget that standards are not something sacred, that are to be applied everywhere just for the sake of doing so. By doing so, we take value out of them. There are aspects of life that are worth more as they are.

General use standards need to be open...

When a standard is made, specially one that is meant for general use, that may include any component that may require the payment of royalties it has failed from the onset. Any standard made to use by the general public needs to be made entirely free and open, so that it can be used by all on equal terms.

The moment royalties are possible, the standard is discriminating against those who can't pay since it would make that standard unusable for them. If that standard is supposed to be used by as many people or organizations as possible, it should be intrinsically open so that it can be adopted as widely as possible without having to worry possible liability of having found to be infringing of a patent or intellectual property.

The standard used to make everyone using it as a base, should come without any strings attached. The moment there is even a possibility that someone owns even a part of the standard, it defeats the main reason of having that standard.

In many ways, with society relaying on technology ever more for everyday tasks, we need the standards made open. Every piece of technology we use on our daily lives, needs to be open so that we can have access to as many options as possible. Open standards are about avoiding falling into the hands of whoever owns the standard, or most of it, taking us the chance to be able to choose what's best for us.

Not only that, if people aren't allowed to work with, or on, the standard freely we are going to be stuck without improvements to that standard for quite some time. Innovations on products would be few, and far between, since there is no incentive to make products that are distinct that those of the competition. There is no reason to improve the standard, since the main beneficiary would be who controls it, and makes most of the money from it.

It's on the best interest of the majority, that standards intended to be use as a base to be open and transparent on every respect.