Linux distros can be really easy to use...

I find it someone ironic when some people I know bash Linux based operating systems to be hard to use, while ragging as mad how easy to use their Android powered smartphones, or tablets, are to use. They seem surprised when I point out that the OS they like so much, is actually Linux based.

Many people still believe that Linux based operating systems for computers are hard to use, and still use a command-line interface. This is true that for some distros, command-line interface is the default user interface. Also, all Linux based distros allow the user to use command-line even though they use a graphical user interface by default.

The truth, is that there are several great and easy to use Linux based distros for every level of user. There are several distros that better suited for beginners, while others are targeted for power users. The distro to used is determined by each user, and what they need from the distro for their daily routines.

Linux based operating systems really let the users control the experience they get from computers, by allowing them to choose from several options the one they feel more comfortable with. It might seem a bit confusing, yet there are distros where technical knowledge needed by the users amounts to just knowing how to install software on their computer. The experience they get once the OS is install, is virtually the same they already know. There is a slight learning curve, but most distros targeted for beginners such curve is not that steep.

I've using Ubuntu for some years now, and used Linux Mint for quite a while too, and if you want to try Linux I whole heartily recommend any of these options even if you are a beginner. They are easy to use, and they come with a graphical user interface for default.

Value of a fork...

Forking a project is a good thing? Yes, being able to create forks of a project is good. Having a fork, or several, of any given project gives people options, making it possible for users to be able to choose from different proposals the one that better works for them.

The real question when it comes to forks, is whether or not any values is added. If no value is added, then there is little motive for users to move to the fork and it adds to the stock of options made available to developers to work with.

Forks are valuable for the project's community at large, since they widen the capabilities of the software by adding features or simply by giving options on the way to implement it. It makes the software more robust, and less dependent on the continued existence of a single core of developers. The software can be taken to other places by other developers, without compromising the quality or the support given to keep it updated.

The value of good forks can't be overstated, since they make software better and the ecosystem healthy. They can drive innovation, since they make developers working hard to make their particular branch of the fork relevant. Users benefit the most out of this, since they get to choose among several options that need to give something of value to them in order to keep them using their offering.

Developers also benefit, since they have a wider network to rely on in order to help them solve any problem the could face. Also, it means that if they have doubts about something the odds are that there is someone that can help them.

Forks should be encouraged, but keep in mind that support should go to the ones that are add value and are well made.

Another case for FLOSS...

Another case in favor of FLOSS, is the how software can be developed. FLOSS gives a lot of flexibility, since development is not centralized it allows for software to grow more organically.

There is a more symbiotic relationship between the software and the community that grows around it, meaning that the software grows as it's community grows. Which is a great thing to have, since it means that the software is less dependent on a small core of developers. As such, the odds of it going under are a lot less than closes source projects.

The freedoms that FLOSS gives, mainly that you can study and modify the software, means that projects can be forked to better suit needs that the original development team can't, or doesn't have the intention, support. This aspect give FLOSS a lot more flexibility to better cope with the needs of users, by being able to be adapted to new environments, or just the changing needs of users.

Being able to adapt, or if needed fork, projects to better suit user need can be a lot faster. It comes to down to communities to adapt software for their purposes if the core development team doesn't do so. Forking a project can be an option, a powerful one, if there is a need to do so.

In many respects, this level of flexibility makes FLOSS a powerful for people. Specially because it empowers people, by giving us the tools to be able to build the software we need when we need it. There is no single centralized core to tell people how certain software should work, yet several nodes of people joining forces to implement the best way to do what they need to do.

It's a pairing of what people needs, with the tool they need to do the job done.

Importance of social media...

The importance of social media can not be underestimated, since it has proven to be one of the most powerful tools that people have at their disposal. In many ways, it helps people to become closer to the people and places they care about no matter the distance.

Contrary to popular belief, social media can strengthen human bonds since it helps to bridge distances and time. People can share many of the things they care about the most with the people they care about, keeping in touch easily no matter how far from the people they care about they are.

Social media also helps people to get to know new friends, and discover new things to share with others. It helps to bring the world to the tips of our fingers, it's just a matter to actually set ourselves to find it.

At the end, it's up to us how to use it. We can use it as a way to meet new people while keeping in touch with family and friends, or to isolate ourselves. That's a personal choice, that isn't made by social media itself. What we put into social media, it's what we are going to get from it.

Blaming social media for individuals isolating themselves is shortsighted, since that is only the consequence of a set of problems that were already there. Social media just gives them a way to relate to the wider world in a way they can handle better, since they know no other way to do so.

Social media can be as social as each of us makes it.

Social media...

One of the many uses of social media, and one where it's more valuable for society at large, is as an awareness generator. Through social media, there is a real chance to create awareness of relevant information that other wise might go unnoticed.

Mainly because the users of social media themselves can generate, or share, the information needed to bring attention to the issues that matter to them. Social media allows people to take their issues directly to others, so it makes it a lot easier to connect with people that can help solving the issue at hand.

Social media helps to remove obstacles, and makes it easier to for people to find the help they need.

The awareness that social media can help generate can be more useful, since it lets the people that need the help connect directly connect with the people that can help. This direct line of communication makes people to be more willing to help, since they can communicate directly with those who they help or intend to help. The level of trust that can be gained this way cannot be understated.

When people connect with people, great things can happen. And social media can be a key component to help connecting people directly, allowing them to work together in ways that before where almost unheard of.

With social media, more and more people are finding out that their voice can be heard by a wider audience. As such, they can join other people that have the same goals or had the same problems in order to find ways to solve whatever problem they have. People find out that they are not alone, and they can reach out for help or support.

Social media has the potential to play a key part on constructing a better world.

Software security...

With the Java security debacle there are several things that can be learned, mainly the importance of fixing important security bugs sooner by the developers and for users to keep their systems updated.

It also it gives strength to the point that FLOSS software is more secure than its closed sourced counter parts. Being a common good, FLOSS has the advantage that its code is continually check for this kind of security flaws. What's better, it's not only check by the people working for the original developer, but by others from outside can check the code for any vulnerability.

Adding an additional layer of protection, a fix can be offered to the core team of developers by a third party. Meaning that the processes of patching any security hole is speed up, because any security issue can be addresses a lot sooner by anyone who can patch it and sharing that patch with the community at large.

In many ways, there is more people making sure security is as tight as possible. And when a vulnerability is found, a patch can be made available a lot sooner.

Making software safe becomes not the job a small group of coders, but it's the job a all interested in making that software as secure as possible. It becomes harder to exploit any vulnerability, mainly because it goes undetected much less time.

Let's keep in mind that no software will have a perfect security bill, yet FLOSS offers the best way to keep security as tight as possible by having as much eyeballs working to making it as secure as possible.

Backward compatibility should be maintained...

If planned obsolescence wasn't bad enough on itself, the fact that many tech companies simply don't have any backward compatibility just adds insult to injury. There is no real reason why we should have to change all of our gadgets every time we change one of them.

Yes, it's true that in occasion there is some king of adapter so that the new device plays nice with the old ones. Then again, that's a solution that shouldn't be needed to begin with.

There is no real reason why there shouldn't be full backward compatibility, in most cases there is no technical reason not to have it. The reasoning is mostly financial, in order to make more money out of the user just make him have to buy again all the gadgets he already had to begin with.

Backward compatibility shouldn't be an option, it should be something that we can take for granted. In many ways, it's also a bet on the long term sustainability of our resources. The longer we can keep them working, the less resources we would be using.

At the end, we as users should be the ones deciding when to get new things and what devices we renew at any given time.

Keep your hands off our Internet...

Not a week goes by without news about someone trying to exert some sort of control over the Internet, which is worrisome because it means that those who want to do so haven't heard the voice of the people to leave the Internet alone. For the looks of it, those who seek to control the Internet as if it was their don't understand that it belongs to everyone.

That's why we all need to remain vigilant so that the Internet remains free, with no single entity having control over what happens on it.

There seems be a push to try to link the medium, the Internet, with the message, the content, to be accounted as one as the same. This can't be further from the truth, since they are different from each other by their very nature.

The medium belongs to everyone, so we all can make use of it as we see fit. The message belongs to the one who created it, and it's use is to be decided by the creator.

What should be regulated should be the contents, who can access it and how. The Internet should remain free and unobstructed, so that we can share and distribute our content as we see fit. It's vital that people can use the medium equally, and not being discriminated on how they can use it to spread their message.

The Internet belongs to all of us, so it follows that us should be the ones regulating it. That's why we need to remain vigilant that no one takes the Internet out of our hand, matter what they say.

Hacking can be used for our benefit...

Hacking in itself isn't evil, or bad, as some would like people believe. Within certain limits, it can actually be good for everyone.

What's wrong about hacking, is when it's used to steal or damage others. That's wrong, and it shouldn't be avoided.

Yet, when it's used to enhance our things in a way that benefits our community, hacking should not only be allowed. It should be encouraged, so that people that hacked the device can come forward and share how they did so more people can benefit from that new feature.

Hacking is not good or bad in itself, but what is being used for. There should be room for it, but only when it's used in ways that benefit people. Specially since hacking can give rise to forks from an original, so that areas that weren't covered can be covered if there is a need for it.

In more ways than one hacking can be a blessing, yet for it we need to foster a more people able to do those hacks. Even more importantly, we need to impart those hackers with strong ethics so that they check themselves from doing harm.

At the end of the day, hacking can be one of the driving forces for change.

Success of your project it's up to what it brings...

It's somewhat interesting to note that many point how open source is not a good model to follow, having a big number of open source projects that failed as proof. But that many open source project fail, it doesn't mean that the model is bad.

It all comes to how good,and useful, each project it really is for users. If it's good, and well implemented, projects become successful and gathers a vibrant community around it. This community is then the one that helps to develop and refine ti further, allowing the project to grow.

And even if a project dies, it doesn't mean it's a complete failure. In some cases the code, or ideas behind the project, go on to be part of established project or become the staring point of new ones.

Yet, even if projects live on, the ideas and code behind them are shared with other projects. Communities tend to share ideas, and knowhow, with each other. Meaning that most projects cross pollinate each other. Most importantly, in open source culture, this cross pollination occurs on the open and public manner. There is an understanding that doing so it actually more helpful to the whole open source community, than doing so behind closed doors.

As in any facet of human life, there will be ideas that die out while others will last longer until a better one replaces them. Open source just reflects this more closely, making it look the community a lot more chaotic than other models. And this is because it's open, so people can see the inner workings.

So, open source as a model is not what determines if a project will be successful or not. Success is entirely up to the project and its managers, if they have something in their hands and know how to deliver the project will succeed.

It's up what you bring to the table what determines success, not the table itself.

The importance of the OS...

I wonder how comes there are so many people out there than don't really understand what an OS is, and how any restrictions on how the user work on it really affects the user.

The work of an OS is to act as an intermediary between the user and the hardware itself. In a nutshell, the OS job is to take user input and to tell the hardware what to do in order to get the desired result. Then, it takes that result back to be displayed in a way the user can understand.

Not every OS does this in the same way, all depends for the environment a particular OS is designed to work at. Not only that, it also changes because of the way the designers of the OS thought it was best.

In many ways, what OS is better comes down to what it's expected from it. Like any other tool, an OS can be customized to better suit the needs of the end user. Those needs are the same most of the time, that's why general use OSes like Windows, OS X and many of Linux distros are what most people need. Their purpose fit well the computing needs of the average user, since all that they need to do on daily basis can be done with a general use OS.

The only specific case OSes out there on general user, are those used on mobile phones. These OSes, like iOS and Android, are specially coded for use mobile phones, since they have specific needs to be accounted for.

In many ways, the OS is what allows us to interact with our computers and our other electronic devises. And the user should be the one controlling how the OS works, not the OS controlling how the user work. Not only that, since the OS is a vital part of our systems, we need to make sure that when we install it on our computers all the keys on how it works are given to us. Even if we don't use all the keys, there is no good reason for the vendor to hold back any of them.

No matter how good an OS is, if it restricts users freedoms or not allows for user tweaking, it should be avoided like the plague. User safety is not a good reason to restrict, or take away, any freedom from the user. The user should have all information at hand to protect his system.

For true freedom of choice for users...

In many ways, instead of asking how many software platforms can the market deal with isn't as important as many think it is. The most important question is how do ensure that all software platforms play along with each other nicely, which is something of vital importance to both users and developers.

Why making software platforms that play along nicely more important the number than the number of platforms? Mainly because restricting the number of platforms a user has access to, also restricts the user's ability to choose the platform that better suits his, or her, particular needs. Users should be the ones shaping the market, not the market shaping the users.

The answer to this problem is both simple and complex at the same time, since the to get to the point where an user can choose any software platform there needs to be open standards for all to work with.

Having open standards simplifies things for all mainly because we all would have the same things to work with, meaning that one doesn't have to worry about on what platforms will it work with. Which means that users can focus on what platform works better for their particular work flow, while developers can focus on adding value to their platforms.

The problem mainly resides on creating and maintaining those standards truly open for all those who need to work with them. The temptations to try to keep potential adversaries out will always be there, and not sharing updates to the standard in order to have an edge over competition.

Not only that, some companies have vested interests in making sure that open standards don't become the norm.

So, it's on the users and small developers, to make sure that open standards to become the norm. For users having them means true freedom of choice, and for small developers means a more lever playing field with access to a wider audience.