The role of the code of conduct...

Looking around Reddit, I stumbled upon this Open Content & Software Magazine post asking if there is a need for a code of conduct for developers at the FLOSS community, and if anyone would follow it.

In short, the answer is yes in both cases. There is a need for a code of conduct and people who would follow them, but I'm not sure if only one code of conduct would suffice or would be followed by the community at large.

As such, we should be honing specific codes of conduct depending on the specific community where it will be applied. Most importantly, each community should make it's code of conduct and enforce it. A code of conduct that doesn't comes from the community, is doomed to fail from the onset.

It's vital that each community comes up with its own code of conduct, even if the whole community isn't engaged on coming out with it. At least the people who are seen as the leaders should be, as representatives of each of the groups that make up the community. If the community doesn't look at the code of conduct as valid, it will never work.

At the end, codes of conduct are essential to keep communities together. They give a guideline of what is expected of the members, and help to bring the community together around a set of values.

Codes of conduct help to know what to expect, and as such make the community they are in to be a lot more stable.

There always will be people who break codes of conduct, yet that doesn't make them useless. You need to find the community with the code of conduct that best fits what you believe. If not, your find yourself feeling uncomfortable or simply not fitting in.

There is a need for a code of conduct, and there are going to be people who follow it. But, there will be more than one.

Surveillance is just a tool...

As this post at wired.com, saying that you don't have nothing to hide is not the right way to make a case for or against surveillance. Surveillance in itself is not something good or bad, it's a tool that can be helpful in many ways from keeping us safe to learning new things.

The post makes a good point about how anything we do can be illegal somewhere. Not only that, laws evolve as society does. As such, things become legal or illegal with time as society views changes overtime or to accommodate technological changes. To add complexity to something that is already hard to follow, the law books reflect the way the views of the society that codify them.

As such, we all have done something that it's illegal somewhere at some point in time. Not because we are bad, or criminals, but because the laws are different at different places. Even within a same country, laws may differ between different states and counties. So, if we let law enforcement agencies know everything we do, can get us into problems we don't imagine or need if those agencies decide to act even if out actions are legal where we made them.

Yet, the case against surveillances is not just a legal one. Some of the things we want to keep private have nothing to do with law. Rather, they have to do with things that we want to keep private, or simply we don't want to share because we would feel embarrassed if other people knew of what we do.

Privacy should be a right of everyone, and one that we could take for granted. Each individual needs to be able what he, or she, wants to share and with whom, and what will remain private. No person, government, company, or agency should be able to have unrestricted access to what we do or say freely. Yes, there are public and private places, and the level of privacy we can expect of each is not the same. But even at the public space, we should be able to assume that we won't be subjected to surveillance the whole time we spend on it. And on the private sphere, surveillance should only be conducted if there is a reasonable expectation that something illegal is being done.

At the end, we all have something to hide for whatever reason.

Encryption is not the enemy...

I find it amusing, ironic and a bit sad that Blackberry blasts Apple for its use of encryption to protect their user's privacy. In more than one way, I didn't see coming something like this from Blackberry, who's encryption software is one of the best and the reason many of its costumers use it to begin with.

But most importantly, while it's true that criminals and terrorists make use of encryption, using as that an argument against encryption is a fallacy. Encryption isn't the most important tool than enables criminal or terrorist actions, or makes it impossible to conduct or collect data to prevent or punish those actions. Most importantly, that encryption can be used to do bad doesn't take away that most uses are legit and it protects the privacy of good people.

Saying that it was because of encryption, that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are not able to prevent crime and terrorism is shortsighted and at the verge of being a lie.

To be honest, intelligence gathering is not confined to what it gathers on our electronic communications or devices like smart phones or computers. To say that whole investigations depend on being able to access these things is insulting and speaks poorly on how those investigations are conducted. Crimes, and terrorism, are also planed on the real world. Most importantly, some of those crimes happen in the real world. As such, they leave evidence in other forms.

As such, there is a need for law enforcement, intelligence agencies and politicians to stop blasting encryption as the enemy of good people and the friend of those who do evil. It's a tool that can be used for good or ill, and there is making it better for the the people who want to protect their privacy. On the other hand, those who used for bad need to be punished for their actions not for their use of encryption.

At the end, bad people will do their needs with or without encryption.

Embrace open source...

I find it ironic that most of the biggest software and hardware companies are using open source to build their own systems, they keep telling their costumers that they should put their trust on proprietary systems.

It seems that foolish that those companies that use open source to build their system, don't embrace open source on the costumer side. In a way, they are losing on the most important side of open source software and hardware. After all, who would be more interested in making their software and hardware even better than the costumers who use it.

Costumers invest more than money on the systems they use, they also invest time and build expertise on those systems they use. With this in mind, it makes sense to let the costumers that use your system to actually be able to freely contribute to make the system as a whole better.

After all, they are more likely to find things to improve or bugs to fix since they come to scenarios that are hard to replicate in other way than the day to day use on the field. So, just listening to your costumers needs is not enough since you might not have the time or interest to make the changes some of them ask for. This is why letting your costumers modify, and more importantly, contribute back the changes they need vital to the long term success of any company.

By allowing your costumers to freely study, modify, and exchange those modifications among themselves can win more loyalty than any other thing a company can do on itself. In a way, all companies should strive make the hackers of their product an important part of their community. They can help them to build a better product, and bring more people aboard by showing them what your software or hardware can do.

Open source is not the enemy, but a powerful ally to build a better product and a strong community around it.

Encryption is not the enemy...

After the terrorist attacks in Paris last week, many have called encryption as something that we need to give up in the name of safety. Many of those voices say that encryption enabled the terrorists to carry out their attack, because it made it's movements to pass undetected.

The truth is far more complex, and encryption was not an major factor in the terrorist ability to carry out the attacks. The whole intelligence gathering apparatus failed, since there are many other ways to gather information about people.

Focusing on the communications made via smart phones, or the information stored on a hard drive, is to narrow. People moves no only on a virtual world, but they also need to contact other people on the real world. As such, saying that people who use encryption on their electronic devices must be doing something bad are evil is not only shortsighted, but dangerous. Most people who use encryption, myself included, just want to keep something private.

The obsessive talk about how evil encryption is borders on the obscene, and it only takes our liberties away. We have the right to keep whats on computers and smart phones private, and the government needs to understand that they have no business asking for back doors on any encryption. If they want in on any of that data, they better have a good reason that convinces a judge to give a warrant to access it.

Most importantly, the focus on electronic intelligence gathering is not healthy. There are more ways to gather intelligence, so there is a need to actually work on those areas as well as the electronic one.

Why I'm a free and open source software advocate and user...

As an free and open source software advocate, that actually uses it on my personal laptop on daily basis, I find most arguments for and against it a bit exaggerated.

I do recommend free and open source software to be used by all, it's just a matter of finding the right software for the needs of the user. For most users, I'd recommend Ubuntu or Linux Mint since I've first hand experience with both of this distros and they cover the needs of most users with not that much of a learning curve.

Most importantly, these two distros have all the software that most people normally uses on daily basis. As such, they wont miss their proprietary software all that much since they can do all what they are used too without a problem.

With Ubuntu and Linux Mint they can still have access to software like Firefox, Chrome, Spotify and Skype. For other software, there are options available that work at least as well as their counterparts in Windows or Mac OS X while being user friendly.

I've to deal with proprietary software at work, and I simply see the benefits of free and open source software when I compare both head to head. While I concede that free and open source software is far from perfect, it does perform a lot better than proprietary software in every way.

Free and open source software needs to become the norm, since it goes beyond doing the job it's task with. It's about our freedoms as individuals and communities being respected, and being able to task and build communities around the software we use freely without a centralized entity telling us how we should do things.

At the end, free and open source software is not about monetary cost. Is about our freedoms as individuals and communities to be able to put software at our service and not being at the service of the companies who supply the software.

FLOSS: power to the user and therefore the people...

There are many arguments on how modern technology is dehumanizing people, yet I think that modern technology is changing what it means to be human. There has been several technologies that have changed the curse of humanity through out history, yet it's hard to pick a time in history in which technology has changed humanity as much, and as deeply, so many aspects of humanity in such a relatively short time.

It's impressive how much technology has permeated to every day life, and how much we have come to expect it to just work. It has allowed us to do so much more, that it has augmented our experiences in ways that would be unimaginable just a few decades ago.

Not just what we can physically has been enhanced, but our minds and senses have been enhanced in ways that we can really understand yet.

In more than one way, this could mean a chance to make humanity better as a whole. Yet, it seems that how good this new chance is not yet certain because the signs are still somewhat mixed.

There are signs of a collective awakening of societies at large, and that there are connecting with each other. Which is good, because we need that so that the technologies we have can really be used and developed for the greater good.

Yet, I see corporations and governments trying to repress such a thing to happen with various degrees of success. They need the status quo to remain in power, and they are doing all they can to do so.

This is why we need to make FLOSS the norm, since its the best way we have to keep corporations and governments in check. FLOSS is not just technical choice, but an ethical one as well since it empowers the people rather than corporations or governments. It gives people the control over not only over their things, but over how they work and what they do.

Lets face it, those who want keep the people out of being able to control those things they own aren't doing it to benefit the people. The truth is that, they do so to keep control themselves and protect their interests. They are all about their own good, not the good of all.

We can still make things go our way, but we need to act together now.

Quite the interesting proposition...

Blackberry has been somewhat of a dilemma for me, since I like the security and the quality of its smart phones. Yet, that its OS is closed source OS is something that I don't really endorse as an open source advocate.

Now that Blackberry has made official it's Priv smart phone launch, all changes. Since it's powered by Android, and it comes with Blackberry's security features baked into it from the start, it makes quite an interesting proposition. This combination makes it quite an interesting proposition for people who support FLOSS and those are mindful of their privacy.

Now, we'll have to wait until the device hits the market to know how good Priv actually is. Yet, one can be hopeful that it will be quite a good handset, since Blackberry's hardware is quite solid and Android is quite the solid OS as well.

The plus for me, is the fact that the Priv comes with a physical keyboard. Call me old fashioned, but I still prefer having a physical keyboard at hand. Especially since I don't want to have a device that's over 6". So, Priv hits the sweet spot with its size.

It has been a while since I've been interested on an Blackberry device, so the Priv is welcomed news for me. If it lives up to the expectations, Blackberry might just become relevant at the premium side of Android for those who, like me, are looking for a good quality device and are conscious about their privacy.

1,500 good news from Steam...

The news that Steam just crossed the 1,500 games natively available on Linux is great news not only for Steam itself, but the whole Linux ecosystem.

While it still lags far behind the number of games available for Windows and OS X, that the mark is significant in itself. It means that Steam is viewed as a viable gaming platform by developers, since it has been adding about a 100 new games a month for a while now.

And while Steam still has some pains due to the lack of driver support for some graphic cards, the fact that there people developing and buying games for Linux helps the ecosystem as a whole. Since it gives a reason to GPU manufactures to start supporting their cards on Linux, they are going to have to make available their drivers on the OS if they want to have a piece of the market for themselves.

With this, all the Linux ecosystem wins as a whole. The game developers working to make their games on Steam, and the people buying those games, are a driving force to make AMD and NVIDIA to take Linux seriously and make drivers that run as well as they do on Windows and OS X.

While some people using Steam aren't conscious about it being a FLOSS system, or being FLOSS in itself, that they use it is something that helps all the FLOSS community. While it would be far better for people actually choose Steam fully knowing the reasons why they should, the first step is making Steam a viable option for all gamers.

So that Steam passed the 1,500 games mark, is something that should make us happy and hopeful that the counter will continue to grow.

Inexcusable over reaction...

The irony of a 9th grader being arrested because he took a clock he made to school is not only big, but quite disheartening as well.

One should think that schools would a place a student should be able to bring something like that without fear, specially of being arrested and suspended because of it. As a matter of fact, the reaction one would expect from the teachers and other staff would be the opposite. I mean, they should be quite interested in fostering that kind of skills and mentality on their students for the better.

This issue is made even worse, when one takes into account that the US is starting to lag behind other developed countries on that skill set. Not only that, many of the teenagers and kids are loosing interest on perusing and engineering or science degree stuff like this will only push them further away from those fields.

Schools should be one of those places where their students could safely share and practice building things like that. Specially, since schools are one of those places where they can be guided by people who have the knowhow to put them on the right track to be able to safely do those things.

Also, they can form groups with their peers who have the same interest so they can achieve more than they could do on their own.

That the reaction on this matter by this school was this, is something that should be frown upon and that shouldn't be repeated. There should be an official apology, by both the school officials and the police because of this incident.

Munich, an example to follow...

The news that the city of Munich is contributing upstream are good, really good, news.

They mean two important things for open source software, and both can't be understated. To begin with, it comes to show that open source software can be successfully deployed even in places as important and complex and city governments.

The argument that open source software can't compete with proprietary software has been rendered muted, and in such a way that its hard to dispute. There are a few other places where software could effectiveness could be tested more throughly than a government, even if it is at a city level.

Secondly, it comes to show that contribute upstream is not something that just a few can do. The only requirement is to have an IT department that has the technical knowhow to implement the changes needed to the needs of the particular entity to then share does changes upstream. When there is that aspect, then it makes it more of a matter of will to contribute back.

Most importantly, Munich now stands as an example that implementing open source software is something not only something other governments and private companies can at least successfully implement. Yet, it show that other can contribute for the greater good, and the interest of the public at large.

Let's hope that Munich lead the way to others to follow.

A sad farewell...

To hear that the Ada Initiative is closing down, is not something an open source advocate wants to hear. Specially when it's an initiative that brings women to the open source community, by empowering them and giving them the skills needed to be a part of the community.

Though not all is lost, since their resources are going to be left behind so they can keep benefiting others, the ideal would be that the Ada Initiative to be able to keep on their work.

In many ways, there is a need for women to have place like Ada Initiative as support. Though I'd love to see these kind of initiatives moving away from helping women against harassment and those kind of issues, to being being able focus on other kind of support to women who want to move and work on open source software.

When we lose an initiative like this, not only women lose. We all lose, since it could mean that many talented women could choose to move away from working on open source software, and deprive the community as a whole from what they could bring to the table to benefit everyone in one way or another.

Software development isn't something that only men can do, we need women to be able to work as equals. And, to be able to recognize the ones that deserve to move forward to better posts for their merits. We can't call open source a meritocracy until we gender blind, and focus on each individuals merits.

I crave to see someone picking up where Ada Initiative leaves, it's something that the open source community as a whole needs.

Software bugs, and the ultimate control over our devices...

In this article about Google Chrome, there are two main things that I take from it.

To begin with, that no software is perfect. As such, all software will have some issues that will affect users in some ways. There is no such thing as a perfect software, there are always issues from security flaws to take care of to quirks that make it do unexpected things from time to time.

Some of this bugs won't be a problem to most people, while they can be a deal breaker for other. Good software, will keep this to a minimum. Yet, there will be some for whom it just won't work. Trying to to frame those users as being the guilty ones is not fair, since it's not their fault that the software doesn't work for them.

On the other hand, the developers of the software can't be expected to make their product one that works perfectly for everyone who uses it.

I'm aware that browsers are a special kind of software that will cover the needs of a broader set of user. But, this doesn't mean that it will cover the needs and tastes of every user out there. As such, the odds that someone will find a deal breaker bug is to be expected.

The second point, is that Google can't take ultimate control from the user over what happens on her or his devices. There is no valid reason for any company to take such a move, though users should be warned of the risks of not updating their apps.

While Google, and other software companies, manage their updates in a way that most users don't notice those updates most of the time, the end user is the one who has to have the final say on what software she or he will run. That includes the version, even if it means not upgrading to the latest if the users doesn't want to do so every time a new version comes along.

At the end, the most important and disturbing issue here is that Google doesn't respect users control over the devices she or he owns. There needs to be an easy and clear path for the end user to make user that the only updates that are wanted, or required, are the ones pushed to the devices that need them. On the other hand, the users should be made aware in a clear way on what are the risk of not getting an update.

For me, the main issue is the fact that Google doesn't respect the user by forcing updates even if they are not wanted for any reason. That is a breach of trust, and one that stand behind.

Law enforcement agencies should use FLOSS...

As Richard Stallman in this article says, that the NSA uses GNU/Linux or any other FLOSS isn't bad at all. In a way it speaks well on how good the software is, since it can be used in such critical missions.

The problem with the NSA lies somewhere else, and not directly with the technology it uses to do its work.

To begin with, the NSA shouldn't be spying on everyone in the name of safety. That's a violation of basic human rights, since we all should have a reasonable level of confidence that we aren't being spied by any government at any given point of time without a good cause.

Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be able to get any data on anyone without having to give a good reason why an individual should be a target of their investigations. It's better for all, that the bar is high in order to get a warrant to get our data.

Also, if law enforcement agencies used FLOSS we the people would have a good reason to be sure that the tools they use do what they say they do. Outside parties would be able to fully audit those tools to make sure they do the job they are devised to do. It would be harder to hide bad behavior on their part, since it would be a lot easier to catch.

In all, we need to push for all the use of FLOSS in every public office, since it would make them more transparent and easier to audit by outside parties. The people has the right to do so.

Open source software and standards role in the government...

If we want a truly open and transparent government, all it's to relay on open standards and open source software.

The reliance on proprietary software, and closed standards, would mean that the government would be at the mercy of a particular vendor or whoever hold the rights to the patents to the the standard. This is unacceptable, since the government shouldn't have to be subject to such limitations.

What's more, every we all have the right to study the software that the government uses to see how it works and to make sure that it does what the government says it does. After all, we all have to interact with it, and need to be certain that it does what it made for in the best way possible.

On the open standards, one of the main reasons to use them is the fact that all should be able to access the government's platforms without any limitation artificially imposed by a third party. By using open standards, government could make sure that all the people have equal and fair access to its platforms.

Most importantly, the government should be laying the frameworks for open standards, and creating an environment in which open source to become the norm. In our digital world, open source software and open standards need to be the foundation to make sure that we all have access to it in a level playing field.

After all, the government has to represent the interest of the people.

Swift being released as open source is a good thing...

That Apple is to open source it's Swift programming language, and that it will have support on Linux, is some good and welcome news.

Swift is becoming popular fast, and it seems there are lot of good reasons for it to gain popularity. And that it's backed by a company like Apple, should give people the reassurance that it won't lack support in the long term.

Even though I admit some suspicions on why Apple moved to open source Swift, I do welcome the idea to have such a tool for open source developers to use to work with. Specially because it could be a good place for beginners to learn to code, making it less intimidating to learn a skill that is becoming ever more relevant in the modern world.

One of the things that Apple does well, is good software. While it's true that it has an iron grip on it, one has to admit that the quality of it is high. Many of the criticisms out there about Apple's software have more to do with the way it manages it, and the way development goes along.

I'm cautious and excited about this development, but I'm hopeful it will a positive thing for Apple and the open source community.

The open source model is about collaboration...

If you need that the open source model not only works on software, but that it can be adapted to other areas go ahead and read this article at Arstechnica.

At the core of the open source model is not sharing for the sake of sharing, but collaboration among people that have a common problem that need to be solved. By allowing collaboration with other people, with whom one normally wouldn't have the chance to do so. Since the network of people working on a common platform on the same problem, the time needed to solve problems and ending with a mature design, is reduced by a wide margin.

By adopting an open source model, the benefits out weight the cons that can be encountered by using it. Most importantly, you can concentrate more on differentiating your product rather than on solving the same design problems others are working on or have been already solved.

With more time to work on the details that you need to work on to give your target market asks of your product, gives you a better chance to be successful by getting to your gaol more efficiently. The open source model gives you a way to tap on the expertise and experience of others, in a way that no other model can.

The best work comes out of collaboration, and people just need the right platform to be able to collaborate in a way allows them to solve the problems that they are facing by working with others that have what they need.

It won't always work as intended, but that is part of doing things. Yet, if the platform is managed in way that actually helps people to work together and collaborate in a way that allows them to get things done, the success ratio should be one that makes it sustainable.

Back to Linux Mint, and liking it...

After having some trouble with Ubuntu not turning off, or suspending, properly on a Gateway NEseries laptop I decided to move on to another Linux distro.

The fist one I decide to give a try, was Kubuntu. I've heard great things of the distro itself, and the KDE Plasma Desktop user interface.

Though I liked the distro, and KDE, I still had the same troubles I did and KDE didn't do much for me as a user. In someways, I didn't feel as comfortable with KDE as I did with Unity and just couldn't get up to speed or get KDE to my linking.

So, I decided to move back to an old known distro. I jumped back to Linux Mint with Cinnamon as the user interface. I'm using 17.1 Rebeca, and I remembered why Linux Mint is, along with Ubuntu, my top pick of Linux distros.

All in all, I found that Cinnamon 2.4.8 to be a lot more mature and stable. As such, I haven't had any of the bugs I used to encounter jumping at me. The best thing, is that the system as a whole so stable that I've come up to speed faster that I thought.

Since I'd been using Unity for about two year before coming back to Cinnamon, that is to be expected. Yet, both user interfaces have become my favorites and I recommend them full heartedly.

The same goes for Ubuntu and Linux Mint, both are rock solid distros. The choice between them would be more of what specific computing needs and personal tastes.

My dislike for Windows just keep getting stronger...

On my personal computer I run Ubuntu, while at work the computer I use a Windows 7 computer. As such, I get to compare the two on the daily basis and know the pros and cons of both systems.

And every day, I wish that the company I work at to dish Windows in favor of a Linux distro. The main reason why the move is highly unlikely is because our operations rely on SAP, which really sucks on the user interface side.

One of the aspects I loathe about Windows, is the systems updates. Most of the time, it adds about extra 5 minutes to the power down since. It's even worse if there are more than 10 updates to install. On Ubuntu, most the updates don't require to turn off the system to reboot to install and with the upcoming 4.0 Linux kernel the main reason from the reboot will be taken away.

I used to like the Windows 7 user interface, but since Ubuntu moved to Unity I just can't stand it. Most importantly, I just find the Windows user interface to be just in the blink of being a shit load of crap and not get me started on the Windows 8 in general.

Most of the GNU/Linux user interfaces are more user friendly, and which one to use comes more to the end user needs. While some users might find that KDE is best from them, others might find in GNOME a better fit. As I said before, Unity is the one for me since it gives me all I want and need to get things done the way I feel most comfortable and productive.

Now that I've the chance to compare Windows with Ubuntu, I'm sure that I want to avoid Windows as much as I can.

Another reason to use open source software...

And yet again, this wired.com article points out the dangers of depending on proprietary software at all. While it may be true that if you use software from some established vendor you have less to worry about having to deal with this problem, the fact that no one can say it will never happen like it happen to the likes of Kodak.

The fact that open source software gives you the possibility to keep the software you depend upon alive, since the users can come together to continue the work on the software from where the original company left. It puts the control of the software on the hands of the users, and its up to the user the degree of involvement on the development of the software it uses.

Its okay to trust companies to develop and maintain the software we depend upon, but that's not a good reason to give them full control of said software. But, the user should always have ultimate control over the software.

There is no way to understate how important that user have that level of control, since in many cases the software they use becomes part of the core of what they do and there could be no substitute readily available to replace if it can't get support for it should the vendor of said software were decide to stop supporting or went out of business. Open software gives users the option to keep using the software they need either by picking up development themselves, using the support by the people who pick up the development or by hiring someone to do so, to name a few options out there.

Open source software has proven itself, with examples like Firefox and Android leading the way on the consumer software side. The idea that open source software is hard to use, and that it can't be as good as proprietary software, is completely bogus and unfounded.

Now more than ever, it's time that users regain control over the software that they use and depend on.

Mobile OS dilemma...

With Ubuntu Touch finally coming to the market, and with it's possible release in Mexico soon, it all puts me in a peculiar situation. By the time I come to replace my smart phone, I might have to choose between continuing using Android or make the jump to Ubuntu.

So far, I've liked Android. There has been some hiccups, there hasn't been one that I haven't been able to fix myself with a little bit of research. None of those problems has taken me more than a couple of hours to fix, so there isn't much to complain about.

The user experience I've had so far, it has been quite good. The only complain, is that the device doesn't have that much memory. As such, that can't be blamed on Android; besides it has enough memory to house the apps that I like and use regularly without any problem. So, if I choose to continue with Android it would be with a device with more memory than the one I currently have.

On the Ubuntu Touch side, I use Ubuntu on my laptop and I love the OS. So, jumping to an Ubuntu Touch powered device makes sense because I'm already familiar, and love, Ubuntu's Unity user interface.

As such, I like the idea that both my laptop and smart phone give me a common user experience. With that, I move more seamlessly among them.

While I like the user interface that comes with Android, I prefer much more the user interface that Unity has. Unity is simply a better fit for my tastes and the way I interact with my devices.

Ubuntu Touch has some room to mature and develop as consumers start putting it through it's paces. The good news for me, since by the time it hits Mexico many of the bugs encountered may have been fixed and the functionality of the OS in general will be enhanced by the users and carries feedback.

As such, if Ubuntu Touch comes to Mexico in time, I'll be having on the tough spot of choosing between to mobile operating systems I love.

There is a need to chance how women are treated...

With the Women's day at hand, there is a lot of things to ponder about how far women have come over the last century and how much there is left to do for women to reach equality with men.

There can't be any question about the fact that women have proven just as men, and can do all men can just as well. We have examples like Marie Curie, Linda B. Buck, Ada Lovelace, Hedy Lamarr, to name a few, who have more than demonstrated that women have as much to offer as men can. They don't need men to patronize them, or to give them any more help that a man needs to contribute to the advancement of science and technology.

Now more than ever, we need to put in place a system that allows women to contribute freely and as true equals to their male counterparts. While there have been improvements, there aren't enough to level the playing field to allow women to work as a peer.

Its offensive that some propose that women need to be given special places, or treated in a different way than men. They need to be given the same chance that men receive, and let the results of their work speak for them. What's needed is to change things so that gender becomes irrelevant when considering how competent is, and let the results of the work have the most weight when it comes to this.

Until we can say that gender has no role on how we judge a person's work quality, we can't say we live in a fair society. What's more, until women can enter the science and technology fields without people being surprised about it we can't say that women have the same chances than men do.

Women belong at science laboratories, and technology development places, just as much as men do. It's up to each women to decide if she wants to follow that road. That's her prerogative to take, and no one can take that from her.

Governments and open source software...

It's quite sad, and unnerving, that governments seem to be so slow to adopting modern technologies to make it's functionalities as streamed lined to make it work more efficiently. With the limited resources governments have, they have to be a lot more conscious on how they use them with the biggest impact.

One of the areas that would help, would be using open source software to build a common platform for the government. Mainly because by using open source software, government wouldn't be tied up to a single provider to maintain the systems they use. They would be able to actually make better use of the resources they got, by actually being free to pick the service provider that gives them the best value for what they expend on their services.

The adoption of open source software by all the government agencies, has the added benefit that all their operations will become more transparent. Not by allowing full access to their data, but on how they work.

Not all the data that the government manages should be made available, since some some of is sensitive enough that being shared would do more harm than good. But, it order to keep them honest, how they operate should be as open and transparent as possible. And the open source software development model is the best way to achieve this end.

Most importantly, by coming to open source software the systems that the government uses wouldn't be at the expense of whatever the vendor that provides the services decides to do with the software it provides. Open source software would give the control over the government agencies, and ultimately to the people that they serve.

At the end, its for our best interest to make sure that governments employ open source at all levels.

There is a GNU/Linux for you...

When it comes to the GNU/Linux distros, and how to choose the one that's right for you, it seems to come down to what you want and need on OS.

There is no single distro that does everything, but there is one that will fit your needs like a glove. The distro that works for some, might not be the distro that would work for you. Because of this, it becomes vital to do some research in order to see what distros are the best fit for you.

If there more than one distro that does what you need, the best thing you can do is to actually try them before you settle for one. Not all distros are created equal, since the communities behind them will develop them with a different set of priorities.

As such, the way they approach things is different from each other. That's why it's important to give a try to the distros that are geared toward the areas you need, in order to find which one is the one that will allow you to work how you feel most comfortable.

This is why I love GNU/Linux, you can choose the distro that fits me the best. And for me, the distro that fits the bill is Ubuntu. The one that fits you might be quite another all together, but we don't need to be on the same distro to reap the benefits of the GNU/Linux community. By using distros based on GNU/Linux, and making people aware that they have a choice on what OS to use, we can give something back to the GNU/Linux community.

As it comes, there is no single right answer. It comes to what questions you are asking, only then you will find the distro that will answer you ask.

The FOSS way...

With time, I've come to become even more sure that free and open-source software(FOSS) is the way to go. Not only that, but some aspects how FOSS is developed could bring enormous benefits to humanity at large if there where replicated in other areas.

One such example is open science, that promotes scientific development could have great positive impact for everyone not only the scientists who work on the research.

Letting people coming together to work openly, and enable them to share their work freely, can help their work have the best possible impact in the widest possible way. Most importantly, since they'll be working in the open it will make it harder to make bad uses anything done this way.

Not all bad use can be prevented, but it will be harder to pull and it would be easier to hold accountable those who act wrongfully.

It's easier to audit things when they are done openly, than when they are done behind closed doors. Most importantly, when you use things that you can actually see how they are made, you don't have to just trust what you are being told. You can actually go, and verify that you are getting what you where promised without encountering road blocks that prevent you from actually knowing the process.

Working on the model that FOSS proposes, enables people work in a way that people naturally tend to do anyway. While there some aspects that can be kept secret, the generalities can be made public so that other can use, study and modify them in a way that's beneficial to all.

As demonstrated time and time again, people will get to the core of how something works and will share that information with others. By allowing them to do that freely, with some reasonable limitations, everyone can benefit from their work.

If we want to really bring people together, and do it for the good of all, we need to give people the proper incentives to do so. The current model only serves to divide, and creates a level of distrust that doesn't benefit anyone on the long run.

Something needs to give, and what must give is the model on which people work.

Back to the OS I call home...

I finally got a new laptop, and since it came with Windows 8.1 I decided to give try first hand. To be honest, it wasn't as bad as I expected from the reviews I've read.

Yet, Windows 8 is not an OS I want to us for several reasons. The main one, is that it's proprietary software and I'm an FLOSS advocate. As such, I avoid using proprietary software as much as possible, and in my case I can use FLOSS on my personal computer.

Also, there is the fact that I simply couldn't stand Windows 8. While it isn't all that bad, it still isn't usable for me. The way the OS is made, makes it hard for me to use the way I want to use it. The whole thing got in the way I do things, and that is not acceptable.

So, as soon I got the time I installed Ubuntu 14.10 Utopic Unicorn on it. The feeling I got to be back to an OS I love is a real good one, it feels like coming back home after a long trip you didn't want to make but had to make.

I'm happy with my new computer now that I got Ubuntu on it, I got to the place I wanted it to be in a few hours. There where some little bumps on the way, but nothing hard to solve and I got to learn new things along the way. The whole experience has cemented my commitment to FLOSS and Ubuntu as my favorite GNU/Linux distro.

In many ways, I now see better why people who come to know FLOSS with an open mind become so passionate about it. It becomes part of you, and the way you see things.

For me, it even resonates with other aspects of my views on things like politics and community. It's hard not to make such connections, and not changing some of your views along the way.