Freedom of information....

It's important to realize the that open standards are crucial to innovation, and to keep vested interests from monopolizing the information.

Information is at it's valuable when it's available to all who need it, or use it. No restrictions should be placed to the free flow of the information. It's on the interest of everyone, that we can be able to access and use any information as we see fit.

It's our right to be able to use the information, and to share it how and with whom we want. To restrict the information is not something that should be allowed, since information is the tool on which societies can grow and adapt better to changing circumstances.

Information should have no owner, and should be exchanged freely among who ever wants to share on any particular piece of information. As it is, information is valuable because of the use that can be given to it by its end user.

All attempts to censor, need to be repealed as soon as they appear. Censorship constraints our freedom to choose what do we want to ourselves. Any attempt to censor the information goes against our fundamental rights. Because we need good and complete information to make choices on our daily lives, some of them that are fundamental for our well being.

It's worrying that laws are being proposed can be used to censor the information that could be accessed by the majority, in order to protect the interests of a minority.

At least, is good to see that many people are doing things in order to stop those laws. We have the right to be free to access any information at all, and we are the judges of what information is the one we want to see and which one we don't.

The censorship should be at the level of each individual, and not being decided by someone else.

Freedom...

By principle, I oppose anything that limits the individual rights to do as he wants with what he owns or with his skills.

Each individual should be able to use his skill set and charge for it as he sees fit, without having any interference from a third party. The same goes with any property he has. He should be able to exchange it as he sees fit, even to modify it in any way it serves his interests.

The limitations set, should only be the ones put in place by the parties involved in the transaction as it suits the interests of everyone directly involved in it.

If we want to progress as individuals and as a society, we should have the freedom to use all the tools we need at our disposal and be able to modify them as we need. Also, we need to be able to share the information with other people with no interference. This is helpful, so it helps to innovate or get to solutions that other wise we wouldn't be able to do or would take more time that what is practical.

No single party, or group, should be able to control how we manage our daily life or decide who has access to which information. Both need to be free, and have the bare minimum rules so we can function in a practical level.

Yet, those set of rules should be set not by a group but by the community that will use them. And, they should be easy to modify as needed, since things change and rules need to be adjusted accordingly.

Anything that limits our ability to freely exchange our resources with each other, should be avoided.

Each individual should be able to move from one community to another as he sees fit, without being impeded in any sort of way that is not necessary or that makes it difficult to move as the individual sees fit to his interests.

The freedom to do as one believes, is what important to create the environment that foster society to move forward. If we don't evolve and adapt, we don't have a future.

Free and open society...

I've being doing a lot of thinking about the importance of having an open and free society, and how on many occasions society itself is one of the biggest obstacles to obtaining such open and free state.

Mainly because most of the people simply don't care enough to take the action they need to make in order to have the openness and freedom they claim to want.

This kind of society requires active participation of its members, in order to take depositions on how to manage the working of the interactions of its members. The fewer people know and take decisions, the easier is to make them behind close door and benefiting just a few.

How things are now, all is structure in gear toward being closed as possible in order to facilitate the taking of decisions by small groups in the name of the community at large. If we want to change this, we all need to start taking actions to retake control of the decisions that should be ours. We have the right to have access, and participate, in anything that affects us in any shape or form.

It is in our best interest that all that is done in the name of the community is done in an open way. Also important to us all, is that all members of the community are free to participate in whatever way they seem appropriate to their interests.

What is done in the name of the community, should always be done in an open to all the members of it. And all members of the community must be free to participate in any way each individual wants to.

But, having such a society requires that all of us remain engaged in what happens in our community. The moment we stop being active and give more power to others to take decisions for us, the easier it becomes for others for them to do as they see fit without the community being able to do much about it.

At the end, it is in out best interest to make sure that all decisions that are made in the name of the community we live in are open to all of the members of our community. And, that all the members are free to participate on them.

We don't need SOPA....

It's sad that the US is even thinking about setting something like SOPA. For me it's also strikes me as hypocritical, since it's something that US government has criticized about other governments around like world.

But, what worries me the most is that SOPA doesn't really protect the rights of the people. SOPA is framed to protect the interest of big companies. To make it worst, many of those companies have outdated business models that they want to keep instead of innovating.

I don't want my rights being stepped over by companies that refuse to change their models. Why should risk being framed as a criminal just because I mentioned a company, or a product, just because it doesn't like the way I did so?

The Internet should be a free field for the exchange of information. It is imperative that we keep special interest from broking it in any shape or form, so that every one can access the information he or she needs to keep informed and in contact with other people.

For all matters and purposes, the Internet belongs to everyone. No group, country, or company should have any say on what can be done or said over the Internet. Building any kind of barrier is detrimental for everyone, since the Internet is a tool that enables us to share ideas and information with other people from places it wouldn't be able to do so in other way.

In many ways, the Internet enables innovation by making possible to share ideas far and wide. Thus, any ideas gets more exposure enabling others to have a possibility to come with something new, or a new way to use things.

So, we should stand against any measure as SOPA by principle.

Openness...

I've been using Ubuntu for over a year now, and it is my favorite OS by far.

In one way or another, I've been using open-source software for quite sometime. Yet, until last year I made up my mind to use a Linux distro and get rid of Windows for good.

After doing some research, and asking around, I decided to use Ubuntu since it was one of the most user friendly distro out there. So, the first version I used was the 9.10. And since then, I've have no intention what soever to return to using Windows, or to start using the Mac OS.

And now with the Unity UI, I enjoy using Ubuntu even more. For me, I find that I like the way it looks and it works for me. I find it easier to get around, so I can do my work with it. I just enjoy it much.

Most importantly, it's open-source software. Which is important for me, since the philosophy that come with the open-source software community is the same that I have.

I do believe that we all should have the ability to freely exchange ideas and information in order to make things better. So, information should be freely available to everyone in the community to use and share. Whatever comes in the way should be avoided.

Having open and free societies, help the individual grow. And, if the individual grows the society on which he live grows with that individual.

I believe that the society and the individual can grow together. And the best way to foster the growth of both, is by having a society as open and free as possible. The ability to share between individuals should be a priority, so that information and ideas can flow with as little difficulty as possible.

Until we can have access to any information we need, and are able to use it as best we can for our individual interests, we won't be as free as we can be.

Community driven projects...

I feel rather frustrated how many companies, and some individuals, seem to look down to community driven projects.

And, for better or for worse, many people seem to buy into idea that if a company isn't behind a given product or service, it can't be trusted or it couldn't be any good.

Yet, I don't buy into that. Community driven projects can be as good, or better, as those driven by companies. But, most people don't seem to be willing to give community a chance, because they are afraid that there is no support if or, when, they run into problems.

This idea is perpetuated by companies, in order to make weary about moving to community driven project. But, finding support is as easy, and sometimes easier, when compared to company driven projects. It's just a matter of a way to contact the support.

As a matter of fact, contacting support on community driven projects is easy. Most often than not, when you reach for help you'll find someone willing to help that has come with your problem. In some respects, is easier to get help from someone who knows how to fix your problem since most people who work on the project are willing to help others.

Almost all mayor community driven projects have multiple ways to get in touch with them, or someone else who could help you out, for support. And most often than not, the help comes in a more helpful manner; mainly because all who actively work on the project have a sense of ownership over it.

Most importantly, the community driven projects don't depend on a single source to give support to the project. And since many people know how the project works, it's easier to find someone to help you when you need it, since the support base is a lot wider.

Also, on community driven projects your feedback is more likely to be taken. You can become an active participant if you decide to do so. And in many cases, you can contribute money, work, or in other way that helps the project grow.

It's a symbiotic relationship between all that work, or use, the project. Collaboration between it's members is one of the fundamental things on any project that comes from the community.

So, if you come across a community project that meets your needs give it a try. You might be up to a pleasant surprised.

Fair society...

It's important for society at large to understand that telling others how to spend the money they have earned for their work.

After all, we are entitled to spend the money we earn in any way we see fit. The truth is that, since we earn that money with the efforts of our labor its fair that we can use it to reward ourselves.

Yes, there are people have more money than most. Yet, this is just life; and life is not fair. There'll always be people that have more, and people that have less. What we should strive for, is a society in which the powerful where the powerful can't step on the people below them.

The key for a fair society is that everyone earns the same, or has the same of everything, is one where the individuals have the same rights and access to have their basic need meet.

If the individuals living at a society, don't have equal rights it becomes a society that won't be self sustaining. Wealth alone is not enough to make society prosperous, if not all the individuals living it can access a way to make a living in it.

But, is important to keep in mind that there always be inequalities in some way or in another. The important thing, is to make those inequalities be because of the normal differences between individuals, and not because those inequalities are forced to individuals or groups.

We need to make sure that individuals are as free as possible to make a living in any way the individual chooses, without making living in society less practical or desirable. Most importantly, the individual should be able to move to any other geographical place if it's in his interest.

And, each society should have the freedom to self rule as each sees fit.

The exchange of information between individuals, and societies, is fundamental for the growth of humanity at large. If information isn't allowed to be freely exchanged, societies die out. To keep growing, innovation is needed to keep societies healthy.

And to be able to innovate, information needs to be freely available to as many individuals as possible within the society. Not only that, exposure to information from outside makes the process of innovating all that easier.

At the end, the most fair society it's not the one where everyone in it has the same of everything. Rather, is the one where the individual is able to choose and do as he sees fit, without stepping on the rights of his fellow men.

A Thought on FOSS...

After using GNOME 3 for three days, I just couldn't take it any more and came back to using Unity as my user interface on Ubuntu 11.10.

Even though I do like GNOME 3 in general terms, I do feel that Unity is better suited to the way I interact with the user interface. I don't only like Unity looks, but also the way it works.

When I started using Unity with the release of Ubuntu 11.04, I did come across several bugs. But, at the end there weren't that important and for the most part those bugs have been ironed out. So, I expect that with the release of Ubuntu 12.04 Unity will be fully mature.

But, this rises something that I really like about Linux in particular, and the FOSS movement in general. What I like is that there is always a choice. If there is something doesn't work for you, or you just don't like it, you can always choose another distro or app that suits you.

Of course one can has the right what one likes or not, yet I don't see the point of calling names for the sake of defending the particular distro, or any other thing you use, if someone points out where that particular person believes things aren't being done the way he things they should be done.

Neither is doing the opposite, just because people don't do what you think is right or most be done.

There must be a healthy discussion of the merits of the actions being taken, yet actions are to be taken in order to move forward. And not everyone has to agree with what is to be done.

Is a matter of balance, and to have the will to move forward to the direction that seems more appropriate according to the goals that have been set for the project.

At the end, that people can exchange and implement new ideas on how things should work it's what makes the FOSS movement a place where innovation is big part of the game.

Beware of Absolutes...

One should always avoid dealing in absolutes. Most things in life are not black or white, but rather a shade of gray.

But often than not, is better to judge things relative to the context on which those things occur. What is appropriate on one situation in one place, might not apply to the same situation in another place.

There are many factor that makes anything that is done acceptable or not. There is only a really few things that are almost universally accepted. Yet, the vast majority of our actions fall in a gray area. Most often or not, there will be someone that finds what you do objectionable and other that agrees with the way you view it.

Instead of lashing out when someone tells you that what you so is not the thing to do, instead of attacking back try to understand where they come from. In many cases, the person who disagrees with your position doesn't have the whole context, or information, on why you act the way you do.

Once they understand why you do, or act, a certain way most people understand and leave you be. The same applies when you see doing something that you might not agree or approve of.

It is important to see the other point of view before passing any judgment. Is also important to bare in mind that no one has to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with what other people believe in.

What we are obliged to do if we want others to respect and tolerate our positions and beliefs, is to do the same to them. 

One of the most important things to live in peace, is to respect what other believe in. And to understand that no one thing is absolute, all is relative to the context we are in at each passing moment.

The things that are most important today, may stop being so tomorrow. What is important for me, might not be so for the person next to me.

So, listen to what others have to say before judging.

Open Source...

Open source is something that I really hold close to my ethics system. The core values of sharing knowledge, ways to do things and builds things, in a free and open way is a way to innovate faster and in an easier way.

If all can see how something is done, it makes it easier to people actually knowing how to actually do something from the blueprints themselves.

This has the added benefit that people can modify according to the needs of the people who are going to use it. Or, people can make modifications that actually make it better and being open they can share those modifications back to the community so that the benefits as a whole.

But, since there are more people actually seeing and using the blueprints there is a greater chance that if there are any defects, those can be addressed a lot earlier than they would if it was Closed sourced.

Open source gives all the people who actively participate on each project a sense of ownership. This is a good things, since it gives every contributor the responsibility to make sure his, or her, contribution works the way it's suppose to do. And also makes it important to call on those who contribute bad components to the project.

The responsibility of policing the projects is up to both the individuals doing their best, and contributing those elements back when they make modifications to them. And the community at large by keeping others up to what they said they promised they were going to be up to.

It's important to understand that even though you are entitled to freely used and modify the blueprints for your needs, all the work to actually make build, or make it work, is entirely up to the individual who wants to make use of it. But, one is not obliged to contribute back if you don't modify anything.

But, one can contribute back to the community in various ways. One is contributing money to the project in order to help to keep it going. A important note to keep in mind, is that there is no minimum on how much money you can contribute to the project. You can give as much money as you can, as many times as you can.

Other way to help your project, is to spread the word. Tell all people that could use the project about it. Show them how you have used the project, and what can they can gain by using it.

Don't forget, by helping out the project you are making sure that it remains available to you.

I can't say how many more benefits you could get by using open source projects. So, look for one that meets your needs.

And more importantly, don't keep them to yourself and spread the word.

My Problem With Apple...

Let's keep something clear, I do agree that Apple produces great hardware and software.

Most of the products that Apple releases are great in design, and technology. Their products are innovative, and bring new things to the table. Or at least they are a flesh implementation of a technology that's already out there.

My problem with Apple is their philosophy. I don't mind that their software is proprietary, though I rather see in being open. And, I don't agree how they managed the hacking of the iPhone. Once I buy a product, I expect to be able to do whatever I want with it, and I don't appreciate a company telling me what I should do with my phone.

And I just had to roll my eyes, when many of the features that came from hacking the iOS where later integrated into it. I didn't expect Apple to thank, or acknowledge, those came first from the coders that hacked it. But, why fight so hard to avoid having people to hack your product, just to end up adding the features they did in the first place.

One of the things that irk me most about Jobs, was the way he reacted to Android. He claimed that Google stole his ideas to make Android what it is, and he was planing to go nuclear to get Android out of the market because of it.

But, let's go back a few years. Didn't Jobs quoted Picasso saying that good artist copy, and great one stole? Basically stating that if the had to steal great ideas from others he would if it meant that Apple could produce great products?

May be he said that Apple could steal from others, but other can't do the same from Apple.

Even though I don't condone stealing ideas from anyone, credit should be given where credit is due, I'm an advocate that ideas should be shared and used by anyone that needs to. The more people see the idea, and use it where and implemented in the best way possible, should be the norm.

By making it so, the field would be more fertile for innovation. The more people working on a project, the better the odd that someone would come out with a novel way of doing same thing. Or making it in a better way.

There should be some limits on how, and how much, any person can use from any idea. But, by having a easy and workable way for people to collaborate makes it easier, and faster, to come out with new ideas and ways to solve problems. By promoting openness, the discussion on how to move forward would be far more productive.

Imagine if each car manufacturer needed to come up with the engine or tires every time they introduced a new model.

The basic core of things should be there to be used by everyone that wants to work with it. What ever isn't at the core of the issue, can be put apart as modules for the use for the people who actually use it. But, even those should be available to those who might be interested in the capabilities that those modules bring.

Is up to the creators of those modules, if they give it back free or they charge for it.

I do believe that an open ecosystem is healthier, and is better in fostering and bringing innovation faster than the closed ecosystems are.