Android...

In a few months time, I'm planning on changing my smartphone. I've been doing some research on the different handsets on the market, and I've made up my mind that it's going to be an Android handset.

The iPhone was discarded rather quickly, even though I like the design of the phone itself and of the iOS. But, I can't come around the idea of buying a close source smartphone. And on top of that, it makes me a lot more uncomfortable that it's a wall garden app ecosystem.

A Windows based smartphone was never on the table. And a Blackberry handset was just briefly entertained.

Android is the clear choice for me, since it's an open source OS and it gives me a lot more options in carriers and smartphone brands to choose from. And, there is a level of flexibility on the software part that is a lot more in line with I want.

Now, there are two brands that really have my attention. One is Motorola, and the other is Samsung.

I find that I like the design of the handsets of these two manufactures are the most aesthetically pleasing for me, and the specs are in line to what I need for my everyday use.

If I had to make the choice today, the clear winner would be Samsung with the Galaxy Nexus. The Motorola Droid RAZR, is a close second.

These might change when I make my final choice, but the one sure thing is that my next smartphone will be Android powering it.

True ownership...

One of the things that many people don't seem to really understand, is that open source gives them more control over what happens on their computers.

Not only that, since most of the licenses gives the user to tweak and modify the software that runs on their computers it means that they can make their computer what they want it to do. Not only that, they truly own they computer and the data they have stored in it.

With close source, users give away part of the ownership to the vendor of whatever software they are running on the computer. Most of the time, they have to agree to use it how and on which computers the vendor believes is the best. And, since you can not see the source code, one can not modify to suit the particular needs that the end user might have. The user is at the wimp on whatever functionalities the vendor decided to put on, take out, of the software it makes.

And there is no legal way to add functionalities you need on your own, or to take away those who are useless to you, but get in the way.

Also, if the vendor doesn't like what you are doing with the software it sold you, it has the legal right to make stop since you. Many times, the end user doesn't know that he agree to that when he signed the user agreement.

That makes open source a lot more flexible. It can be adapted to the end user needs with relative ease, and most often than not there is already a solution out there to meet your needs.

The system you use, can be as lean or as heavy as you need to be. Open source really can be made to suit your needs at a much more accessible cost. More importantly, there is a big and vibrant community on which to rely to get answers to most of the problems you may encounter along the way. Odds are you will find someone willing to help you, or at least point you in the right direction to fix your problem.

With open source, you are part of the community that makes the software work. You don't need to know how to code, which it helps. With you point out where the problems are, so they can be fixed you are contributing much to make things better.

Blessing in disguise...

Twitter's new policy has rightly caused uproar around the world, since it restricts the freedom of speech. Even if it comes from a "lawful" request to delete a certain tweet or Twitter account for infractions.

But, there are a couple of things that can offer a silver lining on the whole matter.

First, and is where I can at least give Twitter some credit, is that it was transparent on how and why the process of blocking certain tweets will take place.

The tweets in question will only will be block in the jurisdiction where it was required to do so, and will be available everywhere else. Not only that, Twitter committed itself to put the reason why it was taken down, and who asked for the tweet to be removed.

Not only that, Twitter will review each case before making the choice to block the tweet. Hopefully, it will not bulge to undo pressures and act according to the facts at hand when making such decisions.

Since all this commitment was made in the open, in a fully transparent way not only to the users, but to the whole world at large it gives everyone the chance to check on Twitter that in fulfill it's commitment to keep the reasons of the blocks open and in sight of everyone.

As a matter of fact, this is a lesson many companies and even governments should follow when dealing with their actions that deal with people outside themselves. All those actions should be done in an open and transparent way.

Secondly, and most importantly, it could give us a rare chance to see who, and why, is censoring what information. This could give us a better idea on how to counter censorship by regimes that use it.

It's a golden opportunity for freedom of speech advocates to gather as much information as possible on how censorships is used and applied not only by governments, but also by private individuals or groups. And the information gathered could be used to more effectively counter those things that attempt our freedom of speech.

In this case, we should not only be asking why Twitter would have to block any tweet. The answer is they shouldn't have to do so.

We should be also be asking who and why there should be such be any such request. This change of policy by Twitter can give us the such answers. And not only that, it may give us the tools to more effectively fight back.

Let's act as a mature community...

It's always irritating to see the open source community being target for FUD in the media. But, for me the sad part is to see smart people actually believing it without actually doing some research to see if such assertions actually having any merit.

The same goes for when individuals attack close source projects just for the sake of taking a shoot. Some committing the same fault, not doing much research.

I've close friends, and family, who use Apple's products and use open source software on them. The most common among them, are Firefox and Chrome. While they do recognize the merits of Linux, they don't use it because they find they like better Mac OS X and the computers.

And even though I like the aesthetics of the Apple's products, I wouldn't even consider owing one now. The policies and behavior Apple has shown during the last couple of years prevent me to do so in good conscience.

For me, open source software is on par or better than the close source alternatives. Yet, what really bothers me is that some members of the open source community lower themselves to the level who attack open source software without merit. We should be able to ignore those attacks, and concentrate on the those that actually have some substance to them.

The answer to those attack may come in several forms. It could be by counter arguing, and showing them where they are wrong, or accepting fault where there is one and take step to fix it.

There will be always criticisms, but let's be wise on how to respond to them. In a healthy community, the criticism that helps it grow and correct mistake should be always be welcome. No matter from where those criticisms come, because sometimes the most useful ones come from people from outside that can see the whole picture better.

At the end, it will help our community grow stronger.

A single goverment?...

With communications technology allowing us connect with people that whom we couldn't connect otherwise, and to arrive almost any place in the world in the space of a few hours, the idea that a single world government isn't all that outrageous.

The question now is, if it would gather enough popular support to make it possible to work a way to do so.

But, is it something that is necessary or that we would want to do? Or should we continue to have independent states to better serve the people who physically live at any given geographical location?

I believe that the answer lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

People should have a lot more say on the communities where they live. And those communities should be able to interact with each other as a group as they see fit. Not only that, the individuals should be able to move any other community as he sees fit with as little impediments as possible.

The same goes to the communities on the Internet. Each one should have the freedom to self-regulate.

May be, we should rethink governments and they functions on how they regulate human interactions. It seems that small communities are better able to meet the needs of those who live within, and then interact with other communities.

And since individuals now are part not only of the communities they live in, but also are part of virtual communities, they could make the search for local, regional, and international solutions a lot easier than ever before. Now, more than ever, is easier to find and share messages with more people in a relative small period of time.

It is time for the people to start self governing themselves. We need to take more responsibilities to what's going in our communities, and to take the actions to make our communities better.

Let's make a community where everyone is accountable for what he does, and that makes easy to people to be together.

Not everything can be the next big thing...

For me is both funny and irritating seeing how every time a new thing comes our way, it is touted as the best thing since sliced bread or that it would bring forth doom and death to all.

To be honest, the things that were true game changers tend to not come along all that ofter. And they don't impact every one the same way. Those things that have a really wide impact are even rarer.

For me it's even more annoying when what ever certain companies, or individuals, do is shown as if it is yet another game changer. Come on, let's be honest and realize that while we can expect good things constantly from those players, not every thing they do can have high impact.

We should learn to take things with more care. The truth is that even though the last hundred years have seen mayor changes in the way humanity lives, not all has been as great, or as bad, as many want to believe.

Its important to realize that each one of us needs to find what fits to our wants and needs.

Just because something worked wonders for someone else, it means that the product or service will be useful for you. Or, just because it didn't meet the expectations of someone else, it doesn't mean that you should avoid it.

When we are looking for whatever we need at that moment, we should head to the voices that are knowledgeable in what we are looking for. Those are the ones that can give us the best guidance, or advice, in what we are looking for.

So, let's keep out feet on the ground and have our heads cool.

What I like of open source...

For me, one of the most annoying things that happened to me since I started using open source software on the regular basis is receiving criticism from people that haven't used it, or ready understand what's it about.

Using open source, for me, is about having access software that gives me the control on how it works. And it's also about the philosophy, and principles, that the open source community brings to the table.

People coming to collaborate in projects, in a open way is the way to move forward and it's in the best interest of the community at large.

In the short, and long, runs collaborating this way offer the best way to do things in all the fields. Since all happens on the open, we all can see how things are done and the individual is free to participate in the way, shape, or form that fits his or her personal interests.

Collaboration in an open way can speed things up, since the ideas and information used in the project can be shared with the most people possible. This means that solutions can be found a lot faster, and new ways to use the information and the ideas can be found with a lot more ease.

Another one, is that is harder to use the projects in a way that can be harmful. Since there are a lot of eyes looking at every aspect of each project done this way, it's a lot harder to put in anything that can be detrimental to the project, and it also means that it can be fixed a lot faster if somethings does go through.

It also means, that parts of existing projects can be used to create new projects, or enhance current projects. And since the projects are open, any one can see from where, by who, and when any particular piece of the project was pulled. Or, if it was a new piece created specifically from the project at hand.

Collaboration between individuals, and groups, in an open way should not only be allowed to do so, it should be encouraged.

The pros of doing things in an open way to the community at large, vastly outweigh any cons that could come from it. Information and ideas, are the building blocks of knowledge. We all have the right to access knowledge without any impediment.

Knowledge can not be allowed in ownership of any particular individual, or group. Knowledge is only valuable when it can freely flow among the societies and communities at large. It needs to be shared and used freely by anyone who's interested, or has a use, for any particular knowledge.

At the end information, ideas, and knowledge is a commodity that belongs to everyone.

On the shoulders of giants...

If we hope to further our knowledge, the best chance is standing on the shoulders of the great minds that came before us.

And how can we hope to do so if the ideas, and knowledge, that those giants came upon is out of the grasp by the people?

In many ways, the current state of the copyrights and patent laws do just this. And is even worse when laws are proposed that can hinder even more our ability to freely share, look, and use the existing trove of information and ideas.

No single set of persons, public or private entities, should be able to put any kind of limitations on how information and ideas flow. We all should be able make use of all current knowledge in the way we think is most appropriate. Is also equally important that we are able to share with other the knowledge we have.

The truth is that, no one can be sure where the next breakthrough in any field can come from. New insights can come from anyone. That team, or individual, just need have access to any knowledge to work with.

It's foolish to believe that new knowledge can come just from certain places or individuals. We need to remain open to the fact that it can come from any number of places, and isn't necessary going to come from the usual ones.

If we can spread knowledge far and wide, solutions to current problems can be come by sooner.

At the end, innovation comes when someone sees new ways to do things. So, anyone driven to solve a problem that can't be solved using any current means will be required to innovate. This can be done either by using current knowledge in new ways, or coming by new knowledge.

By limiting who, and how, gets what knowledge we are limiting ourselves. It's foolish, and a waste of time and resources, to have people reinventing the wheel just because they can't share with other people how to do make a wheel.

If knowledge is shared, we all benefit in the long run.

Let's keep our eyes open...

After SOPA and PIPA acts were defeated by the protests against them last Wednesday, I've been seeing mixed reactions to the news.

Some were ecstatic, since the voice of the people was heard by the Senate and the House. While others where rather pessimistic, saying that we just postponed the defeat of the free and open Internet.

My take is a bit more pragmatic. Yes, we do have reason to celebrate and be happy about the result. The voice of those who defend the free and open Internet, and all what it stands for, was heard. Yet, we need to remain vigilant to the threats that will continue to appear from those who want to put limitations to the Internet.

And while it's true that there is a chance that a law with the same aims as SOPA and PIPA are going to keep being proposed, thus the Internet will be always be threatened by those who want to limit it. But, our defeat is not set on stone.

Neither are our victories.

The truth, is that we need to remain vigilant. We need to keep constantly keep checks on the government and companies, so that no laws can be passed that hinder our rights.

There always will be people that feel threatened by changes that take away the power they've gathered, or that fail to adapt and innovate in order to keep themselves relevant. So, they try to keep things as they were by passing laws or playing the system to keep their edge.

That's why we need to keep our guard up, and to press the changes needed to fix things in order to keep big companies from stepping on the new comers.

And the best way to do so, is to band together to defend our rights and freedoms. If we don't, we are truly headed to a world where we our voice won't be heard.

Open source and open standards....

Open source and open standards may well be our most powerful tools to keep our freedom.

With open source software, one can see the source code of what he is using, and how it works. So, any one can modify it in order to make it work according to what the individual needs. Being able to check code can be important, since this gives everyone the same degree of control over what is going on within, and how should it work.

And since everyone can check what it's on, it becomes harder to make the product do things that the owner doesn't want it to do. With proprietary software, one has to blindly trust the vendor. But with open source software, anyone can check that the code really do what the coder said it does.

Also, if a feature that one wants or needs isn't included in the package, adding it is as easy as coding into it the feature, or hiring some one else to do so.

Open standards are an important companion to open source. Open standards give users a common way to encode and decode their files. And since they don't depend on a single vendor, or entity, they can be used as a format by anyone.

It's important to make them easy to use and access to everyone who wants, so that their use is as widespread as possible.

Why open standards are important? Because they give us a tool to be able to use our files independently of what piece of software we are using at any particular time. Since the standards are open to everyone, incompatibility issues would become less of a problem.

We should be able to modify our software according to what we need, and to see our information where ever and how ever we choose to do so. No single vendor should be able to lock us in to use their piece of software.

Freedom to access information...

How long it has to be before it is understood that information should be free to be accessed by anyone who either wants, or needs that information.

Information is not something that can be owned in the sense you own a car, a computer, or things of that nature. Informations is more of a platform on which individuals, and societies, relay to take decisions or make things happen.

The value is more valuable depending on its use. And is more valuable in direct proportion to how many people can use it, or put it to work on a way that is beneficial to them. So, information is a resource that should be at the disposal of the society at large in a way it can be used by any member of the society.

It should be allowed to flow freely among all, with any restriction on the flow being imposed by each individual as he sees fit. No one else should decide who access, and how, any piece of information.

All informations should be stored in open standards, so that no single entity has the key on how the information can be retrieved or distributed. Each individual has the right to access and store whatever information he needs in any medium he prefers to do so.

Every standard that is used to store information, should be free of any kind restriction that impedes the free flow of information from one individual to another. And all hardware that can be used to play back the information should be able to reproduce it, so that information can be shared and consumed as each individual sees fit to do.

In essence, information should be considered the ultimate common good. We all own it, and should be free to share and use it as we all see fit.