Tsikbal: from my perspective

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 ...

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...

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...

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 cl...

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...

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 nee...

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...

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 kno...

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 vigilan...

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 w...

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...