Good move by RIM...

RIM is moving it's BlackBerry 10 Native SDK to open source. Which I think is a great idea, and I'd love to see BlackBerry moving more of it's software to open source.

Personally, this is a great choice from RIM. I've never used a BlackBerry handset, but I've heard good things from close friends and family members who use them. And I do like BlackBerry handsets, but the only thing preventing me from taking them more serious to have one of them is the fact that they are closed source.

But, if the new CEO of RIM continues this path and moves all the BlackBerry OS to be open source I would seriously consider a BlackBerry as my next handset.

It might not bring it back to the dominance RIM enjoyed on the smartphone market it used to have, but it would be a nice alternative to Android. And I like to have the idea of having choices not only on the handset department,but also on the OS.

At the end, true competition on the market is healthy.

The right tool...

It's a shame that some people best argument in favor to use anything, is that everyone else is using it.

As if that fact made anything good, or worth using. It seems that they have stop thinking in terms of what they need, or want, from the tools they use for any particular task.

Let's face the fact the tools that we use to achieve any task, should be made so they make our work easier. If they don't facilitate the completion of the task they are to help us perform, they are worse than useless.

This is why I prefer Open Source software. There is always a way to adapt it to what you need it to perform, making it a lot easier to use as you need to use it. And if you don't find the right piece of software that suit your needs, the nature of open source make it easier to adapt an exiting idea to what you need. This way, you don't have to create your software solution from zero unless there is no way around it.

Open source has the added benefit that it has a big and lively community. This increases the chances of finding someone that has come across a problem similar to yours, and has the experience and/or the tool to help you solve your problem. The are multiple forums dedicated to the fields you are in, making it easier to gather information and find solutions that meet what you might be looking for.

There is no reason to keep doing things just because people around you do so. Let's take a more active approach to find the solutions, and the tools, to make things work as we want them to work.

Any problem is hopeless as long you don't do something about it.

Work as a group...

It is sad to see how many people just lament how bad things are, but not do much about to take things into their hands and participate much more in order to change how things are.

Most of the time, the excuse is that as one person they can so much. While this is true, we don't have to face our woes alone or should we attempt to do so. Doing so is a waste of time and energy.

This is why we should make efforts to build groups with like minded individuals to work to reach our goals as a group. At the end, any community building is a groups effort. That's the way we should engage the problems we have at our community.

We should engage other people in order to work together. The group needs to work together in order to reach the goals set by the majority of the group.

In building closed knit groups is are best option in order to make change happen, and to build a better place where to work and live. There should as few as possible limits to how large, and many groups exits. It is normal that groups exits within each group.

Also, each individual should be able to be member of as many groups he or she wants to participate in. And to change from one group to another as the individual needs change. Most of the time, the participation of the individual at a group should be all that's needed to form a part of the group.

But, it's important for us to be active in those groups that have influence on those things that are of our interest. If we don't participate on those groups, or build those groups, there is no realistic chance to make the changes we want to do.

Let's stop waiting for other people to start doing what we believe has to be done, and start doing so yourself.

Honestly, no one has the obligation to act how we want then to act just we want them to. Or to know what our needs are if we don't express them, or act to meet those needs.

Stop waiting for others to build what you want, and take it to yourself to build what you want.

Precise Pangolin...

With each new review of Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin, I get a bit more optimistic about the direction Ubuntu is taking.

Since the 11.04 release, Ubuntu has become my favorite distro. Before that, I was torn between Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Yet, with the Unity interface I've been a lot more comfortable with Ubuntu.

And since the main objectives with Precise Pangolin are to polish Unity, return to Rhythmbox, and generally make the Ubuntu more stable, I look forward to updating to it.

Since it's going to be a LTS version, I'm seriously considering stating on it at least until 13.04. I'll give a thought updating to 12.10 if the updates are enough to compel me to do so. Though, with the new life cycle schedule for LTS versions I'm giving it a serious thought to sticking to updating just when LTS releases come out.

Since LTS versions are more stable and polished, the idea to keep updating just each time one is out seem a good bet.

Yet, I haven't across with any mayor problem with any Ubuntu version on my daily work. And, I do like having the latest features that come with each Ubuntu version.

So, for the looks of it Precise Pangolin will meet what I come to expect from Ubuntu.

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.