Tsikbal: from my perspective

One trend that I've seeing when somethings changes to a distro, or when comparing two distros, is that reviews tend to focus too much on the relative strengths or weaknesses of whats on the software. Bringing attention to the particular strengths and weaknesses in the software isn't bad in itself. What can be prejudicial to the community is how they are treated. Strengths should be pointed out so people that are interested know what are the benefits of that particular distro, app or software. The weaknesses should be pointed out so users know before hand to help them avoid using a something that wont serve their needs, and the coders now where they need to work to improve their software. Let's face it, all software will have strengths and weakness depending of what are their aims and the particular abilities of the people who creating them. And something that some perceive as a weakness, could be view as one by the people who made the software. All depends for ...

All technology that is used to exchange and distribution of ideas and information between people, should be free for all to access. More importantly when that technology is core for learning. Knowledge is vital to help people to make choices correctly, as such everyone is entitled to have access to the best possible information possible. This is specially important in areas like education and health, where not having the relevant knowledge at hand could have lethal consequences or leave the the individual at an unfair disadvantage. That individuals don't have access to relevant information in most areas, doesn't just have a negative impact on the individual. It also has negative impacts on the communities as a whole, since the lack of information can prevent them to make decisions on a timely manner and leave the community exposed to unnecessary ricks. Yes, mistakes and misunderstanding will happen. Those are facts of life, yet are no reason to prevent people to be...

Contrary to what many people would like to have people believe, FOSS licenses don't hinder software development and innovation. As the matter of fact, software under FOSS licenses can spur innovation not only in software. It can help to bring innovations faster to all areas of human knowledge by allowing to change and study the software used to better suit what is used. Not only that, collaboration would be easier. It would allow people to improve or change the software to suit their needs, and to be free to distribute the modified software to other people. This would benefit everybody, since both the people who released the software and users can have access to the modified code to make use of it. People on the same field could have to the latest software either at a fraction of today's cost, or for free. This means that relevant information, and software, could be more evenly distributed allowing all interested parties can work on a level field. Developments made...

I don't like software or hardware that is made to use it as it comes, and with no real possibilities to make customize it to make it work as you need it to work. On the hardware side, I want to be able to actually install on it the OS and the programs of my preference. In my case, I want to be able to load Ubuntu knowing that the manufacturer won't put any lock that prevents me to do so. For me, it's important because I like to use my hardware with software that I enjoy using and working on. After all, having a good hardware/software interaction is a very important part to be able to get anything done on a computer, and if anything is off it really irks me to no end. I like my computer to work just so. To be honest, I don't really do much customization on my software. Mainly I just change the icons, and some of the fonts and it's sizes. And in some programs, I change the background and/or the color combinations. Yet, I do want to have a granular control...

One of the main reasons I'm looking for an Android smartphone, is that I can more easily find the right software/hardware for me. I get to choose the handset I want, according to my needs and what I my taste is. I don't have to settle for whatever smartphone is being offered at the time, or the technical specifications. I can look for the smartphone that's the best match for me. At the end of the day, the smartphone is an extension of my person. So, I want it to be an statement of what I believe in and what I like. In many ways, it's more than just a tool. Not only that, an Android smartphone is the for me the main option out here since is the only one that's open-source. For me, it's important on ethical ground than my devices run open-sourced software. Even better if the software comes with FOSS licenses. For me, that Android was merged with the 3.3 Linux kernel was great news. This is very beneficial to all, and specially to the users, since ...

I like the diversity that you can find Linux, and FOSS, which let's you find the distro that adapts to your needs. And what's best, it's all build on a modern core that allows access to current standards. What allows this diversity, is the licensing that allows users to modify the program in any way that they see fit for their use and then redistribute it to others. Which is beneficial for everyone, since this means that the user doesn't have to wait for the original programmers to release the changes or is subject to have to deal with don't having the features they want the decision is made not to include the changes the users would like to see. Being capable of doing this, has the positive effect that in frees the groups that make software from having to spread their resources to thinly trying to target to many different user needs. If needed, users help can be used to contribute modifications and do some of the work to maintain some of the features. ...

So, the release date of Ubuntu 12.04 LTS is coming near. I'm really looking forward to updating my system, since most of the reviews I've read so far on the betas are quite good. It seems that, as usual with a LTS version, is going to be a pretty polished release. Mainly, the updates to Unity are the ones that I'm most interested in. Since Unity came up with Ubuntu 11.04, it has come to be my favorite desktop environment because it's looks and the way it works. I've found that Unity adjust better to what expect from a desktop environment, and how I work. And since, for my tastes, it looks really nice I enjoy using it. After I get to use Ubuntu 12.04 LTS for a while, the only doubt I have is if I'll stick to updating just when a LTS version of Ubuntu comes out or I keep updating every time. Both have frequencies have their advantages. With the LTS versions one gets the chance to have a more polished OS, and in some cases the applications are a lo...

I don't think that control should solely on the creators of the product, or on the hands of users. It should be shared, with both the creators and the users having a say on what happens on the product. One could say that the level of control on the hands of the creators and users, should be variable depending on the stage of that the product is in. At the start, it's fine that the creators to have most of the control over their products and ideas; but when it hits the hands of the users, they should have most of the product. As with many things in life, the answers are not on the extremes and we should have a certain level of flexibility when looking for answer. Yet, is really irksome that most people are really set in keeping things in a certain way. Collaboration from the users should be encouraged by the creators of any product. By letting the users to contribute to their project, the final product will be a lot better than it could be if they only comes from th...

I've trouble trusting any development that is done undercover and with no level of transparency to the public. It's a sure way to hide any troubles that may come with the new product, or hide features that are objectionable by any standard. Most often than not, doing development like this is an easy way to hide something from the users. And if someone says something, he's usually hushed or sued in order to keep the information from any interested party or getting it fixed. Mainly because they are more interested in meeting the needs, or wants, of a small circle of people rather than the needs and wants of the actual users. Or even those who would be affected in other way by the product itself. This makes it relevant to our interests to back those companies, or groups, that develop their products openly. Any interested party should be able to check any part of the development process, and ask for changes. Even better would be for ways for changes to be proposed ...

One of the things I notice when I talk to friends and family about Linux, is that most of the time they believe that it's hard to use and that what you can do in it is somewhat limited. Most of them seem intimidated by the idea of running an OS that's not Windows. Some have seen Ubuntu running on my laptop, and they seem confused that it isn't at all what they thought it would be. I mean, they see me running Firefox and Skype as it would on Windows and most often than not they seem a lot more interested in trying a Linux distro. As a matter of fact, if they would ask me to set them a Linux machine for them I would set them with one running either Ubuntu or Linux Mint. I find that these two distros are far less intimidating for new Linux users, and offer all the functionalities that most people need for their computing. Not only that, they are easy to use and the user interface is quite friendly, making them the ideal starting point for the average user coming t...

When it comes to the hardware and software I use, I like it to have good looks and functionality. If one is missing, it's a deal breaker for me. Since I'm going to be looking at it on daily basis, I don't want it to be an eye sore. And it has to be functional to be able to do some work on it, without having any component getting in the way. A good design should combine both, good looks and functionality, in one package. To be honest, I'd always would pick functionality over looks but I want both if I can have them. Functionality makes is easy to do the tasks I've to do, and good looks makes me happy to be doing what I'm doing. Yet, it seems that most of the time we have to select one over the other. Which is a shame, since both concepts can go hand in hand without diminishing the final product. Sadly on the open source software community there is a tendency to fall on the utilitarian side, giving the aesthetics side little thought at best. It ca...