Linus Torvalds and the Millennium Technology Prize...

Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, was awarded today Finland's Millennium Technology Prize. This prize is awarded every second year, and it's awarded to life-enhancing technological innovations.

For me that Linus Torvalds was awarded with the Millennium Technology Prize is a well deserved recognition. After all, the operating system that he created not only powers the Internet and some of the most important stock exchanges in the world. It also powers the supercomputers on which most of modern scientific research is carried out.

This way, Linus Torvalds' OS is on the forefront of the things that contribute to the betterment of our quality of life. And not only that, it has proven that free and open source software is a legitimate development platform on which people can work together and contribute to create something larger than the sum of its parts.

Personally as a Linux users, it makes me proud that the who created the core of the OS I use and love was recognized for the work and effort he has been doing over the years.

So, cheers Mister Torvalds, and congratulations for a well deserved prize!

Walled gardens are not desirable...

I wonder why people runs to walled gardens, and convinces themselves that there is no better way to do things other than they way fed to them by the owner of the walled garden.

Even though they know at some level that they are giving up many freedoms, they gladly do it just to have the most pretty gadget on the blog. They'll anything to comply to what the owner of the walled garden wants them to comply with, even when they don't fully understand what they are giving up to be part of the walled garden.

What bothers me the most of this system is the fact that you have to give any freedom to even modify, or install, third party apps that aren't approved to begin with by the vendor by default. The choice of whether doing it or not is taken from the user without the ability to opt out without voiding the warranty, or being liable of being taken action against by the vendor.

The truth is that walled gardens are desirable on only a few cases, and for a minority of users. The interests of the majority of users are better served by having free and open gardens, where a wide selection of apps are offered by a wide selection of vendors who choose to serve any particular garden.

Let the users be the ones that select the vendors who have the best products. That's the way it should work, and the most healthy way for the ecosystems to work.

Having an open garden helps apps evolve more organically, according to the changes of user needs and wants. Vendors shouldn't be making that choice for the user in any way, shape, or form. Yes, having educated users requires some time to do, but it's something that should be done.

At the end, who knows the users needs other than the users himself?

Source code should be free to study by all...

One would think that in time, software companies keep trying to keep people from at least freely studying the source code of their products.

The benefits from this far outweigh any concern, and most of the benefits would be for the users themselves. Users would get better software with less cost and development time, than with the current model. Not only that, users would have the opportunity to implement code that better suits their needs if there is a need of doing so.

Locking the source code doesn't lock the code itself, it also locks the user options to have the best software the user could possibly have. Since there is no way to know how the source code functions, there is no way for the user to know if there is a way to make the software a better suit for what the user needs the software for.

Not only that, there is no way to check if the software does what the vendor says it does and nothing more. The user has to blindly trust that there is no malicious code, or code that bridges the privacy of the data the users feeds the software.

Software companies have the right to set limits on how third parties use their source code, but third parties have the right to at least freely study the source code.

What should be encrypted and out of reach of third parties, is the private data that any feed into any piece of software.

Yet, it has come a bad habit to close the source code of the software we use to work on. This limits greatly the way we can actually work, since it make us more and more dependent on the vendor that originally sold us the software the first time.

Open source should be the natural state of the software ecosystem, sadly we couldn't be any more distant of this goal.

Open source has more benefits for all...

One of the worst thing that comes out of not being able to see how software works from the inside, is that it becomes harder to understand how it works. Not only that, it prevents to make modifications to make it work on how the users want it or to make another program all together.

What's more, it prevents any work to make any software better. In order to understand how a certain piece of software works, one need to be able to see how it's put together and how those parts interact with each other. Without that know how it becomes impossible to study and learn how it works, therefore it's not possible to work to improve or modify it by any one that doesn't have access to the source code.

This situation puts the users on the losing side, since they completely depend on a third party to keep the software not only current and safe from attacks. They depend on that third party to keep the software available to them at any moment, and have to trust that it doesn't go under taking the access to their data with it.

At the end, closing the software to the study and modification by the user is a bad thing in general. It only benefits the company that makes the software, and just on the account of keeping the users out from seeing the source code. But, it loses from any improvement that might come from an user tinkering with the source code.

The users lose the most, since they lose all the ability to control what happens on their machine and how to manage their data. They are at the mercy of whatever decisions are made by the vendor, and have to go down any road the vendor chooses if there aren't any other options to the software they use.

Having open source software is beneficial to everyone. Users can study and modify their software according to their needs, making it work better for their individual needs. Companies benefit from having third parties checking their codes for any bug or vulnerability that they could have missed, and being able to add any improvement to their code made by third parties.

Closing the source code it's a sure road to stagnation, since it makes any innovation hard to get to. It closes all roads, making hard to make any corrections in course.

It's in everyones best interest to avoid closed source, or proprietary, software. Use and support open source software, it's for the benefit of all.

Let the market decide...

The tactics that many tech companies use to handle to try to stop competitors, and how they lock the devices or software they sell.

It's sad to see that in order to keep successful products from competing with theirs, many companies use patents and copyright law to try to take them out of the market. Instead of coming out with something better and take it to the market for the people to decide what they want to buy for themselves, it has come an almost standard practice to have the courts to decide what options should the people find in the market.

The moment laws set limits to what the people can find on the market place, other than on safety and health grounds, they get in the way of having a healthy market with the options that the people are willing to sustain.

At the end, the market is the one who should have the last word on what is consumed and it's value. Companies and governments have no business doing so, their business is making the choices that should be of the market.

I also dislike the fact that many companies lock the devices they sell in order to prevent the user to tinker with it. As a result, the user loses her or his right to do as he wants with the devices he legally purchases.

If the user chooses to keep his devices as they come or to tinker them to make them work as the user wants to, is the right of the user to do so. Companies should have no say on it one the user pays for the devices, since the devices becomes property of the user.

Companies have no place on saying how I use my device, how I can modify it, and what I can in it or take from it. Much less putting in any piece of software or hardware that monitor the use or changes I make to the device, much less do something to prevent me from making them.

The government role should have users rights on the forefront, and currently it doesn't do it. We need to make sure that both companies and governments understand that the users have the final say on what we buy and use.

Anything else is just plain wrong.

There needs to be balance...

It's sad that tech companies are using patents in order to keep competitors from doing business.

To make matter worse, companies that are known to be leading innovators are the ones that engage on patent wars the most often. The current system seem to be putting a premium on those who can defend the current state of things, instead of putting that premium on actually brining forth innovative products to the marketplace.

Because of this, is no wonder than in some areas innovation seem to be at a standstill. The threat of being closed by bigger players with deeper pockets to play the system, keeps many small innovative players from even trying to put their products out.

The system needs to balance things. There should be protections to keep people from taking ideas and not compensate the one who originally put it out, while making it easy enough to use ideas on different products.

Laws need to benefit the most people, and not protect just a narrow band of groups. Things are as they are because people in charge of making laws and regulations are not really thinking on the benefit for most people.

By not letting easy use to innovate on software, the real loss to the people is difficult to quantify. Specially since is hard to put a number, or percentage, on new ideas that weren't developed because of the threat of being shut down by a bigger competitor afraid of losing some aspect of the control over the software itself, or profit that could be generated at some point in the future.

If you really want to benefit the most people and make the marketplace more vibrant, make it easier to innovators to use ideas of others while the one who came up with it can make a living out of it.

Tinkerers as a source of adding value...

Going after people that tinker with products has been proven to be impossible. They always find a way to make whatever product they choose to tinker with, work in ways that the original manufacturer or producer never intended it to do.

In some cases, they actually make it work better than it did out do the box.

So, why waste resources going after those tinkerers when they could be used of a source of knowledge and hands on experience to make those products better. The value that they bring to the table, is the insight they have to see how they can make things work better. Or, to add functionalities that for one reason or another the original creator didn't think of.

Shooting them down is a case of shortsightedness. Tinkerers are an asset, since they have all what it's needed to help you accelerate the development of your product in a much faster way. And the feedback they give back is, more often than not, more useful than the feedback of the average user.

Not only that, they can be directed more easily to a goal. If they believe in that goal, they can do great things for your product.

Bring them in, let them do their magic. You'll be surprised by the amount of value that they bring in.

Reach out to your community of users...

I can't find a reasonable explanation on why software companies won't open themselves, and seek to use the experience or expertise of the people that form the community of users.

They are losing more than what they could be winning by keeping them out. Not only on profits, but most importantly on expertise that they could tap on to make breakthroughs that are difficult to get from people working in the company itself.

Mainly because people on the outside have a different view, and can bring it to the table. Users can see things than developers inside can't, since users have a completely different viewpoint. From it, they can see things that insiders can't just because they are in a position to actually see that part of the work flow.

Not interacting with the communities that use your software can lead you too loose vital insight on how to better develop it. Instead of trying to cut people from making any change to the software, be the one who leads those efforts and make them be done in a way that's useful for the whole community of users.

If you do so, then you can focus on the core functionalities of the software while making it more safe and robust. Be the one that sets the standards of what it takes to develop add ons or build capabilities that you are not interested or the majority of the users don't want to have.

If you do, you'll find that the resources of your company will be used more efficiently. And the community that builds around you, will take care of those things that you can't take care off for whatever reason.

Done right, it's a win-win solution.

Begin to add value...

I've wonder often when companies will stop complaining about how others do things the same way they do, and start competing with each other by adding value to the products they bring to the market.

As a whole, we should be focusing on building free and open standards on which we all can work on and modify as we want without fear of doing anything illegal. By doing so, both companies and individuals benefit from having a platform that isn't dependent on the wimps and fortunes of a single player or vendor.

By having a free and open standards, there will be true freedom to choose that software or service that best suits our needs without having to worry about if the software will actually work.

This will open companies, and other vendors, to actually work on adding value to their  software. To make their software work better, or do things in a certain way that better suit the needs of their clients. They'd be able to really focus on making great products to their clients, and to work on giving a better service to users of their products.

What's the use of having the best and greatest standard, if it doesn't work as the users need it to work or it doesn't really add any value to work of the people who use it.

I really want, and love to see, vendors competing with software that truly add value to the work of their users. All the while working on free and open standard, to which we all have access to study and add value too.

If we work together, the added value should come sooner rather than latter.

Why I made the move to Linux...

Along the reason I've moved to using Ubuntu as my OS, is that on Windows and Mac I felt that the path they are taking is one on which I had to take whatever Microsoft and Apple wanted to give me.

While on the Linux, I had the choice to pick the distro which configuration better suited what I need and want on my desktop. And in my case it was Ubuntu, since it fits my needs and how I expect my OS to work. On top of that, Ubuntu is a lot more stable than Windows ever was and far easier to configure and use.

My machine is also faster to startup, and to load the software that use. While on Windows 7 I had to wait about 5 minutes for it to start, with Ubuntu it takes about 2-3 minutes to get there. And I use the same machine, so it's a question of how the OS loads.

Not only that, important update and patches on Ubuntu come regularly. Which help keep my system running safe and keep making my computer work better, while all the problems I've come across have been hiccups that where easily fixed with a quick Google search.

On the year I've been using Ubuntu on the daily basis, I haven't come across a mayor problem with it.

Therefore, I highly recommend Ubuntu to everyone who wants to run a safe and stable OS. Specially that just works, and you want to be free from impositions from third parties that believe that they know better than you. With the added bonus that it's really easy to use, and you don't want to get your hands too dirty with on the technical side.

Changes need to be made post haste..

I feel appalled with the idea of even thinking that copyrighting APIs can be a good idea, even if they are just suggesting it.

After all APIs are a set of naming and structure frameworks used to code commands to an intended for a piece of software. Without this command, most software wouldn't run correctly making it worst than useless.

Since the coding certain commands so that the software responds on a specific way, is basically the same every time you have to issue the said command many APIs end up looking pretty much the same way.

Add the fact that when you are coding for the same platform than many others, you're using the same naming and structures frameworks. So, the odds are pretty good that someone already used your API in someway or another to solve the same problem. If that person was able to copyright that particular API, everyone who follows is going to infringe the copyright no matter what they do.

This would make making any new product or service basically inviable, since you can't solve any basic problem without having to pay royalties if the copyright holder decides to license the API to you. If he decides you're a threat, and denies you the use of it he could legally close you by using the copyright law as a weapon.

If governments are really concern to help small and medium companies compete, they need to make sure that copyright and patent laws can be used as a tool to drive them out of the market by bigger companies have demonstrated they'll do so without a second thought.

Let the companies with the best products and services win, not the ones with the most money to pay for the best lawyers.