Tsikbal: from my perspective

The importance of the Internet can't be understated, after all it has permeated into almost all aspects of our life's. We use it for work or play, sometimes for both. It's a great forum where we all come together, to share with others or to look up new things. It's a gathering place where everyone is invited, and free to engage as best he can. In many ways, is has become a place to launch new ideas to the world or to start great changes. This is why it is vital to keep the Internet free to all, and without a central control. Information should flow freely between individuals and groups. Equally important is to build it on open standards, so anyone can work with them and so everyone has access to the data contain on the Internet. If the standard is close, there is a real danger that any data on that format could be lost if the owner of that standard goes down for any reason or chooses to stop supporting it. Open standards are vital because of this. Since...

We all want to share with others what we like, and the Internet has enabled us to do so quite easily. Not only that, it also enables us to connect with people that have same likes and dislikes. It has really enable people to reach out further to know more about the things we love, and get the latest news about those things we are most interested about. If we find something that we think that people we know might like, or find interesting, sharing it is just a matter of a few clicks. All of this has been possible because the Internet is free from a centralized control point, and it's built on open standards. And it should remain like that, since it enables all to have access to vast vault of information and shared knowledge. Restricting people from freely accessing to the information and knowledge on the Internet is something that should be avoided. And people should be able to share it among themselves with no restrictions at all. In order to be able to move forward, t...

I believe that it's time to change the way that non Linux are reached. Since there is an image that Linux is hard to use, many are not willing to use it. If we stop emphasize the technical side, which is important, and start putting the things that people really care about. And there are several distros that actually do very well on what people want on their software. Distros like Ubuntu, Linux Mint and even Android have all what the average users wants on his or her OS. They are easy to use, and have all software that they need to do what they do on daily basis. And this distros are technically sound, and stable. Since they can be configured to work just like the user wants, they won't get on the way of their work. There should be more focus on what the distros bring to the table that makes them easy to use, and what it can be done with each distro. Linux needs to be part of the discussion, but as the engine that runs the distros. At the end of the day, mo...

I find it somewhat ironic that some companies have grown using open source software and open standards in private, and yet it come the time to release their product they decry that they don't do it as an open source or standard. Some even decry them as being evil, and that they could mean the end of everything. They don't seem to understand, or choose to ignore, the fact that making their code open and able to run on open standards they actually strength their position. Mainly because making keeping it that way helps to be able to concentrate their efforts on the areas that add value, and having some of the low priority development done outside the company. On the open standard side, it gives a larger audience the chance to run the product. Since the standard you build your product to run on is freely available for everyone to implement on their system, it makes it possible for your product to be used by a wider audience since they know it will run on it without a fuss...

It's sad only companies are pushing laws to make sharing among users a lot more difficult, in some cases illegal. For the looks of it, the awful truth is that they don't seem to understand that people want to be able to share what they love with others. And they'll always find a way to circumvent any measure, or law, that is on their way to do so. Not only that, in order to pass such laws users stand to lose control over their own property. Companies who produce and market many of the things we use on daily basis in order to share with others, are willing to severely limit what we can do on with what we buy and how we can do things on them. They want to have control over they products, even after we bought it. The want to make sure that you use it the way they think it's supposed to be used, and that you can't share it or give it away without them getting some kind of payment. In some cases, they even oppose you selling to someone else after you are don...

It's rather sad that companies want to impose their users what they thinks is best, without readily accepting feedback or letting users seeing the underpinnings of what they use. Locking people out from the underpinnings of the software they use is a bad idea, since when something goes wrong the mistrust generated is great and hard to get rid of. Yet, the benefit of building their software openly with the help of their users and third party developers adds value. People like to work together, specially on things on which they are passionate about. Time after time people have found a way to tinker with those things that they love, either just to see how they work or to make them work better for their needs. I can't imagine how many great additions to the core of any given project have been lost because the ones who made them couldn't share them with others easily, or where forces not to do so by the company that made the product. So, open the gates to your users...

Computers can be one of the best technologies to enable to unify communities around a common goal, and to give all members of a community an equal chance to get their ideas out. But for this to be fully realized, computers and the software they run should be open to be studied, modified, and distributed freely by anyone who has an interest on doing so. There shouldn't be any barrier that impedes the person who wishes study, or modify, his computer or the software it runs. Locking people from doing so, endangers our right to really do what we want with our property and data. We should be able to freely modify our computers and software to meet our needs and specifications, and to know that our data is safe from third parties who seek to have it without our knowledge or permission. No single entity should be the only one with lock and key to the internals of the software and hardware we use, and rely on, to communicate and use to conduct our daily lives. The end user...

The debate that occurs among the community on FLOSS is great, and a healthy thing to have. It's a sing that all of those with something to share, or an idea to make any project better, can give put it out there so other can consider the merits it has. This model is way better than having a centralized group just imposing their ideas on the community, regardless of the merits of what is being imposed to the community or what the community wants or not. Most of the time, the community at large that centralized model can't even have a say on what is being done. When the community is engaged in every step of the development process, the end product tends to be a lot better and the community at large is more likely giving it all the support needed so the project is a success. Let's not forget that at the end of the day the community around each project is the one factor that can make or brake any given project. If the community is not heard the most likely result wo...

While on proprietary software you get whatever capabilities come with it, on open source source software you can actually customize your software to your needs. Many proprietary software companies just sell you the software as they deem it should be, so you're pretty much tied to whatever they sell to you at the price they set. Adding or subtracting modules is most often than not out of the question, and since the source code is out of reach making the changes in house is not really an option. On contrary, with open source is a lot easier to pick and choose the pieces you need. And if there isn't something that suits your needs as is, having access to the source code allows you to build your system in house. Or you could hire outside help if there is the need. Add to this the availability of open standards that are powerful and reliable, the flexibility for users is much bigger. Not only that, the systems built this way are truly owned by those who build them. ...

ACTA might have been shoot down, but we are still stuck with a patent law that doesn't help to bring innovation forth. A system that was set up in order to create an atmosphere that made innovation possible by protecting truly innovative products and ideas, is now used to litigate rivals out of the market. To add insult to injury, the system is set up so that the one with the deepest pockets is sure to win. The merits of the patents are usually not center stage when someone threatens with a lawsuit, since the merits come into play once you get to the trial. And then, you've to pray that you get a jury savvy enough to understand what is going on. As usual, the users are the ones that who'll be the biggest losers. Users get fewer choices, and get less innovative products since the ones making the products we buy don't have to work as hard to get our attention. Small enhancements, or even incremental ones, could be passed as much more. There wouldn't b...

ACTA, the international version of SOPA, has been defeated in the EU Parliament by on overwhelming mayor. The final vote of 478 to 39 against it, making it hard to argue that anyone other than special interests want anything like ACTA. This is a mayor victory for the users rights, and to against having back door deals like ACTA being forced upon people. Most importantly, that the EU Parliament voted against it practically unenforceable. Now, most countries will move away from ACTA since people have made one of the most important governments of the word shoot it down on its own backyard. I hope the message goes out that laws shouldn't protect special interests over the people. As a matter of fact, people should be more protected from the abuses from the special interests.