Tsikbal: from my perspective

It's quite interesting that many people don't seem to trust open source software when asked if they would use it, but many use Chrome or Firefox as their browser of choice. Some even use Android powered mobile phones without much concern. It seems that in most cases, people are misinform about what makes software open source and how it's created. It seems that people tend to equate open source software with being difficult to use, or simply alright dangerous because its open nature. Both statements are false, and misleading. As Firefox, Chrome, and Android show, open source software can be at least as easy to use as any close source software. In many cases, most people find it open source software easier to use. On the danger side, as with any piece of software, it all depends on the source of the software. One should be always careful about where one gets any software, and choose well established companies to supply, and implement, any software. And Mozill...

The Internet is a two-edged sword. It can help to keep in touch and share what you want with the people you care about in an instant. Yet, it can also be the source of people actually being a lot more apart from each other, and can enable them to go for days with little or no human interaction. Yet, as with any tool, all depends on how each individual uses the Internet. Blaming the Internet for whatever each individual chooses to do in his life is short sighted at best, since choices are made in a lot more complexed ways that are influenced by many factors. The connections that the Internet allows help people reach a lot more people than ever before, and also puts a wealth of information at his disposal. This combinations gives the Internet a importance that is paramount to the interest of the people. Since it allows all to engage their some activities on a very interactive ways, and share what they love with the world almost instantly. Most importantly, it give people more co...

Today a coworker said that he had installed Windows 7 on a laptops that came with SUSE Linux, and he said that Windows should be better because it has a larger installed base. It seems that many see quantity as a measure of quality, which more often than it's not true. In most cases, a large installed base doesn't mean that the software is good or the best possible option for the task at hand. Windows has such a lead mainly because most people don't know they have other options, or just use it because is what it comes with it. Now things are changing because of Apple, with it making more inroads into the consumers minds. With that, people are aware that there are other operating systems out there. With that awareness, the chance that some Linux distros might have a chance to make inroads into the average user. Distros like Ubuntu, Linux Mint and Zorin OS are quite user friendly and stable. Not only that, users have the at the disposal all the software they...

Computers have the potential to bring people closer, all this by letting them share, work and play together in a way that wasn't possible before. Finding others with the same interest, that want products or services that we can provide, is a lot easier and faster to do. But for all this to work as well as we need and want it to, there needs to be a higher level of interoperability among the software that is used for the same purposes. Any software that lock users to keep using it, without the possibility of changing to another one for whatever reason the user want to, should not be allowed in any way, shape or form. The user should have full control over the data that it's managed, and how the software interacts with the rest of the system. Not only that, the user should be able to study the source code and to make any modification to it if there is a need to do so. Once the any software is install on the user's system, it can't do anything else than it's i...

There are many people who seem to believe that software that's released as open source isn't safe, or as reliable, since anyone can see and modify the source code. The truth is that it isn't like that at all, since open source software has been shown to be at least as reliable as it's closed source counterparts. It might sound counterintuitive, but it works because there are many people working on open source software to make it reliable and safe. And since the code is there for anyone to see, it becomes that much harder to put any malicious code into it without someone noticing. So, if there is any change in code that is harmful, it can be detected a lot sooner by someone scanning the code. And since open source projects tend to rely on a few coders to work on it, any new contribution by someone that doesn't normally contribute code is routinely checked for anything that could be harmful. There is a difference between allowing people to contribute valuable...

As a geek, and a man, I find it sad that many men in the community don't give women a fair chance or respect them as equals. Women are as capable with tech as any man is, and should be ranked for their merits. No person should be given a role to play because of their gender, but because of what they want and their abilities. So, if a girl want to go into the field of math, engineering or science, she should be given all the support to go for it. If she wants to do so, she should have the same opportunities to carve a place for herself as any man has. Personally, many of my role models have been women. Marie Curie, Kari Byron, and Margaret Thacher are some of the examples of women that have done something that makes a difference in the world. There are hundreds of women that demonstrate that they are just as capable as men are, and sometimes they do it even when they face obstacles set in place by men just to see them fail. So when anyone say that women are not as c...

One of the areas where FLOSS can have a big impact, is on support on social causes by giving people a tool that isn't dependent on the interests of a single private vendor. When there is a way that allows the creation of software directly by those interested, without having to depend on someone or a company to act, more opportunities can be acted upon rapidly. Not only that, people can choose how and when is best for them to act upon any given situation. Or even if they want to engage it at all. People are empowered to really act, and do, as they thing is best for them. We could actually have a say on what information we want, and with who we want to share it with. We would be in control of what goes on not only with out real life, but also of our virtual one. All the freedoms we enjoy on the outside world, should be carried into the virtual world. There shouldn't be any question about it, it should be a given. As it happens on the outside world, people should ...

One of the great things of FLOSS, is that the end users gets a choose from several options what's the best for what they do. On top of that, the users get to customize even more if they think it would better for them by doing so. At the end of the day, the users are the ones who have the final say on what software to run and how it'll run on their systems. They have the freedom to study and modify the software they use, and share those modifications with others. It creates an ecosystem where all are equal, and people can truly come together to work on what's important to them. By working like this, the end product becomes greater than the sum of it's parts. People actually have a chance to enter something that brings them together to work on something that can has the potential to be far reaching, and be an agent of change bigger than any of them could be individually. FLOSS can give everyone a gate to discover about everything and anything there is an inte...

If we want to keep the world moving forward, while closing the disparity among the people, we need the people to have free access to it and be able to redistribute what's relevant to them. Closing access to information to anyone does more harm than good, since it limits the options any given person or group to find a solution to whatever problem they might be facing. After all, if there is any way to get solutions is to know what is going on. To get a clear picture of what is being faced, people need to be able to find information about it and to learn what others did whenever possible. If not, there can be disastrous consequences that could be avoided by simply allowing informations to be freely shared among people and communities. Information is a common good, and is not something that can be owned by any person or entity. By allowing information to be owned, it's values decreases exponentially. Mainly because the information stops being useful because it can...

For me it's sad and annoying when companies see that others start implementing their own version of something they pioneered, and instead of keep ahead by making their implementation better by adding new features they go the litigation way. In my mind, trying to get others out of the market by litigating against them is a waste of time and resources. Specially when they have already proven that they can actually come with products that are better and more innovative than the competition. If they keep working on ways to keep ahead of the rest by actually making better products, the odds is that people would keep choosing them. And let's face it, most of the time people choose they competition devices not because they are confused. Most often the choice is motivated by the fact that the implementation offered by the others is more appealing to that individual. It seems that some companies do believe that people are stupid, and can't seem to recognize one product ...

While I agree that OS vendors have the right to implement a code of conduct for developers. Yet, I don't think that also limiting what they can develop and how it can be developed on the OS. A great OS, is one that is open for all to develop whatever software developers thing there is a need of and for the user to be able to use the software that better fits his needs. Users should be who decide what software they want to use, and from which developer. The vendor should limit itself to checking that developers behave themselves according to the code of conduct that was set by the vendor. Otherwise, the vendor should be neutral on what runs on the OS. Without this level of openness, users can suffer from lack of choice and innovation. The vendor holds a virtual monopoly on what, and how, any piece of software can be implemented. Meaning that they can shut down any developer that does anything that competes on an area they don't want anyone to do so. In essence, the ...