An open environment to work on technology...

It's shortsighted to try to pin all worthwhile innovations to a single company in any area of science and technology, when most innovations require the collaboration of whole teams that span more of one company or institute.

There is a need to create the conscience that modern technologies not the work of a single company, and that individuals can be a part of bringing them forward. Not only that, all of the processes that bring any new technology, or innovation, should be open to be revised by third parties to verify that every step was taken to ensure the safety and that it meets the specifications set by the originators.

Technological advancement is a collective endeavor, which requires the work of many people toward a common goal. Not only that, there could be several answers to a single problem that could work depending on the circumstances where those solutions are to be applied.

Regulations need to be placed that allow open collaboration, where all process can be joined by those who are interested in working on a project. Also, there should ways that allow third parties to review the processes that allowed the arrival to a new technology or innovation. There shouldn't be an option to allow anyone to work behind closed door, where there can't be a way to make sure that people won't get what they are offered.

We need technology that runs on open standards, with which any interested party can work without worries about the performance of the standard or if there is a danger of a lawsuit.

A truly open environment, that gives everyone the same tools to work with is beneficial for everyone. It becomes a place where everyone can work toward the their own gaols knowing that their effort will pay of with a product that will work as they intend it to.

At the long run, having an open field for everyone to participate is on the best interest of everyone.

Open source is the path toward keeping our freedoms intact...

The only thing that can make things riskier for the user than closed source, is when the software they depend on for anything they do is control just be one vendor. Being dependent on one vendor means that your data it's tied to the faith of that company, if it ever goes down your data goes down with it.

The argument that a company is to big to fail has been demonstrated to be shaky at best, since in the past decade there have been at least a couple of companies with big names going down. And some others that had dominant positions on their fields are having trouble staying afloat.

This is why we must push to have all important, specially fundamental, technologies to be open sourced so that those technologies can be worked on not only by companies. Individuals should be allowed to work on them freely as well, to make sure that those technologies don't fall in hands on just a few powerful companies, or groups, but they remain free for the benefit of us all.

It's specially important when you realize how integrated technology has become with almost every aspect of our daily lives, we use it without a second though. To give a single company control over any technology is dangerous, since we would be dependent on the continued existence of that company, and we would be forced to never allowing it to go under not matter what.

Our freedoms could be jeopardized, since we wouldn't be able to really make those companies to account for their actions.

Open source gives us as users the power to choose what company we want to buy our technology from, with the real option to go to anther if the company we picked fails to deliver or it goes under for whatever reason.

At the end of the day, open source is not just about innovation. Open source is about protecting our freedoms and interests from third parties.

Open source software should be the core of all tech...

It's hard no to see how many people don't realize that going to closed gardens to find some level of protection isn't that good idea, since being on a closed gardens isn't the same same thing as having software with robust security. The same goes to the idea that a software being open source makes it insecure is false, since that anyone can see the source code doesn't mean that they can put malicious code into it without someone else noticing it and removing the code.

As the matter of fact, open source tends to be safer because there are several people combing the code and knows what's suppose to be there. Those people also know what part of the code is supposed to do, so any part of the code that is new to them can be expected to be reviewed to make sure it does as advertised. It becomes harder to put malicious code into it, because of the nature of source code means that if someone misses the code there will be several other that have a chance to see it.

In the source code software there needs to be the trust that the people that are supposed to keep the code safe do, because they are the only one that can see the source code to make sure that there is no malicious code.

Personally, I don't mind having some closed sourced part in the software I use. But, those closed source parts shouldn't be at the core of the software or be at hearth of it so I can't run my computer properly without them. All closed source should be optional, and the user should be able to turn in off at any time if she or he chooses.

The foundations, and the core, of all the software available should relay on open source technologies. User will be truly free only this way, and there is no way around it.

Free and open to all...

I've often wondered if people are aware of the power that the Internet gives them, when it's truly free and open. Curtailing Internet's free and open nature is in detriment of the people, since it cuts from reach any information that's behind the block.

The Internet is, by is nature, one of the greatest forums for the exchange of ideas and information between people regardless of their location, age, sex, or beliefs. The only thing you need, other than an Internet connection, is to be interested in the subject and the will to participate.

That's why, we as users of the Internet need to do as everything in our hands to keep the Internet free and open to all. Most importantly, we need to find ways that allow even more people to connect to the Internet so they can be part of, and use, all the resources that come with it. It's vital to do all this, since knowledge is power than can help us all to advance forward and enhance our quality of life.

Also, the whole Internet should be open to access from any point in the planet. So, we all have a leveled playing field. One on which everyone can access the same information and ideas, so we all can debate and benefit from them. Even put forward new ideas, or share with others the pieces of information we have.

Another thing that the Internet should be is neutral, allowing users to give it the use that each of them wants to give it or to share the content they find relevante with who they want to share it with.

Most importantly, it most be know that the Internet is the property of every user. So, it's up to us to take care of it and to make sure that it serves our interests before any private interest. It most remain so as long as it exist, and those who manage it should be accountable to the people.

The Internet is the one technology that can bring everyone together, making it possible to really create a global village. Is up to us to make it so.

Open source can multiply the benefits of technology...

As technology has advanced, there has been great improvements in the quality of life of some people. Other have not been so lucky, and haven't seen much of the benefits that technology has brought.

Some of the blame can be put on the fact that much technology is closed, and has the burden of patents or some types of closed licenses that make quite expensive for those places. In some cases, the technology can't be used as is at a particular location because it would need some modifications.

Yet, those modifications can only be made by technical personnel of the company that has the patents, or rights for the use, adding more cost.

This is why open sourcing, or having more permissive licenses, so the technology could be built and customized for the needs of the users would be most beneficial to bring new technology to those places.

By allowing those who need the technology, but can't afford it as is, to be able to study, build, and modify any technology they need without facing penalties for bringing much needed technology would allow the benefits to cover more people. Locking technology is not as beneficial as many think, specially on the long term.

To technology to be as beneficial as possible for as many people as possible, it needs to move faster and become economical sooner. If not, it doesn't do much to make an impact of the quality of life of the majority.

Not only that, the cost of any new technology this way would have the added benefit of spreading the cost around and that it would be improved upon a lot faster. Those improvements made by other, could be tested and validated to be incorporated into other versions of the products a lot faster if they benefit from them.

The power of open source, is that people can actually benefit more directly from advances in technology with a shorter wait through collaboration. It stops being a private project from a far away company, to become the project of everyone that it touches. In many ways, open source can be a humanizing force of technology by bringing it closer to people.

The annoyance of fanboys and over zealous critics...

One of the most annoying things I come about in the tech world, are the fanboys and over zealous critics of any device that becomes popular.

For fanboys, the company that produces the device of their devotion can make no mistake. If an issue is found with any of them, they are quick to find blame somewhere else or to point that's how the competition does the same. Instead of accepting that the device they have isn't perfect, that there is need of improvement, or that it isn't the best device for everyone, they seem to be more than happy to say that the ones who critique their beloved are just not smart enough to see the truth.

The zealous critics do just the opposite, they can't seem to be able to grant credit for what it's being done right on the device or by the company that made it. They just are out for blood, and they over blow even the most minuscule detail that doesn't even matter for the people who will actually use the device. No matter how well the device makes the job it was intended to do, those critics can't be swayed into saying that it's a great device for its intended use.

With some companies, it just go to far. In many ways in ruins the experience of using those companies' products to the average user, simply because of the expectations of its fanboys and critics have around them.

Most of us, we buy a device we like it and it's useful for what we are going to use it. We use is it because it does the job we want it to do the way we expect it to do, and sometimes it has the added bonus that looks good while it does it. Most of the times, we don't really care about some of the most technical aspects or how using it make us look cooler. We use it because we want to use it, not because we were told we had to or any other reason.

Guess that most of us just want to be able to buy and use any device we want to, and to fanboys and critics to take their petty fights somewhere else.

For a truly open fields of science and technology...

In many ways, we should be pushing for more openness in the science and technology fields. For better, or for worse, they touch every aspect of our lives, so society should be able to know the inner workings and how they're managed.

On the science side, there should be transparency on every research conducted and how it get the money to be done. All the information, and technical data, should be made available to the public as soon as possible. So that we know how things were done, and for people who want to make the experiment on their own can replicate it on their own.

Most importantly, patents on any scientific breakthrough should be limited that they can be beneficial to as many people as possible while giving some resources to the people who made that progress. We need a system that have public interest at hearth, not individual or corporate ones.

On the technology side, the need to have any technology available to be work on by people at large when is made available to the public is vital. There should be clear rules on what is fair use, and how modifications to the technology by individuals can be distributed. To completely restrict or allow any modification to any technology produced is not beneficial to anyones, so there is a need to find a way to allow it to happen.

It can be done and it can be beneficial to the original producer, as it has been demonstrated many times in the past. When the producers engage the communities that customize their products for other purposes, it actually becomes a win-win situation. But only if managed correctly, or it can be a disaster for everyone involved.

At the end, having those vital fields open for all of us to participate in is something that we should be able to take for granted.

Use new facts to strive, and become a better person...

It's sad that some people want seem bent in stopping research based not on facts, but because it threatens their beliefs by demonstrating that those beliefs are wrong. As if by challenging any belief system, would make the person who holds them bad.

The universe we live in is extremely complex, and we are just starting to understand how it works. As such, many of the beliefs we have about the universe can be proved wrong at any time by emerging evidence. That doesn't mean that we are fools, or that we are bad, because we believed something proved wrong.

As we learn about how things function, we have a better understanding on how to deal with them. This knowledge is an invaluable tool to move forward, and have a better quality of life and how we relate to the universe around us.

We shouldn't be blocking research that can give us valuable knowledge, since by doing so we might be losing key aspects of how the universe works that could open better lives for all of us. The foolish thing to do, is simply blocking new knowledge because it proves some beliefs wrong. By adapting our view with the new facts, we can become better persons.

By having a open mind, we can have a window to gaze new and marvelous views that the universe still have for us. Also, can see things in a new way that will make us under just how lucky we are to live.

Teaching our kids, and others, the value of an open mind is the best gift that we can bestow upon them.

Each user can choose he's perfect smartphone...

Every time a new iPhone comes out, it comes with the whole the best smartphone out there. But, Android devices have basically closed the gap, specially with the arrival of Android 4.0.

For many, including myself, now the question is not what smartphone is the best in itself. The real question now is what handset is best for each user, since now there is a real chance to match the users needs with the smartphone. Competition in the smartphone area is on the users side, since now manufactures have to produce better smartphones if they want our money.

In a way, we are fortunate to be living in a time where technology allows us to have many different options of smartphones. This devices truly hold the potential to revolutionize the way we interact with our family, friends, and the world at large. We can share almost anything that happens around us in real time, and in many apps we can even choose with who we want to each piece of information.

So, at the end each smartphone has it weaknesses and strengths, as such it all comes to what the user wants and needs to have on the smartphone that will determine which device would make the best match. The idea that one smartphone can do everything perfectly is ludicrous, since is not practical to cover everything.

It's up to the user to decide which smartphone is the best for him, and not being forced into buying one because there is no other.

Open source software is more than just software...

One of the things that I like about open source software, and why I enjoy using it, is that I can select the level of engagement I've with each piece of software I use.

I can just be an user on some, and with various levels of commitment on others. Those commitments can range from bug reporting, contributing money to keep the project going or some code. Being able to do this is important for me, since it allows me to better support the projects I like in the way is more convenient for me.

The idea that you can be a user of any project, or a part of the community around it, is really appealing for me. Not to mention that it resonates with the way I see software development, and how it should relate to its users. At the end software is used by people, it should allow the people who use it to interact with the software, developers and other users in any way each individual can do it.

Any software can only become alive, and dynamic, when it allows its users and developers to form a community around it to share their views, to contribute what they think they should, and be part of what goes on with the project. By allowing this, the software that comes out is something much more than just software. It becomes part of the lives of those that make the community around it their own, with all that comes with it.

Open source software is more than just software, or the interaction with it by its users. It's about human interactions, and building communities and friendships with people with similar interests. Being part of an open source software project can open the door to knowing more people that share the love and passion for the things you love.

I invite you to come to the open source software world, and have a look around. You'll be surprised about how big, and easy, to find something for you.

Open source importance...

The importance of open source, both in software and hardware, is something that can't be understated. If there is to fair access to technology by anyone who needs it, it's vital that the core of each technology used can be studied and modified by any person that's interested in doing so.

The idea of having any technology locking user to a single vendor because there is no real way around it, is appalling because it means that if something happens to that vendor all investment in time and money will be lost. Not to mention all the information that was in there.

It also means that monopolies are more likely, and if the come to be they will be more easily maintained since there is no option to go to in case of abuse or bad service.

Also, people that need especial adaptations of any software or hardware, could custom make them if that version isn't provided by the original vendor for whatever reason. This can streamline processes, and could bring life saving technologies to the people who need it a lot faster.

By allowing people to get to understand, and work on, the internal workings of whatever technology they are interested in, can have other important by products. With more people working to improve current technology, products that meet particular needs can come to market a lot faster. Also, those improvements needed by a particular group of individuals could make their way a lot faster, since they could get someone to make them with more ease.

Innovations will come faster, since there'll be more people covering a lot more technology. In some cases, it'd mean that there is a bigger chance of people will be working on fields that businesses would not take. Or NGOs could take existing technologies, and adapt them for their needs if they can't get any sponsor to do so.

Having open open source technologies is vital for us. Our society is becoming ever more dependent on technology to live our daily lives, so technology's inner workings have to be available for all of us. More importantly, they have to be easy to access by those who can do something of value with them.

If this doesn't come to happen, we run the risk of having the technology on which we depend on at the hands of a few hands. As history has shown us time and time again, that's not in the best interest of the majority.