Tsikbal: from my perspective

When it comes to the path taken by Canonical selected for Ubuntu, as an user and fan of the OS, I agree and like with it. Yes, there are somethings that I don't like and others than I just love about Ubuntu. The one thing that I like the most about Ubuntu, is the Unity shell. Personally, I like the way it works and it actually doesn't get in my way. Not only that, most of the bugs and lack of customization have been solved to my satisfaction on the Precise Pangolin (12.04) version. And for the looks of it, Unity will become even more refined on the upcoming Quantal Quetzal(12.10) version. In the 2 years I've been using Ubuntu, I've had no major problems. The only crash I had was while testing a beta version, which is not really that much of the issue. Not only that, all the software I need can be used on Ubuntu without much trouble. I'm not saying that Ubuntu is perfect, it's not the best option for everybody and it may not fit all tasted. I find ...

In order for science and technology become a driving force that improves our lives, we need to start making them more open and facilitate people ability to get more knowledge about what it's been work on in those areas. Not only that, communities should be allowed to grow around then to work directly on those projects. That work should be allowed to be within the any set of rules made by the initial group that started the project, or independently by other communities. There should be some level of interaction, and compatibilities, among what worked by the different communities. Yet at what level of interaction should be left to the members of each community to decide. There should be some ground rules on how the can use, and what levels of compatibilities, should be allowed. But, those restrictions shouldn't interfere with the ability to work with the core technology being work with. Independent efforts, more often than not, are not as effective as efforts made in...

One of the attributes that I like about open source, is that it gives anyone the chance to take a piece of software to work with it. By allowing this, it opens up the chance for people to create versions of the software that wouldn't exist otherwise, because the original developer doesn't have the resources or any other reason. It also benefits users by allowing to make custom versions of the software they, since it maybe that the software doesn't work as well for them as it comes of the shell. Adding or subtracting capabilities could be as easy as adding modules, since in some cases there is no need to change the source code,or the source code could be modified to better comply to what it's needed by the end user. All this could be made in house, or by third parties if there is no way to do it any other way. Those changes then could be shared back to the main version of the software, or shared with others with the same needs than the one who made those changes...

Education and technology are two of the cornerstones that have to be there in order to build a better and fairer society. Both are interdependent, since in order to advance technology there needs to be educated individuals and to be able to use technology people need to have a certain level of education. One can not exist without the other,  yet both are needed if we want to advance the quality of life for society at large. There is no need to be afraid of what technology can bring, if people are given the education to use it to the best possible end. People are the ones who make use of technology, and the choices made by the people is what dictates what will come out of the use being given to any technology. This is why it's so important to give proper education, so people make the best use of technology for the individual and society at large. Technology is there to serve society, since it's a tool to use for the betterment of society. As with all tools, th...

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 b...

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...

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. ...

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, th...

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 ...

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 wel...

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 availa...