Software security...

With the Java security debacle there are several things that can be learned, mainly the importance of fixing important security bugs sooner by the developers and for users to keep their systems updated.

It also it gives strength to the point that FLOSS software is more secure than its closed sourced counter parts. Being a common good, FLOSS has the advantage that its code is continually check for this kind of security flaws. What's better, it's not only check by the people working for the original developer, but by others from outside can check the code for any vulnerability.

Adding an additional layer of protection, a fix can be offered to the core team of developers by a third party. Meaning that the processes of patching any security hole is speed up, because any security issue can be addresses a lot sooner by anyone who can patch it and sharing that patch with the community at large.

In many ways, there is more people making sure security is as tight as possible. And when a vulnerability is found, a patch can be made available a lot sooner.

Making software safe becomes not the job a small group of coders, but it's the job a all interested in making that software as secure as possible. It becomes harder to exploit any vulnerability, mainly because it goes undetected much less time.

Let's keep in mind that no software will have a perfect security bill, yet FLOSS offers the best way to keep security as tight as possible by having as much eyeballs working to making it as secure as possible.

Backward compatibility should be maintained...

If planned obsolescence wasn't bad enough on itself, the fact that many tech companies simply don't have any backward compatibility just adds insult to injury. There is no real reason why we should have to change all of our gadgets every time we change one of them.

Yes, it's true that in occasion there is some king of adapter so that the new device plays nice with the old ones. Then again, that's a solution that shouldn't be needed to begin with.

There is no real reason why there shouldn't be full backward compatibility, in most cases there is no technical reason not to have it. The reasoning is mostly financial, in order to make more money out of the user just make him have to buy again all the gadgets he already had to begin with.

Backward compatibility shouldn't be an option, it should be something that we can take for granted. In many ways, it's also a bet on the long term sustainability of our resources. The longer we can keep them working, the less resources we would be using.

At the end, we as users should be the ones deciding when to get new things and what devices we renew at any given time.

Keep your hands off our Internet...

Not a week goes by without news about someone trying to exert some sort of control over the Internet, which is worrisome because it means that those who want to do so haven't heard the voice of the people to leave the Internet alone. For the looks of it, those who seek to control the Internet as if it was their don't understand that it belongs to everyone.

That's why we all need to remain vigilant so that the Internet remains free, with no single entity having control over what happens on it.

There seems be a push to try to link the medium, the Internet, with the message, the content, to be accounted as one as the same. This can't be further from the truth, since they are different from each other by their very nature.

The medium belongs to everyone, so we all can make use of it as we see fit. The message belongs to the one who created it, and it's use is to be decided by the creator.

What should be regulated should be the contents, who can access it and how. The Internet should remain free and unobstructed, so that we can share and distribute our content as we see fit. It's vital that people can use the medium equally, and not being discriminated on how they can use it to spread their message.

The Internet belongs to all of us, so it follows that us should be the ones regulating it. That's why we need to remain vigilant that no one takes the Internet out of our hand, matter what they say.

Hacking can be used for our benefit...

Hacking in itself isn't evil, or bad, as some would like people believe. Within certain limits, it can actually be good for everyone.

What's wrong about hacking, is when it's used to steal or damage others. That's wrong, and it shouldn't be avoided.

Yet, when it's used to enhance our things in a way that benefits our community, hacking should not only be allowed. It should be encouraged, so that people that hacked the device can come forward and share how they did so more people can benefit from that new feature.

Hacking is not good or bad in itself, but what is being used for. There should be room for it, but only when it's used in ways that benefit people. Specially since hacking can give rise to forks from an original, so that areas that weren't covered can be covered if there is a need for it.

In more ways than one hacking can be a blessing, yet for it we need to foster a more people able to do those hacks. Even more importantly, we need to impart those hackers with strong ethics so that they check themselves from doing harm.

At the end of the day, hacking can be one of the driving forces for change.

Success of your project it's up to what it brings...

It's somewhat interesting to note that many point how open source is not a good model to follow, having a big number of open source projects that failed as proof. But that many open source project fail, it doesn't mean that the model is bad.

It all comes to how good,and useful, each project it really is for users. If it's good, and well implemented, projects become successful and gathers a vibrant community around it. This community is then the one that helps to develop and refine ti further, allowing the project to grow.

And even if a project dies, it doesn't mean it's a complete failure. In some cases the code, or ideas behind the project, go on to be part of established project or become the staring point of new ones.

Yet, even if projects live on, the ideas and code behind them are shared with other projects. Communities tend to share ideas, and knowhow, with each other. Meaning that most projects cross pollinate each other. Most importantly, in open source culture, this cross pollination occurs on the open and public manner. There is an understanding that doing so it actually more helpful to the whole open source community, than doing so behind closed doors.

As in any facet of human life, there will be ideas that die out while others will last longer until a better one replaces them. Open source just reflects this more closely, making it look the community a lot more chaotic than other models. And this is because it's open, so people can see the inner workings.

So, open source as a model is not what determines if a project will be successful or not. Success is entirely up to the project and its managers, if they have something in their hands and know how to deliver the project will succeed.

It's up what you bring to the table what determines success, not the table itself.

The importance of the OS...

I wonder how comes there are so many people out there than don't really understand what an OS is, and how any restrictions on how the user work on it really affects the user.

The work of an OS is to act as an intermediary between the user and the hardware itself. In a nutshell, the OS job is to take user input and to tell the hardware what to do in order to get the desired result. Then, it takes that result back to be displayed in a way the user can understand.

Not every OS does this in the same way, all depends for the environment a particular OS is designed to work at. Not only that, it also changes because of the way the designers of the OS thought it was best.

In many ways, what OS is better comes down to what it's expected from it. Like any other tool, an OS can be customized to better suit the needs of the end user. Those needs are the same most of the time, that's why general use OSes like Windows, OS X and many of Linux distros are what most people need. Their purpose fit well the computing needs of the average user, since all that they need to do on daily basis can be done with a general use OS.

The only specific case OSes out there on general user, are those used on mobile phones. These OSes, like iOS and Android, are specially coded for use mobile phones, since they have specific needs to be accounted for.

In many ways, the OS is what allows us to interact with our computers and our other electronic devises. And the user should be the one controlling how the OS works, not the OS controlling how the user work. Not only that, since the OS is a vital part of our systems, we need to make sure that when we install it on our computers all the keys on how it works are given to us. Even if we don't use all the keys, there is no good reason for the vendor to hold back any of them.

No matter how good an OS is, if it restricts users freedoms or not allows for user tweaking, it should be avoided like the plague. User safety is not a good reason to restrict, or take away, any freedom from the user. The user should have all information at hand to protect his system.

For true freedom of choice for users...

In many ways, instead of asking how many software platforms can the market deal with isn't as important as many think it is. The most important question is how do ensure that all software platforms play along with each other nicely, which is something of vital importance to both users and developers.

Why making software platforms that play along nicely more important the number than the number of platforms? Mainly because restricting the number of platforms a user has access to, also restricts the user's ability to choose the platform that better suits his, or her, particular needs. Users should be the ones shaping the market, not the market shaping the users.

The answer to this problem is both simple and complex at the same time, since the to get to the point where an user can choose any software platform there needs to be open standards for all to work with.

Having open standards simplifies things for all mainly because we all would have the same things to work with, meaning that one doesn't have to worry about on what platforms will it work with. Which means that users can focus on what platform works better for their particular work flow, while developers can focus on adding value to their platforms.

The problem mainly resides on creating and maintaining those standards truly open for all those who need to work with them. The temptations to try to keep potential adversaries out will always be there, and not sharing updates to the standard in order to have an edge over competition.

Not only that, some companies have vested interests in making sure that open standards don't become the norm.

So, it's on the users and small developers, to make sure that open standards to become the norm. For users having them means true freedom of choice, and for small developers means a more lever playing field with access to a wider audience.

My wishes for 2013...

As the 2012 comes to a close, we have a new year full of promise with 2013. There many projects that hold great promise, and some treats that hover over the horizon that can still be avoided.

Then again, I hope that people will come together to make the world a far better place than it is today. Building such a place is everyones responsibility, and a choice that we all have to take. In many ways, computer and information technology can help us to bring the better world we want to fruition.

We must understand that all technology is just a tool, and as such all the results that comes from the usage will depend entirely from the users.

Now more than ever, we have a better chance to build a better world together. The people have at their disposal more power than ever before, and we only have to make use of it to build the better world together. We need to make take it on to ourselves to build that world.

At the end, we have to do our best with the tools at our disposal. And the tools we have to work with are getting better all the time, and we have to take advantage of all of those tools.

We can do our world a better place, we have to do our best.

Enhancing human interactions...

While there is some truth that technology can be dehumanizing, the opposite can be also true. All depends on the use we give technology, is the people who decide how and what use to give the technology they use.

If we give priority to use the technology that bring us together, the end result will be that technology will enable a closer and united communities. Yet, there is a need to understand that unless we use technology that way it won't help us to construct such communities. We get out of the technology we use, whatever we put into it.

Blaming technology about how people being individualistic, or not caring about others, is shortsighted. The people use technology that way because it makes it easier for them to be like that, not because it turned into that. Shunning human interaction in many cases is a question of choice, that technology facilitates taking into action.

Instead of concentrating on technology, lets also work on the people so that they have the tools to interact with others. If we give people the right tools to make human interaction more desirable, with technology enhancing those interactions.

Placing blame on things is always easier, since it takes responsibility away from us. We need to change that, and start taking our responsibility so we can change the way we interact with the technologies around us so they enhance our interactions with other people.

Technology can be as humanizing, or dehumanizing, as we choose to use it. So, it's up to us to decide which one we want.

Privacy and our data...

It's sad and angering how our data is handled by social media, and other sites, on the Internet. Most of those companies are interested on monetize our data, with no interest on our privacy or what how we want our data to be handled.

There is a real need to be on the lookout in order to protect our data and privacy, if we don't do so companies have enough incentives to use our data in violation of our privacy to make money. What's worse, they will be making money with our data not only without consent while not having to share their earnings with the people who's data belongs to.

The tools to control the privacy levels should be clearly visible, and easy to use, in every site that handles private data. That data should always be owned by the people, and no company has any right to use it without permission by the users.

In many ways, the Internet is a platform that helps people to come together to interact. These makes the Internet a public forum that belongs to everyone equally. Yet, this doesn't mean that the private data of the individuals belongs to all.

Private data belongs to individual, as such the individual has the final say on how that data is used, how it can be used, and by who it can be used.

The case for free and open file formats...

Open and free file formats are something that's sourly missing on our digital lives. Most of the file formats used on the most popular software are neither free nor open, which ties the fate of our file to the fate of whoever owns the format used to format our files.

There is no underestimating the dangers of depending on closed non-free file formats, since using we depend on what the owners of the format gives to us and it's continued existence. If the owner of the format goes down, and no one else picks it up, unless people can change the format of their files to another they will those all the data stored using that format.

Not only that, closed non-free formats are an effective tool to lock people to a particular software, and also to regulate what content users can have. In effect, it's a way to take away control of their files from the users.

Open and free file format are just the opposite, they give the user the real choice of software to use. Users can rest assured that their files will work independently of the software used to open and work their files. It also benefits developers, since they can focus on working on their software knowing that it'll work for the task they intended it for.

Making all file formats open and free, we can create a more level playing feel for content creators to work on. It also gives the users a greater choice at what content they want, and how to consume it.

Unlike many people want us to believe, having free and open file formats will not bring modern society down or lead to general piracy. Modern society will more likely benefit a lot from free and open file formats, since more people will be able to share the content they created with a wider audience. Creators will only have to make one finished work, and then make it available far and wide knowing full well people will have to problem consuming their content.

On the piracy side, it won't lead to an increase of it. It won't eliminate it either, yet it'll facilitate people to legally get the content they want a with more ease. The incentives to do piracy will be a lot fewer, which it affect will help to reduce piracy.

Free and open file formats are beneficial for everyone. To developers, it means that they only have to worry to make their software work. To users, it means regaining control over the files they have on their computers.