Tsikbal: from my perspective

As much I've been having a great experience with the BlackBerry I got a couple of months ago, I can't get my find myself wanting to change to an Android, Ubuntu Touch, or Firefox smartphone when I get the chance to do so. The main factor, is that I what my computer and smartphone to run on open source software. On my laptop I run the latest version of Ubuntu, the 13.04 release which is my favorite Linux distro. So, I want for my smartphone to run an open source OS so both the devices that I use for my daily life follow what I believe in. It's about having devices with software built around the freedoms and ethics I want to share with the world. In many ways, smartphones are an extension of what we believe in and reflect what we value. There are a statement of our personality and who we are, because of this I want my next smartphone to run an open source OS. The way in which open source software is developed, is how I believe all human endeavors should be pursue...

It seems that there is a trend by some companies, to heard people to use proprietary software on locked hardware. This is bad, since it limits people by locking them to use the products of certain company and with who they can share with. Most of those products have the habit of don't playing nice with the products made by other companies, because of a wall that really doesn't need to be there. There is no technical reason why all software can't actually play nice with each other, most of the time is a decision made to  lock people in so that they keep buying from a certain company. That companies do this is not acceptable, and they must be stopped. We need to push all of them to build on common standards, so that we can have access to all the information available in any format, use it as we see fit and to share it with who we want. Companies, or industries and governments for that matter, have no business building walls to obstruct the free flow of information am...

It's ludicrous that governments that proclaim that they defend the rights and freedoms of their citizens, react the way they do when one of their citizens voices concerns about some of their actions or exposes their wrongdoings. The standard reaction to those citizens is to go after them with a vengeance, going to great lengths to get to them to assert punishments on them. They act in ways that are pretty much resemble those of, or close to, those actions of governments they tag as oppressive or irrespective or human rights. Somehow they believe that they have the moral high ground, or the right, to do those same things to their citizens. Thus, we need to keep pushing those governments to walk the road they expect from other governments. We need to keep pushing every government to work in a transparent way, so that we all can see how they work and can't quiet down those who point to those actions that intrude our freedoms and rights. People who brings to light thos...

As technology that allows people to be more social, and share, almost anything permeates into society it comes with a lot of implications. One of the most important, is that authorities will have a harder time censoring or ignore our rights. We have the chance not only to share what we do, but also share data on what the government does for good or for bad. In many ways, the people are starting to have a real chance to make sure that authorities don't do things outside of what they are supposed to do. In essence, people themselves can become the ones who keep tabs with what the government do and what they don't. This push to make that technology freely available as widely as possible must be maintained, since it means that we can make sure the governments act in a transparent way and answer to us the people who they serve. The world is at the verge of a power shift, and one that isn't just among states. The people can have the chance to come into the game, and ...

What many people fail to realize about free software, is where its true value resides. Most people tend to believe that the main value of free software is on the cost, focusing just on the financial side of the equation. Cost is not where the free software main value resides, since some free software can cost quite some money and don't lose its value to the people who deploy it. The main value of free software comes from the freedoms it gives to the users, and the fact that those freedoms make it much more flexible. This means that the user truly gets more that just the right to use or implement certain software, the user also gets the right to actually modify the software to better suit whatever need may arise at any point in time. Any software you need, will cost you something. The cost might be money or time, but the cost is still there to be taken into account. Yet, free software gives you the power and flexibility that comes with being able to modify it without ha...

Now we are in an turning point of history, one on which power can be redistributed in a way that it's most beneficial for the people. Not only that, we can actually take some of the power for ourselves so we can actually put to work where we need it the most. In many ways, modern technology is allowing democracy to expand to people to have more power on their hands. There is still some way to go before we have full democracy, yet each day people has more power on their hands in order to be more self sufficient. The power of government is getting more decentralized, with much of that power going to the people. If we want to have a more fair, and equal, society we need to be more active on this redistribution of power. Unless we act, so we can take some power on our hands, we'll lose a great chance to have a meaningful voice on the government or to be able the government itself. The government shouldn't be come from the people, it should be the people itself. In many...

The Internet, and the communication technologies that have come to run on it, have allowed to people be more empowered and have a better chance to do things without having to use traditional roads. We are able to do things for ourselves, and our communities, far more often than ever before. People are better able to form ways self government, by applying pressure to their government officials to really address their concerns or by making them change how they did things in order for government to actually work for the people. We are still a long way from making all the changes that need to be made to the different government systems to make them fit better the needs of their people. Yet, we are starting to make a impact on how they work and how they relate to us. Government are less able to ignore their people, or to dent the people's will for change. They have to start conceding what the people want, to a certain extent and not always as the people wanted them to. That...

The extent of how much standardization should reach can be quite foolish, since it seems that many want to standardize everything. By doing so, the point of standardization is lost and made void. While there are several things that benefit from being standardized, there are others that actually are not quite as receptive from being standardized. Standards are more of a common set of rules, that certain thing or actions should follow in order to be useful. Others have no such need, since they are going to be used in a way that it doesn't really matter if they don't play nice with others. Standardization is useful, but it has to be applied where is needed in order for it not to become just a headache. In most cases, the standards can be applied on a limited basis in a way where it add value because it makes sense to do so. It's foolish to want to standardize everything just for the sake of doing so. Just because in some areas standardization has done wonders, it ...

When a standard is made, specially one that is meant for general use, that may include any component that may require the payment of royalties it has failed from the onset. Any standard made to use by the general public needs to be made entirely free and open, so that it can be used by all on equal terms. The moment royalties are possible, the standard is discriminating against those who can't pay since it would make that standard unusable for them. If that standard is supposed to be used by as many people or organizations as possible, it should be intrinsically open so that it can be adopted as widely as possible without having to worry possible liability of having found to be infringing of a patent or intellectual property. The standard used to make everyone using it as a base, should come without any strings attached. The moment there is even a possibility that someone owns even a part of the standard, it defeats the main reason of having that standard. In many ways...

Knowledge shouldn't be allowed to be monopolized, and need to remain open to everyone. Access to knowledge needs to be considered a basic human right, since knowledge is vital to improve not only the quality of life of the individual. It's also a way to improve the quality of life of the communities, since it allows to improve almost every aspect of life, by giving better tools and understanding of how things work. Knowledge belongs to humanity at large, and we all should not only be allowed unrestricted access to any part of it that we need. We also need to be guaranteed the ability to modify it in order to make better use of it, and to share with others freely those improvements. People, and communities, are empowered by knowledge. They become more readily able to better cope with any problem that comes their way, and to learn from their mistakes. Knowledge gives people the freedom to take on life on their own, and thus depend less on outside help to solve problems. ...

There's no valid reason why any government to spy on its citizens, specially one that prides itself of the freedoms it gives them while trying to make other governments give those same freedoms to their citizens. It strikes me as ironic, that the US government has been doing just that. A government that prides itself about how many freedoms its citizens have, has in effect being breaching those freedoms by spying without a valid reason to do so. Even the reasoning behind it, that it's fighting terrorism, is not enough for people to accept losing its privacy over it. No government has any business spying on any person without proving that it was a probable cause to believe that the person is involved in some sort of illegal activity. Such process should be transparent, and open to scrutiny by the people. The moment it's done behind the public's back, there is something intrinsically wrong with it and should be repealed. The citizens have the right to know how th...