What could have been...

While I was reading this article at Ars Technica, I couldn't help but to feel a bit of sadness and nostalgia. I really liked Nokia's mobile phones, and I had high hopes for their Symbian OS. By the time they released the N8 smartphone with Symbian^3 on it, I was really hopeful about the OS.

Another thing I really liked, was that Nokia had open sourced Symbian and that made it an option for me. The idea that my favorite mobile brand used an open sourced OS was very appealing, since I enjoyed using it. I would loved to see Nokia throwing it's weight behind Symbian, so that by now there would be two open source mobile operating systems at the market. The other being Android, which has matured a lot since it was released.

In a way, I'd have loved to see Nokia adopting Android when it stop using Symbian on their smartphones. In that case, I would still be on Nokia's field. In many ways, I felt betrayed when by the switch to Windows. Ever since they did so, I haven't even considered buying anything from Nokia. Before that, I was loyal to Nokia.

Now, it's to late for any kind of change. Seems that Nokia really went south, and it got lost somewhere only to become somewhat irrelevant at the smartphone arena.

It's a shame where Nokia has come, it comes to show that the future is not certain for anyone.

Sad mishandling of information...

One of the virtues of the Internet, is that it democratizes the flow of information. It allows individuals to share information, or to access it, in various ways, in any format they dim to be more convenient and at any time they have the chance to do so. Those who are interested on that information can access it the time that suits them best, and redistribute it to others that might find such information interesting or valuable.

More than ever before, the flow of information is free to flow not only from hand to hand or to a hand full of people. Now, information can be flow much faster and to much more people than it has ever been possible. Not only that, it no longer has the constraints of time and location to tie it down. Information generated at one corner of the world, can reach anywhere around the world in an instant.

It's sad, and enraging, that some governments try to limit that free flow of information or use it against the people. Even worse, is when they try to get access to private information without going through the passes they legally have to access such information.

The flow of information needs to be unimpeded by no one, but the person from who the information originated from. Each of us, must have every guarantee that we have full and total control of our information, and thus the way it flows. Our information should only arrive to our intended destination, and shouldn't be tempered on transit in any way, shape or form.

If the government thinks it needs to intercept it, it should be made to give a valid reason before it's allowed to intercept it to read it. The government shouldn't be able to do so without proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that it has a valid argument to do so.

While information is a common good, that belongs to us all, not all information should be treated like that. Some information is private to the individual, and that information should be treated as the property of that individual. All other information, specially that the is comes from public areas, needs to remain in the hands of the public.

The flow of information should be unimpeded, at all times, so we all can access it on equal terms.

Development doesn't define free software...

There is a lot of people who argue that free software should be developed on a community level, and there is a lot of resentment when it's development it's constrained to the walls of whoever needs that specific needs.

Yet, free software has nothing to do with how it's developed. It's about being able to access to the source code to study it, to modify it as you see fit, and to redistribute it without any restrictions that hinder you from doing so. If the license has no restrictions on those attributes, it's free software independently on how it's developed.

The choice of how to develop any free software is from the people who are going to be develop it, and it has to suits their needs. At the end, development is independent complying with what free software guidelines ask for.

If you don't want to use free software that isn't developed directly by the community, don't use it. But, that doesn't give you the right to go around telling people don't to use it or speak ill of those who choose to to develop their software without the help of the community.

The community should be picky about developers actually complying with what free software licenses ask them to, and not how develop their software. If they give free access to their source code to be studied, modified and redistribute it, then it's all well and dandy. That they respect what makes free software free, is far more important than how they develop said software.

Anything else than the core values of free software, it's more about personal taste than anything else.

You got to be kidding...

It's hard to take any legal system seriously, when just about anyone can sue over how a word is used to name a group or a product without taking the context of how it's used into account.

The lengths some take in order to "protect" what they think of as their intellectual property is just plain wrong. A case that comes as a perfect example of this point is the Boy Scouts of America treating to sue a group called Hacker Scouts over the use of the word Scouts.

I don't really know why should the Boy Scouts of America need to do this, since Hacker Scouts are dedicated to teach children raging from eight to 12 do protects having to do with science and engineering. Which is not the things that Boy Scouts do, but not something that is demeaning or that's unlawful.

Other than that both are Scouts, the other thing that both organizations have in common is that fact that both give out badges that earn by completing projects.

I can't see how anyone could confuse the two, or why Boy Scouts of America could have a problem with an organization like Hackers Scouts being scouts too. Both organizations are doing things that are great for both society and individuals, yet are doing so by different means.

Hacker Scouts should be allowed to keep the Scouts for their name, since I don't see them misusing the word or how they could be confused with the Boy Scouts. The organization is doing a great thing to promote science and engineering among kids, which is needed if we want to keep our world getting better for all.

I leave you the links to the page of the Hacker Scouts page and to the article in Ars Technica with the Boy Scouts of America actions against them below: 

http://www.hacker-scouts.org/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/be-prepared-to-litigate-boy-scouts-pressures-hacker-scouts-to-drop-scouts/

Spread the word, and support Hacker Scouts to keep their name.

Jumping to GNU/Linux isn't as complicated as many say...

As someone that uses both Ubuntu and Windows on daily basis, I find it odd when I hear that you can't most of the things you can do with Windows on an machine running Ubuntu(or with any other GNU/Linux distribution for that matter).

While it's true that there is some software that's only available on Windows, it's hard not to come across with an analog on the GNU/Linux camp that can do the job at least as good than it's Windows counter part. For general computer users, in many cases there are actually several options to choose from to fit their needs.

For example, on Ubuntu you can use Firefox or Chrome to browse the Internet. There are several chat clients, like Pidgin and Empathy, if you are an active user of those services. Even Skype is available on Ubuntu, you can keep in contact with those of your friends and family who use it on regular basis.

If you need a robust office suite to work with, you have the option to use LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice, among others. With them, you get all the thing you expect to come with a modern office suite.

These are just some of the examples, in many cases I've found that there are just some very specific needs that are obstacle to make the jump to an GNU/Linux distribution. The main reason I've come across, is the fact that a software needed hasn't an analog the GNU/Linux camp, or migration isn't possible because isn't practical to move the data.

After about four years of continuous use of either Ubuntu or Linux Mint, I can say I don't miss Windows at all. I found the transition to be quite easy, even thought there were some hurdles they where easy to ever come.

Most of those hurdles where just little habits, that I was able to change in a few days of constant use of the new operating system. Yet, I found that all the software I needed is available and works well. Some of the harder problems I came with, where solve fast with some visits to forums on the Internet.

It's important to note, that you don't need to have to much of a technical know-how to use Ubuntu or Linux Mint. While having it won't hurt, and helps to do some advance things, you won't be hindered on the use of Ubuntu or Linux Mint for every day shores like browsing the Internet or listening to your music.

If you want to have an operating system that gives you the freedoms that come with FOSS, and it's easy to use, I highly recommend using Ubuntu or Linux Mint. So, come on and join us on this side of the fence.

Building from a common pool...

Another of the things that are beneficial about FOSS(Free and open-source software), is that it gives developers and programmers a common pool of code to work on. Thus, their work is make easier and faster since they get to use the foundations set by other before them.

Not only that, it allows to innovations and improvements to come to the existing pool of code a lot faster. It also means that those innovations and improvements to spread a lot faster, since they are set on the common pool used by the people who actively use it to make their software. Meaning that all the software made from that pool shares from those improvements as they come.

From the user point of view, using FOSS means that they get software that is compatible with other software that draws from the same pool. In essence, it means that the user is software built from a standard that gives the freedom to know that the data used isn't dependent on a the software being used, but on the code that came from the common pool. The jump to another software can be done a lot easier, since there is the option of using another software that it's built from the same pool of code or the users can build their own software using the pool if there is no option already available.

In many ways FOSS gives programmers, developers and users a way to build standards that are freely available to all who need to use that pool of code. It democratizes software, by allowing anyone interested in using the code to use it or to give to in the best way they can.

By using a common pool of code to build software, there is more incentive to keep an eye on it by the community that makes use of it. To have robust and secure code at the pool, becomes vital to all since any vulnerability or bad code puts everyone at risk. It also means, anyone can contribute code that improves on it or secure vulnerabilities while all can check it for any flaws to make sure it adds value.

Drawing from, and giving to, a common pool means that all that do so are at least partially responsible to keep that pool healthy and safe to use.The effort to do that is shared by a lot more people, all of who have some stake on making sure that the pool is as good as it can get.

Freeware is not the same as free software...

There is the misconception that just because you can get software free of cost, it means that it's free software. This is not the case, free software can cost money and still be free software; while close source source software can be given away.

What make software free software, is not the price. What makes it free software is that the user can freely study the source code, make modifications and distribute the resulting software without any restrictions whatsoever. The price of the software isn't what makes free software, is that fact that there are no restrictions to access it's source code.

When there are restrictions on imposed on the use of software, but it's given away for free, then it's freeware. Freeware can be both, open source or closed source(proprietary) software, since it just means that it's given away for no profit.

Free software can be for profit, if it allows their users free access to their source code to be studied, modified and distributed by users.

It's sad most people don't understand this difference, since proprietary software greatly restricts users freedoms by limiting how they can use software they own. And now more than ever, there is a need to move to free software since it's the best way to keep our freedoms and privacy.

Free software is not something for geeks, or technically proficient people. Free software can be easy to use, and easily accessible for people with any level of technical knowledge. Some examples of how free software that is easy to use are Firefox and Ubuntu, or Android on the mobile realm. The point is, that free software is the best tool people have to protect and enact their freedoms.

The governments has shown how willing is to take our freedoms, and some companies have shown that they are more than willing to help the governments who do so. Free software is the best, and perhaps, the only option to at least keep them at bay.

So, let's start by not confusing free software with freeware.

The importance of privacy...

The data that each individual generates, should belong only to the individual who generates. Thus, each individual should be the one who can access it and how much of it they can see.

Our privacy is based on our control over the data we create. So, we need to keep doing all we can to make sure that our privacy is kept intact. There is no valid reason why our data should be collected and shared without our consent and permission. Every time our data is collected and stored by a third party, we should be made aware of the fact, and our permission should be obtained to do so. If we don't give our permission, out data shouldn't be stored at all.

If the government wants to investigate on us, and gather data the data we have generated, they should always have to have prove that they have a probable cause. As such, if they can't prove a probable cause it should be illegal for the government to do so.

People should be able to presume some level of privacy every where they go, at all times. Each one of us should be at control of our privacy, as such our privacy should be legally protected. If someone takes intruded on it without our permission, or a legally valid motive to do so, we should be able to do something against that.

We all have things that we want to keep for ourselves, and we need to be reasonably confident that we can keep them that way. No all that we keep private is illegal, as such we need to be entitled to privacy.

Critical thinking...

It's sad how much critical thinking is lacking, sometimes as much as common sense it seems. The lack critical thinking brings several problems, the main one being that people just accept what they are told without actually analyzing the information given to them.

The fact that people don't apply critical thinking when they receive new information, means that misinformation, even lies, become accepted by many and continue to be passed on as if they are correct. What can be more problematic, is the fact that when those pieces of information become so rooted in people's mind that are near impossible to change.

One important aspect of critical thinking that needs to be understood, is that when applied correctly the person analyzes the information handed over. It isn't about criticizing the information just because, is filtering to see if it makes sense. In a way, we are compering with the information we already have in order to see if there is something that shouldn't be there or just odd.

If there is, we need to see what jumps us as odd to see why and make the necessary adjustments.

By being critical thinkers, we aren't out there to tell people they are wrong. We are just applying a filter to new ideas and information, in order to keep the those that actually useful to apply later. In many way, it helps us to better ourselves by making sure we are get what we need in order to become better.

It's important that critical thinking becomes an ability given to every person, in order not only to build a better world. But also to give people to become better by their own hand, by being able to know what's good information when they come to it.

Critical thinking is the best tool we can give our children to better themselves, and the world, in the long run.

Curiosity should be cultivated...

Humanity has come as far as it has, because we are curious by nature. We want to know more about the world, the need to look for answers is almost an instinct.

Sadly, somehow that curiosity is hammered out during childhood. We are told not to ask, to conform with a set of answers given to us to memorize. The need to go and seek those answers by ourselves is taken away, we are told that we aren't good enough to do it.

Yet, we need to cultivate that curiosity. Instead of suppressing it, we should be giving our children the tools to look for their own answers in an effective way. Let's make being curious a good thing, something to be proud of. Curiosity brings good things for all when it's given the tools process the information found, so that the information obtained can be used in a way that benefits in as many ways possible.

There is an urgent need to cultivate curiosity, not take out. The problem isn't questioning the world around us, it's that we don't strive to understand it. If we understand the world around us, we can actually make things better for society and the individual.

It's vital for our long term survival to foment curiosity in ways that it brings positive change, we need to give it the tools to do so not suppress it. We have come so far because of curiosity, and taking away is the best way to harm our future.

How to take news about security vulnerabilities...

The thing with security in software, is not if there is a security flaw or not. It's more about how do they get handled, not to mention how fast they are fixed.

One of the things you can count upon in software development, is that mistakes will be made at some point. Some of these mistakes will be security vulnerabilities, yet focusing on them to proclaim that all is wrong is shortsighted and unfair to developers.

Instead, the focus on those security vulnerabilities should be how the developers acknowledge them and how fast they get them fixed. How they manage both of these issues is crucial for people do what must be done to secure their system by taking the appropriate actions, and to get the fix as soon as the developers get it out.

Most importantly, let's keep in mind that every piece of software out there is bound to have some vulnerabilities. So, instead of trying to find a software without them, we need to keep working ironing out vulnerabilities out. When we solve one, the odds are that another will come to take its place.

I don't trust any software developer, or company, that tells me that their software has no vulnerability at all. I trust those who keep an eye for vulnerabilities and fix them quickly when  whenever they are found. Even more when they listen to those who advice on vulnerabilities and take some action to fix the hole.

The threats that we face are also changing constantly. So, new ways to attack software to crack it open are found with time. So, we need to keep adapting to add or subtract what's needed to keep our software safe.

Software security is a never ending battle, so there will always be some vulnerability to fix. As such, we need to use and support developers that keep working on making their software safe for us to use.