Sound management,the Achilles heel of FOSS...

As with many things in life, the hardest thing to do with any FOSS(free and open-source software) project is manage it so that it doesn't get sidetracked from it's goal and to get things done. In many cases, FOSS projects that have sound technical foundations fail because their resources where mismanaged or they lost focus because of it.

Sometimes it's because of both, which is a shame.

The reason why Red Hat, LibreOffice, Firefox, and even Canonical, have had the success is due they have been well managed. These companies have brought together the technical expertise and the vision, and their management have made the right choices to keep true to them. So, they have arrived to the success they enjoy now.

Yet, as Mozilla has shown, finding the right people to lead the project forward can be somewhat tricky to say the least. Specially since many FOSS project depend on their communities to take it forward.

In a way, the management of some FOSS projects is not like managing a business, while other require that kind of managerial style. All depends on the the community behind the project, and what are the goals that it has set itself to reach.

FOSS works, and what comes out of it can have top notch quality. What it need is to be better managed from the onset.

Open source victories that can make it mainstream...

With examples of the UK government choosing the ODF standard, or Geneva bringing open source software to their schools, are victories that help open source advocates to make the case for wider adoption of open source software and open standards.

In both cases, shows how the benefits are to many to ignore and are quite enough incentive to make the move. The savings on the money that has to be paid in royalties, and for the right to upgrade are considerable. Not only that, at UK case it means that people can access government information without any cost imposed to them just to look said information because they can access it from any suite they choose.

As this article at cnet.com about LibreOffice points out, now people don't have to pay Microsoft for their office suite to be able to access public documents. Whats best, there are several other office suites that can be used to access public documents saved on the ODF format, while being able to handle old Microsoft's formats with ease.

What important about the UK government's decision, is that it frees their documents from a possible lock in to a single vendor office suite. This allows information to flow, independently of what office suite each user uses to access the documents.

For the Geneva school system, it means having software that is easier to maintain and far more stable. What's most important, Ubuntu is proving easier to use for everyone involved.

For me, the best part is that the children using the computers are going to be exposed to using free software from an early age. This means that they are going to grow up without the false ideas that free software is hard to use, or at least as capable as any proprietary software. Which means, that they wont learn skills that lock them to a certain software from a single company.

There are several other examples, like Munich ditching Windows and Office for good, give the open source community at large the legitimacy it deserves. Not only that, it makes it easier to advocate to more cities and companies to make the move and follow suit.

In more than ways, open source can use them as examples that it works and it's can be the tool that people need to move forward.

When the strategy fails, don't blame open source...

This article at infoworld.com got me thinking, Tizen failed because it's open source model or because it was badly managed?

It seems to me that the failure of Tizen has to do more with how the project has been managed so far, rather than with it being open source software. With Samsung betting heavily on Android, and Intel getting its hands on whatever OS can make its chips relevant, Tizen really had much chance to succeed.

As with proprietary software projects, open source projects success depend heavily on how the leader of the projects manage them. On both sides, there are far more projects that fail than those who become success stories. Neither development process comes with a warranty of success attached with it, since there are many factors that can determine if a project will be a success or a failure.

Trying to pin the blame on the open source development of Tizen, is quite shortsighted. As it states, the failure of Tizen is more a matter of strategy than of the open source model itself. Blaming open source instead of the poor strategy misses the point, since what failed was the strategy itself,

In a way, Microsoft has a big failure on its hands with its Windows Phone OS, since it barely stands on the smartphone market. The success story for proprietary software on mobile operating systems goes to Apple with their iOS, and the iPhone.

At the end, Tizen is a model on how not to manage an open source project. The failure can be blamed on the strategy used to mange the project, not on the open source model used to develop the OS.

Modify your software, or business processes, only if it brings added value...

This arstechnica.com article highlights a point that I think is something of a shortsighted view of the integration of software and business processes. It's the choice between choosing to modify the software or the business processes, so that they integrate in a way so that they add value.

There is no single answer, the reality is that each project is different from each other. As such, when the upgrade is being done one should map out when is modifying the software or the business process will bring the most value. In short, choose to modify the one that has to adapt to the other in order to make things work to the best of their capabilities.

It's also important to have in mind that, sometimes you're going to have to modify both in order to achieve the results you're looking for at the end.

That's why having a clear idea of how you're doing things, and the results you want to achieve. Only with this in mind, and fully mapped out, you can make the choice of what software you need to get and if you need to modify it in order to make it work for you. The same goes for your business processes, since the new software can be the key factor in making any changes in your processes be made smoothly.

Trying to force business processes to work with a certain software, or vice versa, is the recipe for waste of money and time. When making any kind of change in order to improve your business, make sure that what's change actually adds value.

Change only those things things that will bring the results you want, or add the value you need to bring in.

Vendors shouldn't be able to lock us in their ecosystem...

That Apple and Google are herding their users toward vendor lock in this arstechnica.com article describes, which spells bad news for users. Even for those who still aren't on either of those ecosystems, since they will be forced to pick a side if iOS and Android as become even more dominant players on the smart phone market place.

Even though Apple isn't that big on the desktop, it can herd some users to their computers if they make it hard enough to use the iPhone along with Microsoft Windows or Google's Chrome OS. The same goes for Android, that could have an easier way of locking people in since more OEM have access to their mobile OS.

Users should be the one who choose if they want to use devices from just a single vendor, or use a mix of devices from as many vendors as they choose.

That's why vendor should always use a common standard as a platform, so that interoperability between all our devices becomes the norm independently of the software that each one runs. It boils down to the fact vendors shouldn't any control on limiting what devices we get, by making it hard for their devices to work nicely with devices of other vendor.

What devices we get as users, which ones we link, and how we do it must be completely controlled by us. Vendors should have not have any control over the interoperability of devices, all should work with each other independently of brand or vendor.

At the end, users are the ones who need to have complete control over his or her devices. This is why interoperability between all devices must be baked in from the onset, by using a common standard as a platform so that all devices can work together seamlessly.

Vendor lock-in is only good for them, as users we must make them use common standards on their platforms.

Took a while, but still there is a long way ahead...

This column in wired.com made a good point about why people can't really share their files easily, and why it took so long for an app that lets you do that to come along.

Most often that not, it seems like the interest of corporations trump the interest of the people when it comes to sharing files. What's more disturbing, is the fact that in some cases governments side with corporations so that governments can control the flow of information. Thus, it becomes a lot easier to censor all that the power want to keep from the public.

While I believe that an app like onionshare and Tor project are available to the public, it also bothers me that they are not all that friendly to people who don't have that much technical know-how to make use of these tools. For must people, just entering to their sites to see what they are about might be a turn down to adopting them.

Now more than ever, there is a real need for projects that make this kind of apps that are easy to use by people with minimal computer skills. Which, in a sense is somewhat sad, because privacy should be something that we could take for granted on-line.

Both, onionshare and the Tor project, are great steps forward. Yet, there are just the first step in a long journey to win back our on-line privacy.

If I had my doubts about the NSA, now I've even more...

If it wasn't bad enough that the NSA was collecting data wholesale, without missing much, is plain wrong. But targeting readers of the Linux Journal, while labeling them as extremist takes the whole thing to a whole level of paranoia that it's really unsettling.

As a regular reader of the Linux Journal, I take offense that I could be labeled as a suspect and my movements tacked just because I've an interest on their content because it's interesting and useful for me as a GNU/Linux user. Not only on the tips on how to keep my privacy, but to get news and to stay up to date on whats going on.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people that are up to no good use information they find on the site for their wrong doing. Yet, I'm quite sure that most of us who access the site are either GNU/Linux professionals or enthusiasts that find the content useful and interesting. As such, it serves as both a forum to discuss whats new, or just have an interesting read to have an insight on whats new.

All in all, it makes no sense to say that the Linux Journal readers actions need to be tracked because we aren't a threat. Yes, the average reader of the Journal is more conscious about privacy issues on the Internet, and some will use the tools that appear on the Journal if they see fit to use them. But, that's no evidence that those readers who use them are to anything wrong.

If I was not that fond of the NSA, now I really have a problem with how it makes its choices on who to target for surveillance.

Technology is no silver bullet, just a tool that can make change happen...

Is technology the silver bullet that will change the world? The answer is not as simple isn't a yes or no, it's actually a lot more complicated than that. In itself, technology is not the answer, is just the tool we have to make our world a better place.

The truth, is people have to change the world. Technology is just a tool we have at our disposal to make change happen, for better or for worse its impact will depend on the use we give to it.

As many things in life, technology will change our lives and we will have an impact on how technology evolves by the way we use it. What we believe, our habits, and social structure that exist when a certain technology arrives have a role on how it's received and used. It has a huge impact on how widespread it's adoption it will be, and it's not always easy to measure on the early days of it's release to the public.

In a way, technology will not bring paradise to us. Instead, it's the tool that can help us to build it, one step at the time.

Yet, we need to have caution. Technology can be used for good or evil, since in itself it's neutral. People are the ones who are good or evil, and their use of technology defines the outcome we are going to face. The habit of blaming technology for our ills needs to be rooted out, since it's the use we give technology that brings all the outcomes that we have to face when it's not used wisely.

Technology will not save us, we are the ones who have to save ourselves. Technology is the best tool we have at our disposal for the job, but we need to learn how to use and developed it in a way that nurtures the best we have to offer.

In the end, technology is the tool we need to create the best possible future we can.

Aereo's defeat might spell bad news for cloud and streaming users...

This analysis of Aereo's defeat in court makes a good point, and really raises some good questions about cloud computing. It makes me wonder not if people can be targeted for copyright infringement, but when and why people are going to be charged with it.

Unless you use a single device to access the contents you have on your cloud storage service, you might get the attention of people who own that particular copyright in a bad way. It seems that using services that stream content, even if the user got them legally, might not last long. It seems that if a service losses the good graces of the content copyright holders, it's going to be shout down not matter what.

The worse part, is that the entity who gives the service might prove an easier target to close. Instead of going after the users that might be at fault, go after the service provider and you take the whole thing down. Doesn't matter if the majority of the users of the service got their content legally, and are using the service as remote storage.

No matter that this case doesn't set a precedent, at the end of the day it will influence future outcomes. Nothing happens in a vacuum, as such this case will influence future cases for good or for bad, even though the jury is still out for this matter.

Time will tell what this case will mean for cloud computing, and streaming services. It might set a precedent so that everyone involved learns how to approach these aspects of our digital age. Who knows how much good or ill it will bring, yet we better keep an eye open for the consequences.

Hope that Mozilla find it's way again...

After reading this, it really got me thinking and somewhat worried. Mozilla's Firefox and Google's Chrome are the strongest, and in my view, best open-source options to Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

Firefox, which is my personal favorite, and Chrome have the best chance of taking the crown away from IE to become the dominant force on which people browse the Internet. Either one by itself hasn't enough user base to really do anything against IE. Besides, FLOSS is about having choice, and losing either one would really give a virtual monopoly to the one who is left standing.

On whichever camp you are, Firefox or Chrome, we need to stand together to bring more people to the FLOSS camp. While in some ways you can prefer the implementation of one over the other, that is small compared with the bigger issue of having browsers that bring an open Internet to the people.

In many ways, both Firefox and Chrome are about standing for a truly open Internet that respects users privacy. As things stand now, users that care about those issues need both Mozilla and Google to stand with us to keep the Internet they way we want it.

Losing one, will be a huge blow for that vision. One from which would be hard to recover from, even if some other group comes along to take the place of the fallen.

As it stand, Mozilla is dire need of a leader that can actually bring together community that makes it so great. I stand by Mozilla not just because Firefox and Thunderbird are two of my software of choice, and I enjoy using them. I stand behind Mozilla because of the what represents, so I want someone that reflects that on the helm.

I'd hate to see Mozilla go down, that's why I worry about the time being lost not having someone at the head moving forward.

The "killer of whatever" moniker is becoming over used...

It really annoys me when any anything gets applied the as the "killer for x" moniker. I mean, it seems like if all new products will be revolutionary, and will come to supplant all that came before them.

Most often than not, most often than not those products fail to do so and end up finding a place along some of those products they were supposed to replace. Just look to tablets, they were suppose to completely replace PCs, and laptops, and ended up finding a niche. People seem to get over excited about some products, and don't seem to think thing through before coming with those grandiose claims about how this or that new product will just replace what came before it.

While there some examples that prove to be correct, those are the exception rather than the rule. Mainly, those examples can be found where moving to that new product is not a choice to the end user. The move is dictated by an imposition, where there is no real option not to make the change or the benefits of making the change are really that good to be ignored.

For me, it seems that "killer" moniker has become little more than a marketing ploy to get attention, or used by fans to praise their new toy.

In order to be sure if a product earns that title we have to wain, it's something that takes time to determine. And let's not forget that nothing has to become a "killer" product to be successful, and there is no reason why it can't live along with established technologies.

All technologies will be replaced with something better with time, yet not all need to be replaced with a the next one by a "killer" technology.