FOSS is more than good enough...

As a free and open-source software user(I run Ubuntu on my personal laptop and Android on my smartphone), every time I hear that it isn't user user friendly or that you can't get things done on it I can barely control my eyes from rolling.

Specially when the person that said that uses Firefox, or on a lesser degree Chrome. The over kill is when they use an Android power smartphone, since Android is the how user friendly and good a FOSS powered device can be. And if you add OSes like Ubuntu and Linux Mint to the mix, it gets harder to make the point that the average user can't use, or be comfortable with FOSS.

I agree that FOSS is far from perfect, then again most software isn't made to be perfect at everything. Every FOSS project is intended to be used at a certain field, and that gives it a set of strengths and weaknesses to make it work in the best possible way for the task it was design to do.

When someone ask me if I recommend FOSS, the first question is what do they do. After I know what they want from their computer, I can direct them to what FOSS they can use. Ubuntu and Linux Mint being my go to OSes for the average users, and something like Ubuntu Studio for those who want an OS geared for someone who is a multimedia producer.

There is something for almost every user needs, with SteamOS now covering gamers on the FOSS community. There are some areas that aren't covered, or at least not as they should be, as of yet. But, as more people are becoming aware of the benefits of FOSS it isn't all that far fetched to think that soon every user will have a place in the community.

As such, users that already can prove that FOSS is a viable alternative to come forward and bring more people in to use FOSS. Now more than ever, I'm certain that FOSS can be used even by non-technical people, and we need to bring those users in. Every user is as valuable as the developer, and both should be equally welcome to the community.

Technology made by the people for the people...

One of the biggest mistakes anyone can make, is to think that technology will solve their problems.

Any technology by itself won't solve any problem, since it's just a tool built to help solve an specific problem. Yes, as any tool it can be adapted to solve more than the problem it was originally built for, but that doesn't mean that we can relay on it to save humanity. People using technology will save humanity, or at least give it a fighting chance to see a tomorrow.

It's easy to forget that people are the ones that will lead other to a better tomorrow, and that technology will be forever changing and adapting to the needs of the people. And as time goes on, every new technology is going to be able to be ever more democratized.

We live at the time when people are able to be a part of new technologies, or at least of movements that make use of these new technologies, in a way that its hard to imagine in other time period. As such, its harder for elites keep the people out from these new technologies, much less keeping them from sharing them among themselves in any meaningful way.

As such, the information that is contained by the new technologies is harder to control or censor. And with more individuals being better educated, the people will have a better guide to make the best use of both the new technologies and the information contained in them.

Now more than ever, social revolution is at our hands. Most importantly, the revolution won't necesesary mean bloodshed. Even if said revolution doesn't come easy, it doesn't mean that blood will have to be sacrified for said revolution to come.

It seeems that revolution will come without much fanfare.

All software can be maliciously exploited...

This article points out the obvious, that Mac OS X isn't more secure that Windows. Or than any Linux distro for that matter.

Most of the safety in Mac OS X and Linux, comes from the fact that they are used by much less people than Windows. As such, most black hat hackers used to bypass Mac OS X and Linux in favor of Windows, since the odds of hitting valuable information, or money, was most likely to be found targeting Windows users.

Yet, with more people moving to Apple's ecosystem it has become more worth while target for black hat hackers. Most Linux users still are relative safe, since most Linux distros aren't worth targeting yet due to their relative shallow user base numbers.

Let's face it, all software has vulnerabilities that can be maliciously exploited. What made OS X different from Windows wasn't it's security, but the audience that it was targeted too. While Windows has been mostly a Jack of all trades, or a gamer's rig, OS X has been mostly been used by people that are more on the creative side of things.

All that is needed for black hat hackers to target an OS is incentive, for some is just it's to prestige while for others is financial gain. And as Apple's products gain market share, it's software will make a bigger target.

Safety doesn't really on the software development, it also relies on how savvy the user is and a certain degree of paranoia.

Social awareness and the Internet...

With Bernie's rise, even though he might just not get the Democratic nomination, might spell a change not only in America, but in the world in general.

Since most of Bernie's popularity is among the young people, who are becoming more socially aware and sensitive on social justice, one might ask how much of that awareness comes from being able to share and access information over social media on the Internet rather than on a more restricted media.

I hypnotize that the Internet has enabled socialism to become indirectly, by making people more aware and sensitive to social injustice. The Internet has allowed for people to come closer in a less restrictive, and sometimes with less censure that one could get from more traditional media outlets. As such, a larger amount of people comes to ideas that be dismissed as socialism pipe dreams and see that they are needed, and must be taken, if we want have a fair society and to build a better world.

The Internet, without it being design for it as such, has made the people not only aware of social injustices, but it has given us a tool to bring social justice about by allowing us to organize ourselves in ways that weren't possible before. It has become a platform that helps unite people across the world, in ways that are hard to control from a centralized point and allow different movements to have several ways to organize themselves.

We don't have to think if we can organize, rather we have to think how we can organize. More than ever, change is more a matter of will. If there is the will to fight and bring change about, the way to make things happen will be found by those who want the change to come about.

Most importantly, if you use well all the tools that the Internet has, more than one way to rally people can be used to bring social justice. All of those ways can be used as effectively as they can, to work together for the same goal. Good coordination is key, but the Internet allows this coordination to be possible if the different tools are used correctly.

At the end social justice doesn't mean we all must be the same, or think the same way. Social justice means that we all get a level playing field so live our lives as we see fit, and live our lives as we see fit without harming others. We can work together, while not being the same.

Socialism is about social justice, without taking the individuality of the people who compose said society. As such, how socialism is applied depends on each society to making better for those who live in it. The aim is to balance what's good for the individual and the good for the society. And the Internet is a vital tool to get this balance right.

Free as in free speech...

One of the most common misconceptions about free and open-source software, is that it must cost no money.

Yet , FOSS is not always meant to be free of monetary cost. It's meant to respect the users freedoms, yet it doesn't mean that it will be free of cost. As such, you can expect to have to pay for some FOSS software while expecting to be able to exercise the four freedoms on it.

It's sad to see that at the core of the FOSS philosophy is not monetary gain, but the ability to use the software you acquire(especially the software you pay for) as you see fit to use it. That means that you should get full access to every part of it, even the source code, in order to make it work as you want it to work.

As such, it's on our best interest to be able to make public those changes and to be able to share those changes with others. Any restriction to the users freedoms is to be avoided, since those restrictions don't benefit the user, but the only benefit a few people and restrict the advancement of the software in a way that benefits as much people as possible.

FOSS compliant software is doesn't mean that you can make money out of your work making it. You CAN make money while making FOSS compliant software, and being an active member, of any the communities that make FOSS software. At the end of the day, everyone has to make a living out of what they do.

You make money for working on software, not from the software itself. It means that you need to add code that adds value to the software in order to make money out of it. If you just code thing that already are out, there is no reason for people to pay for the software, or code, you do. That means that no matter if you make a brand new piece of software, or add some code to an existing app, you better make it better for the end user.

At the end, profits and FOSS aren't mutually exclusive.

The Internet as a meeting place...

With the Internet permeating all of lives, and becoming ever more integrated into our daily routines, it's easy forget that it's a tool. As such, it's best used when it enhances our lives and helps us to live a happier and fulfilling one.

The temptation to live our whole lives in the Internet, is one that many have found irresistible. In some ways, the drive to take failure out of lives as something to be avoided at all cost instead of a way of learning, has made many people not just afraid of it. It many cases, some individuals have become incapable of coping with it to the point of being unable to engage in daily life in a normal way.

For some, it was become a refuge where they can do thing without dealing with the consequences of their actions. The relative anonymity that it can still be found on the Internet lets them do some of the things they can't do otherwise.

At the end, many people fail to see that Internet is just a tool that allows people come together and engage with each other. How meaningful, positive and constructive this interactions are, is wholly dependent on how people choose to do so. When critics say that the Internet allows for bad behavior, or it brings negative things to the world, they forget that at the is the people who makes those things happen.

It's easy to blame the Internet, than actually face the fact that people are the ones responsible for their actions. We need to take our responsibility on how we use the Internet, and make sure to make responsible others for their actions as well. After all, the Internet is becoming a public square, where we all come together for our end and we should do so by respecting all others if we expect respect for ourselves.

As a public square, there is a space for everyone with our  different interests and ideas. There will be places where some groups in particular will congregate, and some that will be more open to a wider audience. This natural flow should be allowed to happen, since that's part of human nature.

Yet, let's not forget that what we do in the Internet should be just a fraction of our life as a whole. So, live your whole life as fully as you can.

Making a living with open source is possible...

In a way this article is right, the money isn't in open source. Yet, the money is on how you use open source and the services around it.

As with most businesses, the money isn't on the things you base your business on. The money is on the service you build around it, or the value you add to whatever you are selling.

Money isn't on open source itself, but you can make money with open source. One can see open source as a tool to make money with, rather than what will make you money in itself. And it can be seen as an ethical tool to use, since it allows to a greater degree of collaboration and it respects the freedom of the costumers.

Most importantly, open source is more than a tool to make money with. It can be applied to other fields, without financial gain having to be at the center of it. All depends on what's the final goal of the whoever uses open source for a particular project.

Just seeing to the money making potential of open source is missing the wider picture of how it can impact our lives.

But let's make something clear, making a money with open source isn't bad in itself while the core of the open source stands for is respected. Actually is great that people can make a living using and spreading open source far and wide, making it viable for as many people as possible.

Let's make open source for the people, and by the people. And that means that people need to be able to make a living with open source.

Open source resembles a bazaar, at least in some aspects...

While it's true this post has a valid point, I think that open source is like a bazaar in some ways.

In bazaars vendors, and often the same ones ones who actually make each product, and consumers can interact more directly. Most importantly, more often that interaction can be more meaningful and inclusive in more than one way. The consumer, or the user in the case of case software, can have a more direct impact on the end product.

Yet, the responsibility of still relies on someone. For any business at the bazaar to be successful, it has to be responsible of the quality of the software they produce, and that it fulfills the specifications it was made for.

Open source differs on how it does this, only how things happen are different. While projects begin with a core team, and often remain that way, their nature helps to build communities around projects that people feel that have that something that makes them rally around.

Not every shop in a bazaar is made equal, same goes for open source projects. As such, the road to success for each project is different. All depends on what targets they have, and how they set about to get to them.

Most importantly, there is more than one bazaar of open source projects. Each is different, with its own dynamics depending on the projects and people they attract. Some, are as lively as most bazaars we imagine. Others are more like shopping malls, while others are more like trade shows.

At the end, the bazaars tend to have a structure even if we can not make it out. If you take this view, the bazaar concept does apply to the open source movement like a glove.

The community needs to have representation at the board...

That the community has no longer access to be elected to the board seat is more than a controversy, since that those seats gave the community both a voice and a vote at the board of the Linux Foundation.

The fact that the Linux kernel remains free, while it's good, it's not at the center of this controversy. Since the community is such an important part of the Linux kernel development, it's important that the community has a place at the board. Just being able to have a say on the development side is not enough, since the a good part of the kernel development goes through the community.

Both the community and the enterprises deserve seats at the board not only because of the development they represent, but to have a balance and to represent all interests vested on the development of Linux.

At the end, it's about all the parties that work on the Linux kernel need to be represented at the board. It's for the best interest of the Linux Foundation at large, and for the end user in particular. Since the interests of the community and enterprises are not always the same, having both at the board is the best way to mediate agreements in the best way possible.

It has to do more with representation, than with the fact that the Linux kernel remaining free. Future Linux kernel representations needs that the community to have access to a free kernel development, as well to seats at the board.

The interests of the community are just as important as those of the enterprises, so the community needs to be represented at the board on a proportional manner. If not, the Linux Foundation faces a loss to lose a lot of the legitimacy that it has worked to have among the community.

The community or the enterprises need to have control, but there is a need to have a balance.

Technology and what it means to be human...

One of the biggest fears people have about technology, is that it can have a dehumanizing effect on people. In a way, it can on some individuals. Yet, in most cases it doesn't dehumanizes people. Most of the time it just compliments or, in some cases, enhances what it means to be human.

It's important to remember that what means to be human has changed over time, as we gain a better understanding of the world around us and the technologies that come with that understanding.

This change has seen an exponential growth in the last century, specially in the last decade or so. With so many changes that have occurred, it's easy to see why the changes on people scare so many of us since is to hard to keep up with all the changes happening around us.

The full effects of this changes won't be really be fully appreciated, or understood, for quite some time. They have been so deep, and rapid, that they'll most of their effects haven't been seen yet.

Should we embrace all new technology that comes our way? No, but we shouldn't dismiss outright either. It's a balancing act, as hard as it might be to choose from time to time. Sometimes, it might not readily obvious the what's the right choice will be.

At the end, technology doesn't gives or takes away humanity in itself since what it means to be human changes as times goes on. What it can do, is giving individuals the chance to be more or less human. In a way, it's easier to blame technology than the people who uses it for the choices they make.

It's people who at the end have to act in a humane way, and technology is just a tool which enables people to act more or less humanly towards others. It's people who define what humanity is, and to act accordingly.

Moving around the modern city...

One of the ironies of modern life resides on the transportation on cities. There is this culture that puts the car above all other mode of other mode of transportation, even though there is a need to find a better way to move people around in out dense modern cities.

For one, the pollution generated by the amount of cars in big cities has a demonstrated negative effect on health. The amount of cars there are in cities, chokes traffic to a stop. Most of the time, during peak hours, most of the streets become a virtual parking lot. At times, walking to where you're going can be actually faster than using your car.

Problem with this, is that at times walking isn't really an option because there is no safe way of doing so. And make the problem worse, there is the public transport is not an option because it uses the same overflowed infrastructure or is non-existent.

Even though there are some cities that have a good public transportation system, most cities fall short because they stubbornly see the car as the only option. I don't say that cars is the root of all evils of mobility in cities, but there is a real need to make it an option for urban mobility rather than the primary mode transportation.

Most cities with dense population need to give priority to mass transit, and other modes of transportation like bicycles and walking. Cars need to be replaced as the primary mode of transportation in densely populated urban centers, where there are more people need to move around it.

I find it odd that telecommunications seem to get all the attention now, and the way people move around the cities they live in is almost an after thought. We can't live on a virtual world 24/7, we also need to live on the real wold. That means, that we need to move around just as easily in it to be able to live a full life.

And in big cities, it means that having a quality mass transit option is a necessity for people. Most cities fall short, by giving that option or because they don't modernize the mass transit they have to meet the current needs of the people. Seems that governments, mostly at the local level, seem to be always reacting to what the people needs, instead of plan ahead and acting accordingly.

If cities don't plan ahead, and act upon those plans on a timely manner, they'll never meet the needs of people today. They always lag behind, with a cost to the quality of life of those who live on those cities.

Cities need to stop giving preference to cars, and start looking at it as just another way to move the city. Or at least, make it equal to mass transit on long distances and walking, or bicycles, or the short distances. This is just one of the factors we need to improve the quality of life in cities.