Knowledge should flow freely...

All technology that is used to exchange and distribution of ideas and information between people, should be free for all to access. More importantly when that technology is core for learning.

Knowledge is vital to help people to make choices correctly, as such everyone is entitled to have access to the best possible information possible. This is specially important in areas like education and health, where not having the relevant knowledge at hand could have lethal consequences or leave the the individual at an unfair disadvantage.

That individuals don't have access to relevant information in most areas, doesn't just have a negative impact on the individual. It also has negative impacts on the communities as a whole, since the lack of information can prevent them to make decisions on a timely manner and leave the community exposed to unnecessary ricks.

Yes, mistakes and misunderstanding will happen. Those are facts of life, yet are no reason to prevent people to be able to have access to the best and most complete informations they need in any given situation. Most importantly, knowing empowers us to take the best course of action for ourselves as individuals, and for our families and communities.

This is why we need that all informations we need to create knowledge to be made public on open standards, that can be implemented by as many people as possible. If not, we rick loosing much knowledge just because we no longer have the ability to open it because lost the key for it. This a very real possibility if the key is held by a single vendor, and it doesn't share it.

The user should be able to use whatever software he chooses to put his information in, and to share it with whom ever he wants without being restricted to use a particular platform to do so. The use of a particular platform should be dictated by the user needs, and how he chooses to work, not by the vendor choosing to implement a closed standard.

FOSS licenses...

Contrary to what many people would like to have people believe, FOSS licenses don't hinder software development and innovation.

As the matter of fact, software under FOSS licenses can spur innovation not only in software. It can help to bring innovations faster to all areas of human knowledge by allowing to change and study the software used to better suit what is used.

Not only that, collaboration would be easier. It would allow people to improve or change the software to suit their needs, and to be free to distribute the modified software to other people. This would benefit everybody, since both the people who released the software and users can have access to the modified code to make use of it.

People on the same field could have to the latest software either at a fraction of today's cost, or for free. This means that relevant information, and software, could be more evenly distributed allowing all interested parties can work on a level field. Developments made this way would be a lot more easier to make, and the final user would have access to them faster.

With more people being able to work with the latest set of information make innovation easier to come by. Mainly because the odds of someone coming to a new way to use, or to work with, something are more likely with more people working on the subject. And, if those people can collaborate with each other in a more practical and efficient way, those innovations would come at a lower cost and more people could have access to them.

We need licenses that facilitate collaboration, not licenses that hinder it. Those licenses should allow people to change and redistribute those changes in a easy and practical way, while protecting the right of the authors.

All interested parties should be able to do any changes as they see suit, and to be able to contribute those changes back to the community. Emphasis should be to make it easier on facilitating the work of thinkers and innovators to work and give back.

Knowledge should be open to all who wants it.

Freedom to customize...

I don't like software or hardware that is made to use it as it comes, and with no real possibilities to make customize it to make it work as you need it to work.

On the hardware side, I want to be able to actually install on it the OS and the programs of my preference. In my case, I want to be able to load Ubuntu knowing that the manufacturer won't put any lock that prevents me to do so.

For me, it's important because I like to use my hardware with software that I enjoy using and working on. After all, having a good hardware/software interaction is a very important part to be able to get anything done on a computer, and if anything is off it really irks me to no end. I like my computer to work just so.

To be honest, I don't really do much customization on my software. Mainly I just change the icons, and some of the fonts and it's sizes. And in some programs, I change the background and/or the color combinations. Yet, I do want to have a granular control on most of what's going on with the software I use.

This is why I came to using GNU/Linux to begin with, because it gives me the ability to have a lot of control over the software I use on my hands. After trying Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Debian and Pear OS, I settled with Ubuntu because it combines what I'm looking on an OS and has all the software the I like. This includes Firefox and Rhythmbox, two of my favorites pieces of software ever.

I find it hard to use any hardware, or software, that makes if difficult to set it up to be used as I want it to work. They should work around me, not the other way around. After all, they should make my life easier. Great hardware and software are the ones who work without you noticing how they get things done, yet when you check how they do it you are able to see how they do the work.

When I look for a computer now, it has to have a design that I like the looks of and I can actually get work on it. And, it has to be able to run Ubuntu or Linux Mint without a glitch.

Why I choose Android...

One of the main reasons I'm looking for an Android smartphone, is that I can more easily find the right software/hardware for me.

I get to choose the handset I want, according to my needs and what I my taste is. I don't have to settle for whatever smartphone is being offered at the time, or the technical specifications. I can look for the smartphone that's the best match for me.

At the end of the day, the smartphone is an extension of my person. So, I want it to be an statement of what I believe in and what I like. In many ways, it's more than just a tool.

Not only that, an Android smartphone is the for me the main option out here since is the only one that's open-source. For me, it's important on ethical ground than my devices run open-sourced software. Even better if the software comes with FOSS licenses.

For me, that Android was merged with the 3.3 Linux kernel was great news. This is very beneficial to all, and specially to the users, since it will allow developers to code for Android with more ease. And for smartphone manufactures, it means that they get a better piece of software for their products.

At the end, it's better for the users having several options to choose from.

Diversity is good for everyone...

I like the diversity that you can find Linux, and FOSS, which let's you find the distro that adapts to your needs. And what's best, it's all build on a modern core that allows access to current standards.

What allows this diversity, is the licensing that allows users to modify the program in any way that they see fit for their use and then redistribute it to others. Which is beneficial for everyone, since this means that the user doesn't have to wait for the original programmers to release the changes or is subject to have to deal with don't having the features they want the decision is made not to include the changes the users would like to see.

Being capable of doing this, has the positive effect that in frees the groups that make software from having to spread their resources to thinly trying to target to many different user needs. If needed, users help can be used to contribute modifications and do some of the work to maintain some of the features.

And user it means that he/she can find a software that targets his/her needs specifically, or being able to make a program that meets it. Not only that, the user has the opportunity to redistribute the changes made. And if the changes made find an audience, more users can help maintaining the new version.

Yes, many projects come and go with time. That is life, yet giving the software maker and users to collaborate brings better products to the table. If your product resonates with the users, good. If it doesn't, learn from it and bring something new to the table.

This type of collaboration is good for everyone involved. The merits of the project become more prominent, and the user voice has a better chance to be heard. Your program will benefit from being polished by users that actually need and use it, while giving you the chance to concentrate on the issues that you think need to be tackled.

Developing software becomes a collaborative effort, which has the potential to produce great things for users and developers. By allowing the users and outside groups to modify the code, and to contribute it back if they want, the true potential of the project is more likely to be achieved.

Don't be afraid of diversity, it's a good thing.

Unity...

So, the release date of Ubuntu 12.04 LTS is coming near. I'm really looking forward to updating my system, since most of the reviews I've read so far on the betas are quite good.

It seems that, as usual with a LTS version, is going to be a pretty polished release. Mainly, the updates to Unity are the ones that I'm most interested in. Since Unity came up with Ubuntu 11.04, it has come to be my favorite desktop environment because it's looks and the way it works.

I've found that Unity adjust better to what expect from a desktop environment, and how I work. And since, for my tastes, it looks really nice I enjoy using it.

After I get to use Ubuntu 12.04 LTS for a while, the only doubt I have is if I'll stick to updating just when a LTS version of Ubuntu comes out or I keep updating every time.

Both have frequencies have their advantages. With the LTS versions one gets the chance to have a more polished OS, and in some cases the applications are a lot more stable. On the other hand, updating with every new version you get the latest versions of the Linux kernel and some other more advanced features.

So far, Ubuntu has come to be my favorite distro by far. I don't really have any plans to jumping to another distro any time soon.

Sharing control and responsability...

I don't think that control should solely on the creators of the product, or on the hands of users. It should be shared, with both the creators and the users having a say on what happens on the product.

One could say that the level of control on the hands of the creators and users, should be variable depending on the stage of that the product is in. At the start, it's fine that the creators to have most of the control over their products and ideas; but when it hits the hands of the users, they should have most of the product.

As with many things in life, the answers are not on the extremes and we should have a certain level of flexibility when looking for answer. Yet, is really irksome that most people are really set in keeping things in a certain way.

Collaboration from the users should be encouraged by the creators of any product. By letting the users to contribute to their project, the final product will be a lot better than it could be if they only comes from their own efforts. Not only that, since users who actively contribute in some way to the projects that produce the things they use on daily basis are far more loyal to them and keep using them for longer periods of time. And when a new version of the product comes out, those users are more likely to help on the development and buy it afterwards.

Let's not forget that users and creators are human, and as such they all like to be taken into account. If creators really tapped into the creativity of their users, the end result would be orders of magnitude better that anyone could imagine. Basically the only rule there is, is to really listen to your users and use their ideas when they apply.

It's a shame that many companies don't use the collaborative energies of their users in order to create better products, and a loyal user base. Yes, there are negative aspects to have a more active users base collaborating in the development of the products. Yet, the positive side vastly outweigh them and gives far better results for everyone involved with the project.

People want to be part of a community. Instead of building companies, lets build communities that bring great products that its members can use.

Develop on the open...

I've trouble trusting any development that is done undercover and with no level of transparency to the public. It's a sure way to hide any troubles that may come with the new product, or hide features that are objectionable by any standard.

Most often than not, doing development like this is an easy way to hide something from the users. And if someone says something, he's usually hushed or sued in order to keep the information from any interested party or getting it fixed. Mainly because they are more interested in meeting the needs, or wants, of a small circle of people rather than the needs and wants of the actual users. Or even those who would be affected in other way by the product itself.

This makes it relevant to our interests to back those companies, or groups, that develop their products openly.

Any interested party should be able to check any part of the development process, and ask for changes. Even better would be for ways for changes to be proposed by anyone interested in bringing one forward.

Open collaboration in development processes should be the norm, since this way the interest of most of the people interested would be meet the first time around. Collaborating should be easy, and inactivated in order to bring people to bring proposals to the table.

It's important to take into account no one has all the answers, and other people can bring valuable skill sets, knowledge, and experience to the table. By closing the door to them, we are in fact wasting those valuable resources. And by extension, not giving our product the possibility to reach its full potential.

Not all proposals should be used, but they should be at least heard.

We all benefit from such collaboration. There is far more to win, than there is to lose.

Linux, as friendly as you want it to be...

One of the things I notice when I talk to friends and family about Linux, is that most of the time they believe that it's hard to use and that what you can do in it is somewhat limited.

Most of them seem intimidated by the idea of running an OS that's not Windows. Some have seen Ubuntu running on my laptop, and they seem confused that it isn't at all what they thought it would be. I mean, they see me running Firefox and Skype as it would on Windows and most often than not they seem a lot more interested in trying a Linux distro.

As a matter of fact, if they would ask me to set them a Linux machine for them I would set them with one running either Ubuntu or Linux Mint. I find that these two distros are far less intimidating for new Linux users, and offer all the functionalities that most people need for their computing.

Not only that, they are easy to use and the user interface is quite friendly, making them the ideal starting point for the average user coming to Linux.

And it helps that I know my way around both distros, since I've used both on daily basis. Yet, personally I'd recommend Ubuntu since it's my personal favorite. But there is one of the great thing about Linux, and the FOSS community at large, there is something that will adapt to your needs a lot better if you look for it. Not only that, the community behind it will be there to help if you run into trouble with a quick search.

I do recommend to move from Windows to a Linux distro, it'll be one of the best moves you can make computer wise.

Equilibrium...

When it comes to the hardware and software I use, I like it to have good looks and functionality. If one is missing, it's a deal breaker for me.

Since I'm going to be looking at it on daily basis, I don't want it to be an eye sore. And it has to be functional to be able to do some work on it, without having any component getting in the way.

A good design should combine both, good looks and functionality, in one package. To be honest, I'd always would pick functionality over looks but I want both if I can have them. Functionality makes is easy to do the tasks I've to do, and good looks makes me happy to be doing what I'm doing.

Yet, it seems that most of the time we have to select one over the other. Which is a shame, since both concepts can go hand in hand without diminishing the final product.

Sadly on the open source software community there is a tendency to fall on the utilitarian side, giving the aesthetics side little thought at best. It can be problem with many users, since not giving enough good looks can persuade many to overlook a piece of great software just because it didn't look good.

Making software look good, can bring users to it because they find it far easier to use and they like working on it. But just making it look pretty is also bad, since without functionality it would still be a piece of useless software.

Form should follow function, but there's always a way to making it look good. Striking the right balance is what separates good software, from great software that people actually want to use.

Arriving to the right balance, is more art that science. But, it can be achieved and getting there should be part of the goal.

Why I believe in open source...

I use open source software mainly because of ethical reasons reasons. There are some technical ones too, but in some aspects the ethical side came first.

Collaboration is between individuals is important to bring forth innovation, and humans are by nature social. A such, we have a need come together to share and exchange ideas. Anything that artificially puts barriers to collaboration should be avoided, instead we should be motivated to work together for common goals.

We also should be free to express our ideas and opinions openly, since this brings people together. By being exposed to the way other people think, we gain the knowledge and wisdom that otherwise we wouldn't have come about on our own.

Also by being able to see how things work, we get a better understanding of why and how things happen. By having this knowledge, we empower people to be less dependent on others and give them the chance to bring something of value back to the table.

By spreading knowledge we ensure our future, and give people tools that helps them to understand the world we live in. And also to bring people together, since we can learn from each other.

Knowledge is a common good, and everyone should have access to it. With it, we all can help to build a better world. The free flow of knowledge is one way we can ensure our survival, and move humanity forward. It gives power to all that posses it, and sharing it only makes it more valuable.

Sharing knowledge helps to perfect it, and to come with new ways to do things. By perfecting knowledge we perfect ourselves.