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.

The role of the code of conduct...

Looking around Reddit, I stumbled upon this Open Content & Software Magazine post asking if there is a need for a code of conduct for developers at the FLOSS community, and if anyone would follow it.

In short, the answer is yes in both cases. There is a need for a code of conduct and people who would follow them, but I'm not sure if only one code of conduct would suffice or would be followed by the community at large.

As such, we should be honing specific codes of conduct depending on the specific community where it will be applied. Most importantly, each community should make it's code of conduct and enforce it. A code of conduct that doesn't comes from the community, is doomed to fail from the onset.

It's vital that each community comes up with its own code of conduct, even if the whole community isn't engaged on coming out with it. At least the people who are seen as the leaders should be, as representatives of each of the groups that make up the community. If the community doesn't look at the code of conduct as valid, it will never work.

At the end, codes of conduct are essential to keep communities together. They give a guideline of what is expected of the members, and help to bring the community together around a set of values.

Codes of conduct help to know what to expect, and as such make the community they are in to be a lot more stable.

There always will be people who break codes of conduct, yet that doesn't make them useless. You need to find the community with the code of conduct that best fits what you believe. If not, your find yourself feeling uncomfortable or simply not fitting in.

There is a need for a code of conduct, and there are going to be people who follow it. But, there will be more than one.

Surveillance is just a tool...

As this post at wired.com, saying that you don't have nothing to hide is not the right way to make a case for or against surveillance. Surveillance in itself is not something good or bad, it's a tool that can be helpful in many ways from keeping us safe to learning new things.

The post makes a good point about how anything we do can be illegal somewhere. Not only that, laws evolve as society does. As such, things become legal or illegal with time as society views changes overtime or to accommodate technological changes. To add complexity to something that is already hard to follow, the law books reflect the way the views of the society that codify them.

As such, we all have done something that it's illegal somewhere at some point in time. Not because we are bad, or criminals, but because the laws are different at different places. Even within a same country, laws may differ between different states and counties. So, if we let law enforcement agencies know everything we do, can get us into problems we don't imagine or need if those agencies decide to act even if out actions are legal where we made them.

Yet, the case against surveillances is not just a legal one. Some of the things we want to keep private have nothing to do with law. Rather, they have to do with things that we want to keep private, or simply we don't want to share because we would feel embarrassed if other people knew of what we do.

Privacy should be a right of everyone, and one that we could take for granted. Each individual needs to be able what he, or she, wants to share and with whom, and what will remain private. No person, government, company, or agency should be able to have unrestricted access to what we do or say freely. Yes, there are public and private places, and the level of privacy we can expect of each is not the same. But even at the public space, we should be able to assume that we won't be subjected to surveillance the whole time we spend on it. And on the private sphere, surveillance should only be conducted if there is a reasonable expectation that something illegal is being done.

At the end, we all have something to hide for whatever reason.

Encryption is not the enemy...

I find it amusing, ironic and a bit sad that Blackberry blasts Apple for its use of encryption to protect their user's privacy. In more than one way, I didn't see coming something like this from Blackberry, who's encryption software is one of the best and the reason many of its costumers use it to begin with.

But most importantly, while it's true that criminals and terrorists make use of encryption, using as that an argument against encryption is a fallacy. Encryption isn't the most important tool than enables criminal or terrorist actions, or makes it impossible to conduct or collect data to prevent or punish those actions. Most importantly, that encryption can be used to do bad doesn't take away that most uses are legit and it protects the privacy of good people.

Saying that it was because of encryption, that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are not able to prevent crime and terrorism is shortsighted and at the verge of being a lie.

To be honest, intelligence gathering is not confined to what it gathers on our electronic communications or devices like smart phones or computers. To say that whole investigations depend on being able to access these things is insulting and speaks poorly on how those investigations are conducted. Crimes, and terrorism, are also planed on the real world. Most importantly, some of those crimes happen in the real world. As such, they leave evidence in other forms.

As such, there is a need for law enforcement, intelligence agencies and politicians to stop blasting encryption as the enemy of good people and the friend of those who do evil. It's a tool that can be used for good or ill, and there is making it better for the the people who want to protect their privacy. On the other hand, those who used for bad need to be punished for their actions not for their use of encryption.

At the end, bad people will do their needs with or without encryption.

Embrace open source...

I find it ironic that most of the biggest software and hardware companies are using open source to build their own systems, they keep telling their costumers that they should put their trust on proprietary systems.

It seems that foolish that those companies that use open source to build their system, don't embrace open source on the costumer side. In a way, they are losing on the most important side of open source software and hardware. After all, who would be more interested in making their software and hardware even better than the costumers who use it.

Costumers invest more than money on the systems they use, they also invest time and build expertise on those systems they use. With this in mind, it makes sense to let the costumers that use your system to actually be able to freely contribute to make the system as a whole better.

After all, they are more likely to find things to improve or bugs to fix since they come to scenarios that are hard to replicate in other way than the day to day use on the field. So, just listening to your costumers needs is not enough since you might not have the time or interest to make the changes some of them ask for. This is why letting your costumers modify, and more importantly, contribute back the changes they need vital to the long term success of any company.

By allowing your costumers to freely study, modify, and exchange those modifications among themselves can win more loyalty than any other thing a company can do on itself. In a way, all companies should strive make the hackers of their product an important part of their community. They can help them to build a better product, and bring more people aboard by showing them what your software or hardware can do.

Open source is not the enemy, but a powerful ally to build a better product and a strong community around it.

Encryption is not the enemy...

After the terrorist attacks in Paris last week, many have called encryption as something that we need to give up in the name of safety. Many of those voices say that encryption enabled the terrorists to carry out their attack, because it made it's movements to pass undetected.

The truth is far more complex, and encryption was not an major factor in the terrorist ability to carry out the attacks. The whole intelligence gathering apparatus failed, since there are many other ways to gather information about people.

Focusing on the communications made via smart phones, or the information stored on a hard drive, is to narrow. People moves no only on a virtual world, but they also need to contact other people on the real world. As such, saying that people who use encryption on their electronic devices must be doing something bad are evil is not only shortsighted, but dangerous. Most people who use encryption, myself included, just want to keep something private.

The obsessive talk about how evil encryption is borders on the obscene, and it only takes our liberties away. We have the right to keep whats on computers and smart phones private, and the government needs to understand that they have no business asking for back doors on any encryption. If they want in on any of that data, they better have a good reason that convinces a judge to give a warrant to access it.

Most importantly, the focus on electronic intelligence gathering is not healthy. There are more ways to gather intelligence, so there is a need to actually work on those areas as well as the electronic one.

Why I'm a free and open source software advocate and user...

As an free and open source software advocate, that actually uses it on my personal laptop on daily basis, I find most arguments for and against it a bit exaggerated.

I do recommend free and open source software to be used by all, it's just a matter of finding the right software for the needs of the user. For most users, I'd recommend Ubuntu or Linux Mint since I've first hand experience with both of this distros and they cover the needs of most users with not that much of a learning curve.

Most importantly, these two distros have all the software that most people normally uses on daily basis. As such, they wont miss their proprietary software all that much since they can do all what they are used too without a problem.

With Ubuntu and Linux Mint they can still have access to software like Firefox, Chrome, Spotify and Skype. For other software, there are options available that work at least as well as their counterparts in Windows or Mac OS X while being user friendly.

I've to deal with proprietary software at work, and I simply see the benefits of free and open source software when I compare both head to head. While I concede that free and open source software is far from perfect, it does perform a lot better than proprietary software in every way.

Free and open source software needs to become the norm, since it goes beyond doing the job it's task with. It's about our freedoms as individuals and communities being respected, and being able to task and build communities around the software we use freely without a centralized entity telling us how we should do things.

At the end, free and open source software is not about monetary cost. Is about our freedoms as individuals and communities to be able to put software at our service and not being at the service of the companies who supply the software.

FLOSS: power to the user and therefore the people...

There are many arguments on how modern technology is dehumanizing people, yet I think that modern technology is changing what it means to be human. There has been several technologies that have changed the curse of humanity through out history, yet it's hard to pick a time in history in which technology has changed humanity as much, and as deeply, so many aspects of humanity in such a relatively short time.

It's impressive how much technology has permeated to every day life, and how much we have come to expect it to just work. It has allowed us to do so much more, that it has augmented our experiences in ways that would be unimaginable just a few decades ago.

Not just what we can physically has been enhanced, but our minds and senses have been enhanced in ways that we can really understand yet.

In more than one way, this could mean a chance to make humanity better as a whole. Yet, it seems that how good this new chance is not yet certain because the signs are still somewhat mixed.

There are signs of a collective awakening of societies at large, and that there are connecting with each other. Which is good, because we need that so that the technologies we have can really be used and developed for the greater good.

Yet, I see corporations and governments trying to repress such a thing to happen with various degrees of success. They need the status quo to remain in power, and they are doing all they can to do so.

This is why we need to make FLOSS the norm, since its the best way we have to keep corporations and governments in check. FLOSS is not just technical choice, but an ethical one as well since it empowers the people rather than corporations or governments. It gives people the control over not only over their things, but over how they work and what they do.

Lets face it, those who want keep the people out of being able to control those things they own aren't doing it to benefit the people. The truth is that, they do so to keep control themselves and protect their interests. They are all about their own good, not the good of all.

We can still make things go our way, but we need to act together now.

Quite the interesting proposition...

Blackberry has been somewhat of a dilemma for me, since I like the security and the quality of its smart phones. Yet, that its OS is closed source OS is something that I don't really endorse as an open source advocate.

Now that Blackberry has made official it's Priv smart phone launch, all changes. Since it's powered by Android, and it comes with Blackberry's security features baked into it from the start, it makes quite an interesting proposition. This combination makes it quite an interesting proposition for people who support FLOSS and those are mindful of their privacy.

Now, we'll have to wait until the device hits the market to know how good Priv actually is. Yet, one can be hopeful that it will be quite a good handset, since Blackberry's hardware is quite solid and Android is quite the solid OS as well.

The plus for me, is the fact that the Priv comes with a physical keyboard. Call me old fashioned, but I still prefer having a physical keyboard at hand. Especially since I don't want to have a device that's over 6". So, Priv hits the sweet spot with its size.

It has been a while since I've been interested on an Blackberry device, so the Priv is welcomed news for me. If it lives up to the expectations, Blackberry might just become relevant at the premium side of Android for those who, like me, are looking for a good quality device and are conscious about their privacy.