Locking in your options...

Even though the Mac OS X is great OS, really good looking and easy to use, I find it disturbing that with the 10.8 Mountain Lion release you can only install Apple signed software from the Apple store by default.

For what I've been reading, there is the option to turn the option of and restore user ability to install software other the one signed by Apple, or from outside their app store. Yet, I believe that this option should be a given and not object to be taking away from the user by Apple or any other company for that matter.

Once I buy any computer with any OS, I expect to be at least be able to install any program that I want or need to work with as I see fit.

After all, we should have the right to put in any software we need to work with on any computer we want to. And if there are limitations to do so, one of them shouldn't be the OS. The OS is only the platform for us to interact with the programs we choose to work with.

We should be able to make software to work on any particular OS we want to, and to share it with who we want to without interference of the vendor who made the OS we might be targeting for. The users should be the ones who decide which programs to run, and from where they get them.

As an Ubuntu user, I've always had the Mac OS X as a second option after Linux Mint. But, if Apple keeps going down this road I won't feel comfortable using their products since they restrict my freedom to use the software and hardware I bought as I want to.

For me, it's a big deal that any one tries to tell what can or can't do with the things I buy. Once I buy them, I expect to be able to use them as I see fit.

To be honest, I would like to see Apple users to make Apple stop building artificial walls around them that limit how they can use the computers and smart phones they bought.

Give credit to the source...

Let's face it, the problem is not that someone takes an idea and make it work in ways that it wasn't originally planned or implemented in a way that the original creator didn't think of.

Doing that, is actually healthy since it drives innovation. No one can thing of every possibility on which an idea, or concept, might be put to work to provide solutions to problems. This is why if there should be any restrictions on ideas, those restrictions shouldn't be upon the use, distribution or modification of the idea.

If an individual, or group, should be punished because they take an idea and they share it. The punishment should come if they fail to give credit to the individual, or group, from which the idea originally came from.

What's wrong, is not that you make use of the idea as you see fit, but that you don't acknowledge when an idea is not yours to begin with.

Even if you are using a modified version of the work, credit is due. So, it's important to have in mind that in some case that mentioning from where you took the idea, and point the way to your source, is all that you have to do.

Yet, sometimes you have to pay to make use of the idea in any way, shape, or form.

It's important to keep this in mind, because the progenitors of any idea have the right to have a say on how you can share their idea. After all, they made an effort to come up with it.

But, it's also unfair for the authors to make to many restrictions and make they idea virtually unusable by people that might have a real need to use it in some way.

So, the main problem is how do we give the author a way to receive both credit, and income, for the idea they put out, and make that idea accessible to the most people as possible.

I don't believe there is a simple solution, or one that will work for everyone.

At the end, we'll have to work together to find one.

Things change...

One of the things that bother me the most about laws like SOPA and ACTA, is that the politicians and entities that push them forward seem to be more preoccupied on the protecting the interests of a few over those of the majority.

Those laws only serve to protect an industry that has been unable to adapt to the modern technologies, and has a model that doesn't work as it should. Instead of letting the authors of content cash in on they work as much as they could, or the consumers buy and share the content they buy as they want, it favors the middle man.

With the advent of the Internet, content creator have the opportunity to reach directly to the audience they target. The audience has the opportunity to support the content they prefer directly, and support it as they can.

But, it seems that many people don't seem to understand that things have changed. So, the business model has to change to conform to the new reality of how people discover and share content. It seems that some don't understand that they can't control, or tell people, how that content moves around. People will find a way to move the content as they want to, despite what anyone believes or has the ability to stop.

So, the real question is not how do we stop change. The questions is, how do we adapt to the changes?

It seems that the best equipped to coupe with the changes are the small and middle sized companies, and the individual artists. They are more nimble, and better able to change course when it's needed.

For all the talk of some politicians and business man about how the free market should be the one who determines how people do business, they seem to be doing a lousy job actually putting their money where their mouth is.

If their business model is doomed to fail, and other model is to fill the void, then let it be. Just let the market, which at the end of the day is us the people, choose what that market will be, and how it will look like.

Linux is not just for geeks...

It's sad to see how many people dismiss using a Linux distro because they believe that it's hard to use.

The truth is that there are several distros that very user friendly, even for user that have is just coming into Linux. Just to mention a couple, both Linux Mint and Ubuntu are really easy to use.

What's more important, is that there are apps for Linux that let you do all the things you usually do on Windows or on Mac OS X. Sometimes, the apps available on Linux are superior to the one you might find on the other OS.

In the almost two years I've been using Ubuntu as my main OS, I've had no problem. As a matter of fact, I've found it a lot more stable and easier to use. The few problems I've come across have been easy to solve, I just had to do a little research and in a matter of a few minutes all was back on track.

What's better, if you don't like Ubuntu or Linux Mint there are a load of other distros out there. There is one that will be bound to meet your needs, and will make your desktop look as you like.

That's what appeals to me from the open source community, not only Linux. That there is something to meet the need of anyone, or someone who will build the system that you need.

The nature of open source is one that foster innovation, and finding new ways to do things better.

And you can get as dirty as you want on the technical side. If you don't want to get into the gut of the software you use, you don't have to do so.

I do recommend everyone to make the jump to Linux, it's a lot easier than you may think.

Good move by RIM...

RIM is moving it's BlackBerry 10 Native SDK to open source. Which I think is a great idea, and I'd love to see BlackBerry moving more of it's software to open source.

Personally, this is a great choice from RIM. I've never used a BlackBerry handset, but I've heard good things from close friends and family members who use them. And I do like BlackBerry handsets, but the only thing preventing me from taking them more serious to have one of them is the fact that they are closed source.

But, if the new CEO of RIM continues this path and moves all the BlackBerry OS to be open source I would seriously consider a BlackBerry as my next handset.

It might not bring it back to the dominance RIM enjoyed on the smartphone market it used to have, but it would be a nice alternative to Android. And I like to have the idea of having choices not only on the handset department,but also on the OS.

At the end, true competition on the market is healthy.

The right tool...

It's a shame that some people best argument in favor to use anything, is that everyone else is using it.

As if that fact made anything good, or worth using. It seems that they have stop thinking in terms of what they need, or want, from the tools they use for any particular task.

Let's face the fact the tools that we use to achieve any task, should be made so they make our work easier. If they don't facilitate the completion of the task they are to help us perform, they are worse than useless.

This is why I prefer Open Source software. There is always a way to adapt it to what you need it to perform, making it a lot easier to use as you need to use it. And if you don't find the right piece of software that suit your needs, the nature of open source make it easier to adapt an exiting idea to what you need. This way, you don't have to create your software solution from zero unless there is no way around it.

Open source has the added benefit that it has a big and lively community. This increases the chances of finding someone that has come across a problem similar to yours, and has the experience and/or the tool to help you solve your problem. The are multiple forums dedicated to the fields you are in, making it easier to gather information and find solutions that meet what you might be looking for.

There is no reason to keep doing things just because people around you do so. Let's take a more active approach to find the solutions, and the tools, to make things work as we want them to work.

Any problem is hopeless as long you don't do something about it.

Work as a group...

It is sad to see how many people just lament how bad things are, but not do much about to take things into their hands and participate much more in order to change how things are.

Most of the time, the excuse is that as one person they can so much. While this is true, we don't have to face our woes alone or should we attempt to do so. Doing so is a waste of time and energy.

This is why we should make efforts to build groups with like minded individuals to work to reach our goals as a group. At the end, any community building is a groups effort. That's the way we should engage the problems we have at our community.

We should engage other people in order to work together. The group needs to work together in order to reach the goals set by the majority of the group.

In building closed knit groups is are best option in order to make change happen, and to build a better place where to work and live. There should as few as possible limits to how large, and many groups exits. It is normal that groups exits within each group.

Also, each individual should be able to be member of as many groups he or she wants to participate in. And to change from one group to another as the individual needs change. Most of the time, the participation of the individual at a group should be all that's needed to form a part of the group.

But, it's important for us to be active in those groups that have influence on those things that are of our interest. If we don't participate on those groups, or build those groups, there is no realistic chance to make the changes we want to do.

Let's stop waiting for other people to start doing what we believe has to be done, and start doing so yourself.

Honestly, no one has the obligation to act how we want then to act just we want them to. Or to know what our needs are if we don't express them, or act to meet those needs.

Stop waiting for others to build what you want, and take it to yourself to build what you want.