Not just for business...

I've seen several times how open source is good for business, and while I do agree with them fully there is an aspect that there isn't much written about. It's the fact that open source is also great of the average user as well.

The average user gets all the benefits that the businesses do when they switch to open source. They get a better software for a better price, on hardware the user will be able to use for far longer than with proprietary software. With the plus that that hardware will be able to keep using the latest version of whichever OS the user chooses, with all the benefits that comes with this.

Also, the user gets to control what happens on their hardware. No longer the user has to blindly accept whatever the vendor of proprietary software chooses to give to her or him. If the current distro, or program, takes a turn that the user doesn't agree with or wants to take, the user can more readily jump to another distro o program that does what what the user wants how the user wants to do so.

The user is free to use his software as she or he wants to with much less restrictions with open source software than with proprietary software, which gives the user a lot more flexibility when comes on how to set up her or his system.

As such, the system truly becomes the users system.

Not only that, the support when something goes wrong with the system is much wider with open source. There is a large community on which the user can fall back to if the need arises, and help can come from outside the vendor or distribution from which the software came from. The user is not dependent on the vendor for help.

Open source is full of benefits for anyone who fully embraces it.

We should be building open standards...

I've being thinking about how we came to have a system that tends to focus on locking-in users, instead of building open platforms that allow users to collaborate easily with each other.

Instead of making technologies that bring people together, it seems that some are death set on keeping people reaching to others.

This, of course, is unacceptable. If we want to move forward, it's better to do so with as many people as possible on board as possible. Doing so is beneficial to individuals, as much as it is to humanity as large. We need to have as many people working together to solve common problems, and to help each other to make things happen.

We need the skills and knowledge that everyone can bring to the table. Locking in users is detrimental for people at both sides of the divide, since both are losing from not being able to reach for the expertise of the people on the other side with ease.

This is why we need open standards to help us build a better place for all. We should be able to easily share knowledge with others as we need to, and third parties shouldn't be able to interfere with the free flow of knowledge between people. It's our right to do so, and we need to be able to do so if we hope to solve the problems we face.

Any system that interferes with the free flow of knowledge is plain wrong, since it slows down or stops the search for solutions that could save lives or improve dramatically the quality of life of millions.

So, lets make sure that no company, government or group can do anything to hinder our right to share with others knowledge.

Seems that innovation left the room...

It seems that many companies nowadays are busier suing each other, rather than actually coming up with new ideas.

This atmosphere is really bad for innovation, because makes individuals and companies take precautions that they wouldn't take if the risk of being a target of a suit was lower. Coming with a new product is like walking through a mine field, there is a real chance that you could step on a patent and get blown out of business in an instant.

At the end, the biggest losers of all this are the users. We are stuck with no exit at hand, just because the risks of coming with something new are too high for start ups and established companies are too comfortable at their position to try doing things differently.

Something has to change to make innovation common place. There is too little innovation today, and it's hard to come by it. You need to have deep pockets to be able to risk to make an attempt to innovate, if not you risk to go bankrupt defending your idea from attacks claiming that they came with it before, or part of your process uses their ideas.

It's just crazy to see that companies main weapon to keep competitors at bay isn't coming with new and innovative product. But, to try scaring competitors with lawsuits if they don't stop competing with them.

It seems rather hypocritical hearing how some companies brag how about much they innovate on one hand, while they are suing all that seems to be even remotely competing with them. Shouldn't them be coming up with better products and services instead?

At the end, this atmosphere takes from the user the possibility to have products that do things in a better way. It makes us to keep using the same old things just because it's too expensive and difficult to market innovative products that solve the issues that plague current product. Something has to give, and it's using lawsuits to fend off competitors.

No way back...

As I keep using Ubuntu and Windows side by side, the more I see that I have no business going back to using Windows at all.

I've found that Ubuntu just works better for me in all levels, and I simply enjoy using Ubuntu a lot more. It makes all the task I do easier, and faster. Unity just works for me, since it doesn't get in my way and it has the level of customization that suits my personal needs and tastes.

Not only that, all the software I use on regular basis works better for me on Ubuntu. And has the plus that Ubuntu fits my ethical values, which is something really important for me.

If I had to change to another OS, it would be another Linux distro. But so far, I do agree with the direction Canonical is taking Ubuntu. The changes being made to Ubuntu have made it a lot more useful and compatible with the way I work and use my computer, making it a better experience overall.

This fact is one of the best point of the FLOSS movement in my view. That if you disagree with the direction the developers of a distro are taking it, there are several other distros out there ready for you to jump over.

So, all is a matter of finding the distro that resonates with you. Once you find it, you can enjoy all the benefits that come with your distro of choice and the FLOSS community at a large.

Perception matters...

One of the biggest hurdles that the FLOSS movement has to overcome, is not a technical or a design one. All comes down to perception, how the people see and relate to FLOSS software and what it stands for.

Many people seem to believe that since most FLOSS software is freely available, is must be because it's inferior in some way or another compared to proprietary software. In most cases, FLOSS software it's on par with what you might find on the proprietary side. What's more, FLOSS software has the advantage of being a lot more flexible.

This flexibility, allows the FLOSS software to adapt better to the end user needs. Since one can study and modify the source code, it allows for a much better fit to the needs of the users.

Many distros, and programs, have made great strides on usability and design. While doing so, they keep their technical robustness. This combination is a great thing to have as a user, since it gives her/him a system that not only works great and with great stability. It also looks great making it a lot easier and more fun to use on the daily basis.

It has been some now since the time that you had to be a hardcore geek or computer scientist to use any piece of FLOSS software. While there are still distros to that crowd, there are many distros aimed for the less technical user. The kind of user, that like me, what's his software easy to use and that just works.

As a matter of fact, is a great thing to have. There is space for every kind of user at the FLOSS movement. For me, keeping outside anybody that isn't a geek or technical proficient to a high level is a great mistake.

FLOSS should be about people getting together and just share their interest and getting to know new people. All the while fighting for the freedom to control the hardware and software we use, and collaborating with others to make it better.

This freedoms are not the realm of a few, but the right of all.

Technical vs. design...

Every time I read something about users having to choose between good design or something that just works, I wonder if that is really true or if it has to be like this.

For me, software design is about striking a balance between having a sound piece of software that works for the task at hand and how well it's design. When both are well done, users get the best software they could hope for.

While it's true that on the design part there could be several answers, on the technical side there are fewer. But, it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be software that has both. Most often than not, when software is good in only on the technical or design side it tends to be sidelined when something else comes along.

But when you have the right balance of both, you have a piece of software that people will actually want to use.

The real question is not to which side should you side with, technical or design. It is how can you bring them together to produce a great product.

Stop trying to keep people out...

It's sad to see software companies building walls up to keep others out, instead to pull them down and use the power of a wider community to push their products to a better place.

If the parent company of any given software sees itself as project lead, and welcomes collaboration from outside groups and individuals, the benefits would be enormous. The quality of the software would be greater, and far easier to assure with more people in and out of the company working on it to make sure it works as it should.

Also the investment needed to keep it working would be lower, since many coders could choose to contribute their time in order to patch and service the software as needed. While making many users more loyal, since they know that their voices are being heard in order to make change, add or subtract functionalities, or simply what should be corrected first.

If companies actually took the time to build inclusive communities to build their software, and hardware, everybody would benefit greatly. Companies would have a better product to offer, developers would have better tools to work with, and users would benefit from a better software that is constantly being updated and is robustly built.

People respond better when they feel that they are heard, and that they are part of something bigger. And letting them become part of the community around the software they use, it creates a far better user experience.