Control over your system...

On FLOSS the user can have a better fit on the configuration of their system, since the degree of control over the software is really up to the user.

Depending on the distro, the degree of control over what happens on your system is great. Even on the most basic distros, the degree of control is quite great since most of the most important features can be control by the user.

Having such control over what your system does, is important safe guard your privacy. Since there are many people interested on the data you have on your system, is important to be able to control how your system works and protects itself from malware.

Even if the user doesn't actually uses all the configuration options, those options should be there. There is no real reason for not including those options, or why the user shouldn't be able to have control over them. After all, the final word of what goes on the user's system should be the one of the user.

No other should have a say, other than to give information so the user can make a more informed decision on how to better configure his system.

Is our system, we should have the total control over it.

Open technology is the way...

As technology advances, we are faced with a choice that'll have greater repercussions than we can imagine at the moment.

We can have open and unrestricted technology, where the users have control over the technology we use. Or we could be facing technology that we can't control, and that only a few hands can access and modify the underpins of all the technology we depend on.

If we want a better future, a future on which we have a say, the way to go is to have one where technology is open to all. If there is a need to restrict it somehow, those restrictions should have clear and tight limits to their reach. Without putting such things on any regulations, they become toxic and stops doing what they were designed to do.

All technology should be open to everyone to study, so that people can understand how it works and what it does. And whit the knowledge gain by studying it, people should be able to modify it in any way to make it work as they want it to work.

If we don't do something to keep it open, we risk to loose the control over what we own and our abilities to defend our rights as citizens and consumers. We run the risk to be at the mercy of the governments and business want to take us, without even considering us and our needs.

That's why we have to keep control of the technology, and keep it out of the hands of a few people.

Freedom of open standards...

Let's face it, the reality is that no software is a perfect fit for every user out there. What the users need varies a lot, depending on what they'll use their computer for and how it'll be used.

Therefore, the specs needed on the software can vary a lot from one user to another. The idea of an average user is just helpful to have a starting point, but not much else. When you look the details of how the software will be used, the work done on it can vary much from situation to situation.

This is why standards should be open, enabling developers to better fit the software to the user without having to worry if the standard will work with the software his working on.

On the user side, there will be less concern if the software they're implementing will work with what they already have. Being secure that what they have will work independently of the platform they are working on, it's a great reassurance. This frees a lot of resources to actually work on what is important to the user.

Open standards benefit all who work using them, since it gives them the reassurance that they can work on adding values to what they without having to worry if it'll work.

Let's support open standards, because by doing so we get the freedom to have a common platform and having the reassurance that it'll work the way we want it to.

It's a way on which we all win.

Free from dependency...

Open source is the antidote in cases on which a particular software is dropped by the parent company for whatever reason. By being able to access the source code, anyone else can take it from that point on without much trouble.

Being capable of doing so, is not only useful to users. It actually can be seen as a safety net, an insurance that there is no dependency on any external party to keep the software they need up and running.

Not only that, since the source code is open to anyone interested in developing it the workload of doing so can be spread to all the interested parties in continuing the development of the code. By doing so, the development can continue virtually without much disruption.

Since all the users already had access to the source code, the fundamentals are well understood to begin with. With this understandings, there is a lot easier to continue development in house, or find someone else to do it.

There is no dependency on a single source of development, freeing resources to do some other things that the user needs to do.

Open source software is a key tool to keep you from being locked-in, and therefore reduce dependency, on the fate of a single source. At the end, closed source software is only good for the source of the software.

Freedom to share...

It's rather sad to see that big content providers equate people sharing their content to stealing, which is a not the same thing and a big mistake.

By branding people that share content like criminals, many of those content providers are actually alienating people from what they have to offer. When people share content, they are not stealing since they are not claiming what they share as theirs. They just want to let people know about what they like, or news that they feel are relevant.

That's why there should a clear and concise differentiation of what is sharing, and what makes it stealing. Having this guidelines in place, it would be a great place to begin with to protect people from companies that seek to harass them because they shared something with other people. Is important to have those guidelines in place make help protect everyone involved, and to create conscience that is fine to share content.

Most importantly, that sharing content is not the same that stealing it.

It's time to move forward, and create a model on which sharing content is seen as the beneficial act that it is. Sharing actually helps the content creator to make themselves known, and having the change to get their work out there.

Sharing is not a criminal act, is something that comes naturally to all of us. As such, it should be allowed to continue without any restriction.

Users should control their software...

I've found myself filtering all what I do through the lens of FLOSS, ever since I started using it on daily basis and really immersing on what it stands for.

Users should have full control of what they install on their computers, and no one should be able to tell them what can be done with the software they use on their systems. Once there the users installs anything on their computer, the user should control every aspect of the software.

Anything that takes away control from the user over his system, should be avoided. No other person, or entity, other than the user himself has the final say on what runs on their system. Not only that, the user should be the one deciding how the software runs, and when it runs. After all, the users owns the system he is using.

It's equally important, the user should be able to study the source code if he chooses to do so. The source code should be always be available to users, so that that they can know how it works and what each part of the code does.

And if the user chooses to modify the code to better fit his needs or tastes, he should be free to do so. Also, the ability to share those changes with others is part of the freedom that the users should have, and every step to enable that can be done easily should be set.

At the end of the day, the users are the ones that have the right to know how the software they use works and to modify it to better suit their need if they want to.

The rules of the Internet have change much...

It's annoying and sad how many media companies seem to be unable to adapt to new way to do business.

Instead to adapting their business model to the Internet, and how people use it to discover and share new media, they are trying hard to adapt the Internet to their business model.

Which is nonsense, since the Internet has become something to big for any single government or entity to really control. In essence, the Internet has become a living and evolving place. Users are the ones who decide its destiny, how they use it for, when they do it and with who they share what they discover.

Once any content, or media, is posted on-line the users take control of it. In a very real sense, the users take control of the fate of what all that is posted on-line. And the original creator has very little say on how the content evolves with time.

It's sad how many companies, or people, don't see that if they try to keep control of what they post they alienate themselves from the communities that they depend on. People want to be part of what happens with the content they like on-line, and when someone does something to take that from them the reaction is not good for those who take it from them.

Many users are no longer just happy consuming media, they want to part of the creative process and to be taken into account. Which is fair, since is us on who the creators depend to make their media a success.

So, if current media companies want to have any future at all they have to change their business model. It's no longer optional not to do so.