Software security...

With the Java security debacle there are several things that can be learned, mainly the importance of fixing important security bugs sooner by the developers and for users to keep their systems updated.

It also it gives strength to the point that FLOSS software is more secure than its closed sourced counter parts. Being a common good, FLOSS has the advantage that its code is continually check for this kind of security flaws. What's better, it's not only check by the people working for the original developer, but by others from outside can check the code for any vulnerability.

Adding an additional layer of protection, a fix can be offered to the core team of developers by a third party. Meaning that the processes of patching any security hole is speed up, because any security issue can be addresses a lot sooner by anyone who can patch it and sharing that patch with the community at large.

In many ways, there is more people making sure security is as tight as possible. And when a vulnerability is found, a patch can be made available a lot sooner.

Making software safe becomes not the job a small group of coders, but it's the job a all interested in making that software as secure as possible. It becomes harder to exploit any vulnerability, mainly because it goes undetected much less time.

Let's keep in mind that no software will have a perfect security bill, yet FLOSS offers the best way to keep security as tight as possible by having as much eyeballs working to making it as secure as possible.

Backward compatibility should be maintained...

If planned obsolescence wasn't bad enough on itself, the fact that many tech companies simply don't have any backward compatibility just adds insult to injury. There is no real reason why we should have to change all of our gadgets every time we change one of them.

Yes, it's true that in occasion there is some king of adapter so that the new device plays nice with the old ones. Then again, that's a solution that shouldn't be needed to begin with.

There is no real reason why there shouldn't be full backward compatibility, in most cases there is no technical reason not to have it. The reasoning is mostly financial, in order to make more money out of the user just make him have to buy again all the gadgets he already had to begin with.

Backward compatibility shouldn't be an option, it should be something that we can take for granted. In many ways, it's also a bet on the long term sustainability of our resources. The longer we can keep them working, the less resources we would be using.

At the end, we as users should be the ones deciding when to get new things and what devices we renew at any given time.

Keep your hands off our Internet...

Not a week goes by without news about someone trying to exert some sort of control over the Internet, which is worrisome because it means that those who want to do so haven't heard the voice of the people to leave the Internet alone. For the looks of it, those who seek to control the Internet as if it was their don't understand that it belongs to everyone.

That's why we all need to remain vigilant so that the Internet remains free, with no single entity having control over what happens on it.

There seems be a push to try to link the medium, the Internet, with the message, the content, to be accounted as one as the same. This can't be further from the truth, since they are different from each other by their very nature.

The medium belongs to everyone, so we all can make use of it as we see fit. The message belongs to the one who created it, and it's use is to be decided by the creator.

What should be regulated should be the contents, who can access it and how. The Internet should remain free and unobstructed, so that we can share and distribute our content as we see fit. It's vital that people can use the medium equally, and not being discriminated on how they can use it to spread their message.

The Internet belongs to all of us, so it follows that us should be the ones regulating it. That's why we need to remain vigilant that no one takes the Internet out of our hand, matter what they say.

Hacking can be used for our benefit...

Hacking in itself isn't evil, or bad, as some would like people believe. Within certain limits, it can actually be good for everyone.

What's wrong about hacking, is when it's used to steal or damage others. That's wrong, and it shouldn't be avoided.

Yet, when it's used to enhance our things in a way that benefits our community, hacking should not only be allowed. It should be encouraged, so that people that hacked the device can come forward and share how they did so more people can benefit from that new feature.

Hacking is not good or bad in itself, but what is being used for. There should be room for it, but only when it's used in ways that benefit people. Specially since hacking can give rise to forks from an original, so that areas that weren't covered can be covered if there is a need for it.

In more ways than one hacking can be a blessing, yet for it we need to foster a more people able to do those hacks. Even more importantly, we need to impart those hackers with strong ethics so that they check themselves from doing harm.

At the end of the day, hacking can be one of the driving forces for change.

Success of your project it's up to what it brings...

It's somewhat interesting to note that many point how open source is not a good model to follow, having a big number of open source projects that failed as proof. But that many open source project fail, it doesn't mean that the model is bad.

It all comes to how good,and useful, each project it really is for users. If it's good, and well implemented, projects become successful and gathers a vibrant community around it. This community is then the one that helps to develop and refine ti further, allowing the project to grow.

And even if a project dies, it doesn't mean it's a complete failure. In some cases the code, or ideas behind the project, go on to be part of established project or become the staring point of new ones.

Yet, even if projects live on, the ideas and code behind them are shared with other projects. Communities tend to share ideas, and knowhow, with each other. Meaning that most projects cross pollinate each other. Most importantly, in open source culture, this cross pollination occurs on the open and public manner. There is an understanding that doing so it actually more helpful to the whole open source community, than doing so behind closed doors.

As in any facet of human life, there will be ideas that die out while others will last longer until a better one replaces them. Open source just reflects this more closely, making it look the community a lot more chaotic than other models. And this is because it's open, so people can see the inner workings.

So, open source as a model is not what determines if a project will be successful or not. Success is entirely up to the project and its managers, if they have something in their hands and know how to deliver the project will succeed.

It's up what you bring to the table what determines success, not the table itself.

The importance of the OS...

I wonder how comes there are so many people out there than don't really understand what an OS is, and how any restrictions on how the user work on it really affects the user.

The work of an OS is to act as an intermediary between the user and the hardware itself. In a nutshell, the OS job is to take user input and to tell the hardware what to do in order to get the desired result. Then, it takes that result back to be displayed in a way the user can understand.

Not every OS does this in the same way, all depends for the environment a particular OS is designed to work at. Not only that, it also changes because of the way the designers of the OS thought it was best.

In many ways, what OS is better comes down to what it's expected from it. Like any other tool, an OS can be customized to better suit the needs of the end user. Those needs are the same most of the time, that's why general use OSes like Windows, OS X and many of Linux distros are what most people need. Their purpose fit well the computing needs of the average user, since all that they need to do on daily basis can be done with a general use OS.

The only specific case OSes out there on general user, are those used on mobile phones. These OSes, like iOS and Android, are specially coded for use mobile phones, since they have specific needs to be accounted for.

In many ways, the OS is what allows us to interact with our computers and our other electronic devises. And the user should be the one controlling how the OS works, not the OS controlling how the user work. Not only that, since the OS is a vital part of our systems, we need to make sure that when we install it on our computers all the keys on how it works are given to us. Even if we don't use all the keys, there is no good reason for the vendor to hold back any of them.

No matter how good an OS is, if it restricts users freedoms or not allows for user tweaking, it should be avoided like the plague. User safety is not a good reason to restrict, or take away, any freedom from the user. The user should have all information at hand to protect his system.

For true freedom of choice for users...

In many ways, instead of asking how many software platforms can the market deal with isn't as important as many think it is. The most important question is how do ensure that all software platforms play along with each other nicely, which is something of vital importance to both users and developers.

Why making software platforms that play along nicely more important the number than the number of platforms? Mainly because restricting the number of platforms a user has access to, also restricts the user's ability to choose the platform that better suits his, or her, particular needs. Users should be the ones shaping the market, not the market shaping the users.

The answer to this problem is both simple and complex at the same time, since the to get to the point where an user can choose any software platform there needs to be open standards for all to work with.

Having open standards simplifies things for all mainly because we all would have the same things to work with, meaning that one doesn't have to worry about on what platforms will it work with. Which means that users can focus on what platform works better for their particular work flow, while developers can focus on adding value to their platforms.

The problem mainly resides on creating and maintaining those standards truly open for all those who need to work with them. The temptations to try to keep potential adversaries out will always be there, and not sharing updates to the standard in order to have an edge over competition.

Not only that, some companies have vested interests in making sure that open standards don't become the norm.

So, it's on the users and small developers, to make sure that open standards to become the norm. For users having them means true freedom of choice, and for small developers means a more lever playing field with access to a wider audience.