Community as an asset...

The value of FLOSS is not reliant on the software itself, part of that value comes from that community that develop and uses the software. Much of the value of a FLOSS project comes from the community that it creates around it, since this community is the main force that moves the project forward and develops it according to what they dim to be the best road.

In many ways, any FLOSS project is a reflection of the community around it. The more committed, dynamic and functional the community is, the better the project will be. The strengths and weaknesses of any given project are those of the community that was built around it.

The way a project moves, in any way, is a reflection of how the community works together to get things done. The better they work as a team, the software they put forward will be better. The bigger the project is, the more vital it's to have a community that knows how to work as team and contribute what they promised on time and shape. There is no other way to make great software, since no single person can coupe with the workload that would mean doing everything by himself.

That's why many times projects with promising ideas fail, because the community around it didn't manage to find an effective way to work toward the common objective. There are some other cases where a community willing, and able, to work as team don't get their act together because their project wasn't based on a solid or workable idea.

A strong, committed, and active community is one of the most valuable asset to any FLOSS project. I would rank it to the same level to the software itself, since both are interdependent. You can't have one without the other, that's why it's of vital importance to take care of the community that drives the project forward. There is a real need to listen to what the community has to say, and more importantly have an open communication line with and among it as a whole.

Not paying attention to the community, is one of the best way to ruin any project since losing it is a fatal shoot. Once you lose the community, is almost impossible to build it back up.

FLOSS quality...

There is a common misconception that if software it's FLOSS, it must be bad, poorly implemented or supported. Which is the case, but that goes for many closed sourced software projects as well.

It all comes down to the people behind the project that develops the software, not the model they work or license the software they code. It's the people that work on the project, and how they manage it, that determine how well done and implemented it is and how well the support for any problem or doubt will be.

There are several examples of great FLOSS projects that show how good can they get are Firefox and LibreOffice. Both are great software to use, are well implemented, and have good support for their users. They aren't perfect, yet they are constantly being worked to make them better.

So before you strike FLOSS out, check what offerings are out there for the need you need to fulfill. You might be surprised to find out that there is something that not only fulfills your needs better, but it's also quite cheaper and easier to used than the closed source counterpart. With the added bonus that FLOSS will give you more freedom and flexibility.

Let's keep in mind quality come from the people working on something, not from the thing itself.

Mobile computing...

There is a lot of people arguing what the future of mobile computing is, mainly arguing that we all will gravitate to tablets or smartphones. All the while, the laptop is being ignored or doomed to be completely replaced.

I disagree, mainly because the choice between the laptop and a tablet is mainly based on what will be the main use for the device. The tablet is mainly a consumption device, while the laptop is where you produce or work with. So, in many ways, for the time being both can coexist rather peacefully and I can see them doing so for quite some time.

The smartphone give us access to a mobile computing, when it's not practical to use a laptop or a tablet. In essence, it's there for those cases when we just need to check for something quickly, or just communicate quickly with others.

At the end, each user will choose the combination of devices that better go with the needs that need to be meet. The correct combination varies, all dependent of what use is intended for the devices and what the person using them needs from the devices. What works for other people, won't necessary will work for you.

There is no golden rule that fits everyone, you got to choose the device that makes you fell comfortable and allows to work at ease. The one that need to feel comfortable using the devices for what you do with them, is you.

BlackBerry 10 and Ubuntu Phone...

I'm becoming interested in BlackBerry 10 mobile OS, along with the BlackBerry Z10, and the Ubuntu Phone OS. So far, they seem like good options on the smartphone arena, even though Ubuntu Phone hasn't yet being paired with a particular handset for users so far.

Thus, if I had to pick between the two today BlackBerry would be the clear winner. Yet, personally I would prefer to get an Ubuntu Phone, since it's based on Linux making it FLOSS. Besides, I already use Ubuntu on my laptop, making it a more convenient for me.

As it stands, an Android device would be my fist choice followed by an Ubuntu Phone. BlackBerry stands third, ahead from the iPhone, mainly because it's closed source nature. The first and second place could change in time, according on how the Ubuntu Phone project moves along. Which I hope it move along well, and it comes along on the time frame it's promised to come along.

If I have to get a new device sooner, I'd get an Android one. The BlackBerry option is just one I plan to act on if there is an Android device is not a realistic option.

It has been a while since I've gotten so interested as much on the mobile OS as I do on the device running it. So, I'm looking forward to at least trying one of those devices.

Linux distros can be really easy to use...

I find it someone ironic when some people I know bash Linux based operating systems to be hard to use, while ragging as mad how easy to use their Android powered smartphones, or tablets, are to use. They seem surprised when I point out that the OS they like so much, is actually Linux based.

Many people still believe that Linux based operating systems for computers are hard to use, and still use a command-line interface. This is true that for some distros, command-line interface is the default user interface. Also, all Linux based distros allow the user to use command-line even though they use a graphical user interface by default.

The truth, is that there are several great and easy to use Linux based distros for every level of user. There are several distros that better suited for beginners, while others are targeted for power users. The distro to used is determined by each user, and what they need from the distro for their daily routines.

Linux based operating systems really let the users control the experience they get from computers, by allowing them to choose from several options the one they feel more comfortable with. It might seem a bit confusing, yet there are distros where technical knowledge needed by the users amounts to just knowing how to install software on their computer. The experience they get once the OS is install, is virtually the same they already know. There is a slight learning curve, but most distros targeted for beginners such curve is not that steep.

I've using Ubuntu for some years now, and used Linux Mint for quite a while too, and if you want to try Linux I whole heartily recommend any of these options even if you are a beginner. They are easy to use, and they come with a graphical user interface for default.

Value of a fork...

Forking a project is a good thing? Yes, being able to create forks of a project is good. Having a fork, or several, of any given project gives people options, making it possible for users to be able to choose from different proposals the one that better works for them.

The real question when it comes to forks, is whether or not any values is added. If no value is added, then there is little motive for users to move to the fork and it adds to the stock of options made available to developers to work with.

Forks are valuable for the project's community at large, since they widen the capabilities of the software by adding features or simply by giving options on the way to implement it. It makes the software more robust, and less dependent on the continued existence of a single core of developers. The software can be taken to other places by other developers, without compromising the quality or the support given to keep it updated.

The value of good forks can't be overstated, since they make software better and the ecosystem healthy. They can drive innovation, since they make developers working hard to make their particular branch of the fork relevant. Users benefit the most out of this, since they get to choose among several options that need to give something of value to them in order to keep them using their offering.

Developers also benefit, since they have a wider network to rely on in order to help them solve any problem the could face. Also, it means that if they have doubts about something the odds are that there is someone that can help them.

Forks should be encouraged, but keep in mind that support should go to the ones that are add value and are well made.

Another case for FLOSS...

Another case in favor of FLOSS, is the how software can be developed. FLOSS gives a lot of flexibility, since development is not centralized it allows for software to grow more organically.

There is a more symbiotic relationship between the software and the community that grows around it, meaning that the software grows as it's community grows. Which is a great thing to have, since it means that the software is less dependent on a small core of developers. As such, the odds of it going under are a lot less than closes source projects.

The freedoms that FLOSS gives, mainly that you can study and modify the software, means that projects can be forked to better suit needs that the original development team can't, or doesn't have the intention, support. This aspect give FLOSS a lot more flexibility to better cope with the needs of users, by being able to be adapted to new environments, or just the changing needs of users.

Being able to adapt, or if needed fork, projects to better suit user need can be a lot faster. It comes to down to communities to adapt software for their purposes if the core development team doesn't do so. Forking a project can be an option, a powerful one, if there is a need to do so.

In many respects, this level of flexibility makes FLOSS a powerful for people. Specially because it empowers people, by giving us the tools to be able to build the software we need when we need it. There is no single centralized core to tell people how certain software should work, yet several nodes of people joining forces to implement the best way to do what they need to do.

It's a pairing of what people needs, with the tool they need to do the job done.