Inexcusable over reaction...

The irony of a 9th grader being arrested because he took a clock he made to school is not only big, but quite disheartening as well.

One should think that schools would a place a student should be able to bring something like that without fear, specially of being arrested and suspended because of it. As a matter of fact, the reaction one would expect from the teachers and other staff would be the opposite. I mean, they should be quite interested in fostering that kind of skills and mentality on their students for the better.

This issue is made even worse, when one takes into account that the US is starting to lag behind other developed countries on that skill set. Not only that, many of the teenagers and kids are loosing interest on perusing and engineering or science degree stuff like this will only push them further away from those fields.

Schools should be one of those places where their students could safely share and practice building things like that. Specially, since schools are one of those places where they can be guided by people who have the knowhow to put them on the right track to be able to safely do those things.

Also, they can form groups with their peers who have the same interest so they can achieve more than they could do on their own.

That the reaction on this matter by this school was this, is something that should be frown upon and that shouldn't be repeated. There should be an official apology, by both the school officials and the police because of this incident.

Munich, an example to follow...

The news that the city of Munich is contributing upstream are good, really good, news.

They mean two important things for open source software, and both can't be understated. To begin with, it comes to show that open source software can be successfully deployed even in places as important and complex and city governments.

The argument that open source software can't compete with proprietary software has been rendered muted, and in such a way that its hard to dispute. There are a few other places where software could effectiveness could be tested more throughly than a government, even if it is at a city level.

Secondly, it comes to show that contribute upstream is not something that just a few can do. The only requirement is to have an IT department that has the technical knowhow to implement the changes needed to the needs of the particular entity to then share does changes upstream. When there is that aspect, then it makes it more of a matter of will to contribute back.

Most importantly, Munich now stands as an example that implementing open source software is something not only something other governments and private companies can at least successfully implement. Yet, it show that other can contribute for the greater good, and the interest of the public at large.

Let's hope that Munich lead the way to others to follow.

A sad farewell...

To hear that the Ada Initiative is closing down, is not something an open source advocate wants to hear. Specially when it's an initiative that brings women to the open source community, by empowering them and giving them the skills needed to be a part of the community.

Though not all is lost, since their resources are going to be left behind so they can keep benefiting others, the ideal would be that the Ada Initiative to be able to keep on their work.

In many ways, there is a need for women to have place like Ada Initiative as support. Though I'd love to see these kind of initiatives moving away from helping women against harassment and those kind of issues, to being being able focus on other kind of support to women who want to move and work on open source software.

When we lose an initiative like this, not only women lose. We all lose, since it could mean that many talented women could choose to move away from working on open source software, and deprive the community as a whole from what they could bring to the table to benefit everyone in one way or another.

Software development isn't something that only men can do, we need women to be able to work as equals. And, to be able to recognize the ones that deserve to move forward to better posts for their merits. We can't call open source a meritocracy until we gender blind, and focus on each individuals merits.

I crave to see someone picking up where Ada Initiative leaves, it's something that the open source community as a whole needs.

Software bugs, and the ultimate control over our devices...

In this article about Google Chrome, there are two main things that I take from it.

To begin with, that no software is perfect. As such, all software will have some issues that will affect users in some ways. There is no such thing as a perfect software, there are always issues from security flaws to take care of to quirks that make it do unexpected things from time to time.

Some of this bugs won't be a problem to most people, while they can be a deal breaker for other. Good software, will keep this to a minimum. Yet, there will be some for whom it just won't work. Trying to to frame those users as being the guilty ones is not fair, since it's not their fault that the software doesn't work for them.

On the other hand, the developers of the software can't be expected to make their product one that works perfectly for everyone who uses it.

I'm aware that browsers are a special kind of software that will cover the needs of a broader set of user. But, this doesn't mean that it will cover the needs and tastes of every user out there. As such, the odds that someone will find a deal breaker bug is to be expected.

The second point, is that Google can't take ultimate control from the user over what happens on her or his devices. There is no valid reason for any company to take such a move, though users should be warned of the risks of not updating their apps.

While Google, and other software companies, manage their updates in a way that most users don't notice those updates most of the time, the end user is the one who has to have the final say on what software she or he will run. That includes the version, even if it means not upgrading to the latest if the users doesn't want to do so every time a new version comes along.

At the end, the most important and disturbing issue here is that Google doesn't respect users control over the devices she or he owns. There needs to be an easy and clear path for the end user to make user that the only updates that are wanted, or required, are the ones pushed to the devices that need them. On the other hand, the users should be made aware in a clear way on what are the risk of not getting an update.

For me, the main issue is the fact that Google doesn't respect the user by forcing updates even if they are not wanted for any reason. That is a breach of trust, and one that stand behind.

Law enforcement agencies should use FLOSS...

As Richard Stallman in this article says, that the NSA uses GNU/Linux or any other FLOSS isn't bad at all. In a way it speaks well on how good the software is, since it can be used in such critical missions.

The problem with the NSA lies somewhere else, and not directly with the technology it uses to do its work.

To begin with, the NSA shouldn't be spying on everyone in the name of safety. That's a violation of basic human rights, since we all should have a reasonable level of confidence that we aren't being spied by any government at any given point of time without a good cause.

Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be able to get any data on anyone without having to give a good reason why an individual should be a target of their investigations. It's better for all, that the bar is high in order to get a warrant to get our data.

Also, if law enforcement agencies used FLOSS we the people would have a good reason to be sure that the tools they use do what they say they do. Outside parties would be able to fully audit those tools to make sure they do the job they are devised to do. It would be harder to hide bad behavior on their part, since it would be a lot easier to catch.

In all, we need to push for all the use of FLOSS in every public office, since it would make them more transparent and easier to audit by outside parties. The people has the right to do so.

Open source software and standards role in the government...

If we want a truly open and transparent government, all it's to relay on open standards and open source software.

The reliance on proprietary software, and closed standards, would mean that the government would be at the mercy of a particular vendor or whoever hold the rights to the patents to the the standard. This is unacceptable, since the government shouldn't have to be subject to such limitations.

What's more, every we all have the right to study the software that the government uses to see how it works and to make sure that it does what the government says it does. After all, we all have to interact with it, and need to be certain that it does what it made for in the best way possible.

On the open standards, one of the main reasons to use them is the fact that all should be able to access the government's platforms without any limitation artificially imposed by a third party. By using open standards, government could make sure that all the people have equal and fair access to its platforms.

Most importantly, the government should be laying the frameworks for open standards, and creating an environment in which open source to become the norm. In our digital world, open source software and open standards need to be the foundation to make sure that we all have access to it in a level playing field.

After all, the government has to represent the interest of the people.

Swift being released as open source is a good thing...

That Apple is to open source it's Swift programming language, and that it will have support on Linux, is some good and welcome news.

Swift is becoming popular fast, and it seems there are lot of good reasons for it to gain popularity. And that it's backed by a company like Apple, should give people the reassurance that it won't lack support in the long term.

Even though I admit some suspicions on why Apple moved to open source Swift, I do welcome the idea to have such a tool for open source developers to use to work with. Specially because it could be a good place for beginners to learn to code, making it less intimidating to learn a skill that is becoming ever more relevant in the modern world.

One of the things that Apple does well, is good software. While it's true that it has an iron grip on it, one has to admit that the quality of it is high. Many of the criticisms out there about Apple's software have more to do with the way it manages it, and the way development goes along.

I'm cautious and excited about this development, but I'm hopeful it will a positive thing for Apple and the open source community.