Making a living with open source is possible...

In a way this article is right, the money isn't in open source. Yet, the money is on how you use open source and the services around it.

As with most businesses, the money isn't on the things you base your business on. The money is on the service you build around it, or the value you add to whatever you are selling.

Money isn't on open source itself, but you can make money with open source. One can see open source as a tool to make money with, rather than what will make you money in itself. And it can be seen as an ethical tool to use, since it allows to a greater degree of collaboration and it respects the freedom of the costumers.

Most importantly, open source is more than a tool to make money with. It can be applied to other fields, without financial gain having to be at the center of it. All depends on what's the final goal of the whoever uses open source for a particular project.

Just seeing to the money making potential of open source is missing the wider picture of how it can impact our lives.

But let's make something clear, making a money with open source isn't bad in itself while the core of the open source stands for is respected. Actually is great that people can make a living using and spreading open source far and wide, making it viable for as many people as possible.

Let's make open source for the people, and by the people. And that means that people need to be able to make a living with open source.

Open source resembles a bazaar, at least in some aspects...

While it's true this post has a valid point, I think that open source is like a bazaar in some ways.

In bazaars vendors, and often the same ones ones who actually make each product, and consumers can interact more directly. Most importantly, more often that interaction can be more meaningful and inclusive in more than one way. The consumer, or the user in the case of case software, can have a more direct impact on the end product.

Yet, the responsibility of still relies on someone. For any business at the bazaar to be successful, it has to be responsible of the quality of the software they produce, and that it fulfills the specifications it was made for.

Open source differs on how it does this, only how things happen are different. While projects begin with a core team, and often remain that way, their nature helps to build communities around projects that people feel that have that something that makes them rally around.

Not every shop in a bazaar is made equal, same goes for open source projects. As such, the road to success for each project is different. All depends on what targets they have, and how they set about to get to them.

Most importantly, there is more than one bazaar of open source projects. Each is different, with its own dynamics depending on the projects and people they attract. Some, are as lively as most bazaars we imagine. Others are more like shopping malls, while others are more like trade shows.

At the end, the bazaars tend to have a structure even if we can not make it out. If you take this view, the bazaar concept does apply to the open source movement like a glove.

The community needs to have representation at the board...

That the community has no longer access to be elected to the board seat is more than a controversy, since that those seats gave the community both a voice and a vote at the board of the Linux Foundation.

The fact that the Linux kernel remains free, while it's good, it's not at the center of this controversy. Since the community is such an important part of the Linux kernel development, it's important that the community has a place at the board. Just being able to have a say on the development side is not enough, since the a good part of the kernel development goes through the community.

Both the community and the enterprises deserve seats at the board not only because of the development they represent, but to have a balance and to represent all interests vested on the development of Linux.

At the end, it's about all the parties that work on the Linux kernel need to be represented at the board. It's for the best interest of the Linux Foundation at large, and for the end user in particular. Since the interests of the community and enterprises are not always the same, having both at the board is the best way to mediate agreements in the best way possible.

It has to do more with representation, than with the fact that the Linux kernel remaining free. Future Linux kernel representations needs that the community to have access to a free kernel development, as well to seats at the board.

The interests of the community are just as important as those of the enterprises, so the community needs to be represented at the board on a proportional manner. If not, the Linux Foundation faces a loss to lose a lot of the legitimacy that it has worked to have among the community.

The community or the enterprises need to have control, but there is a need to have a balance.

Technology and what it means to be human...

One of the biggest fears people have about technology, is that it can have a dehumanizing effect on people. In a way, it can on some individuals. Yet, in most cases it doesn't dehumanizes people. Most of the time it just compliments or, in some cases, enhances what it means to be human.

It's important to remember that what means to be human has changed over time, as we gain a better understanding of the world around us and the technologies that come with that understanding.

This change has seen an exponential growth in the last century, specially in the last decade or so. With so many changes that have occurred, it's easy to see why the changes on people scare so many of us since is to hard to keep up with all the changes happening around us.

The full effects of this changes won't be really be fully appreciated, or understood, for quite some time. They have been so deep, and rapid, that they'll most of their effects haven't been seen yet.

Should we embrace all new technology that comes our way? No, but we shouldn't dismiss outright either. It's a balancing act, as hard as it might be to choose from time to time. Sometimes, it might not readily obvious the what's the right choice will be.

At the end, technology doesn't gives or takes away humanity in itself since what it means to be human changes as times goes on. What it can do, is giving individuals the chance to be more or less human. In a way, it's easier to blame technology than the people who uses it for the choices they make.

It's people who at the end have to act in a humane way, and technology is just a tool which enables people to act more or less humanly towards others. It's people who define what humanity is, and to act accordingly.

Moving around the modern city...

One of the ironies of modern life resides on the transportation on cities. There is this culture that puts the car above all other mode of other mode of transportation, even though there is a need to find a better way to move people around in out dense modern cities.

For one, the pollution generated by the amount of cars in big cities has a demonstrated negative effect on health. The amount of cars there are in cities, chokes traffic to a stop. Most of the time, during peak hours, most of the streets become a virtual parking lot. At times, walking to where you're going can be actually faster than using your car.

Problem with this, is that at times walking isn't really an option because there is no safe way of doing so. And make the problem worse, there is the public transport is not an option because it uses the same overflowed infrastructure or is non-existent.

Even though there are some cities that have a good public transportation system, most cities fall short because they stubbornly see the car as the only option. I don't say that cars is the root of all evils of mobility in cities, but there is a real need to make it an option for urban mobility rather than the primary mode transportation.

Most cities with dense population need to give priority to mass transit, and other modes of transportation like bicycles and walking. Cars need to be replaced as the primary mode of transportation in densely populated urban centers, where there are more people need to move around it.

I find it odd that telecommunications seem to get all the attention now, and the way people move around the cities they live in is almost an after thought. We can't live on a virtual world 24/7, we also need to live on the real wold. That means, that we need to move around just as easily in it to be able to live a full life.

And in big cities, it means that having a quality mass transit option is a necessity for people. Most cities fall short, by giving that option or because they don't modernize the mass transit they have to meet the current needs of the people. Seems that governments, mostly at the local level, seem to be always reacting to what the people needs, instead of plan ahead and acting accordingly.

If cities don't plan ahead, and act upon those plans on a timely manner, they'll never meet the needs of people today. They always lag behind, with a cost to the quality of life of those who live on those cities.

Cities need to stop giving preference to cars, and start looking at it as just another way to move the city. Or at least, make it equal to mass transit on long distances and walking, or bicycles, or the short distances. This is just one of the factors we need to improve the quality of life in cities.

The role of the code of conduct...

Looking around Reddit, I stumbled upon this Open Content & Software Magazine post asking if there is a need for a code of conduct for developers at the FLOSS community, and if anyone would follow it.

In short, the answer is yes in both cases. There is a need for a code of conduct and people who would follow them, but I'm not sure if only one code of conduct would suffice or would be followed by the community at large.

As such, we should be honing specific codes of conduct depending on the specific community where it will be applied. Most importantly, each community should make it's code of conduct and enforce it. A code of conduct that doesn't comes from the community, is doomed to fail from the onset.

It's vital that each community comes up with its own code of conduct, even if the whole community isn't engaged on coming out with it. At least the people who are seen as the leaders should be, as representatives of each of the groups that make up the community. If the community doesn't look at the code of conduct as valid, it will never work.

At the end, codes of conduct are essential to keep communities together. They give a guideline of what is expected of the members, and help to bring the community together around a set of values.

Codes of conduct help to know what to expect, and as such make the community they are in to be a lot more stable.

There always will be people who break codes of conduct, yet that doesn't make them useless. You need to find the community with the code of conduct that best fits what you believe. If not, your find yourself feeling uncomfortable or simply not fitting in.

There is a need for a code of conduct, and there are going to be people who follow it. But, there will be more than one.

Surveillance is just a tool...

As this post at wired.com, saying that you don't have nothing to hide is not the right way to make a case for or against surveillance. Surveillance in itself is not something good or bad, it's a tool that can be helpful in many ways from keeping us safe to learning new things.

The post makes a good point about how anything we do can be illegal somewhere. Not only that, laws evolve as society does. As such, things become legal or illegal with time as society views changes overtime or to accommodate technological changes. To add complexity to something that is already hard to follow, the law books reflect the way the views of the society that codify them.

As such, we all have done something that it's illegal somewhere at some point in time. Not because we are bad, or criminals, but because the laws are different at different places. Even within a same country, laws may differ between different states and counties. So, if we let law enforcement agencies know everything we do, can get us into problems we don't imagine or need if those agencies decide to act even if out actions are legal where we made them.

Yet, the case against surveillances is not just a legal one. Some of the things we want to keep private have nothing to do with law. Rather, they have to do with things that we want to keep private, or simply we don't want to share because we would feel embarrassed if other people knew of what we do.

Privacy should be a right of everyone, and one that we could take for granted. Each individual needs to be able what he, or she, wants to share and with whom, and what will remain private. No person, government, company, or agency should be able to have unrestricted access to what we do or say freely. Yes, there are public and private places, and the level of privacy we can expect of each is not the same. But even at the public space, we should be able to assume that we won't be subjected to surveillance the whole time we spend on it. And on the private sphere, surveillance should only be conducted if there is a reasonable expectation that something illegal is being done.

At the end, we all have something to hide for whatever reason.