Tsikbal: from my perspective

It's amazing how much information can be accessed at this moment of time. And much of it can be accessed on the fly, either by laptops or smartphones at whatever place we might be at any given moment. As a matter of fact, at the end of the day it's equally what you already know and if you have the ability to find relevant new information to solve problems on the fly. Experience is still valuable, and will remain so, but if you don't develop the ability to keep learning you'll find yourself at a disadvantage. Equally important is to be able to filter all the information according to its relevance, not being able to filter it effectively can be costly and time consuming. Here is where experience come more handy, since it helps to have a better background to filter the new set of information with. Experience is one of the best tools to filter out the noise. Information is a powerful tool if, and only if, we can correctly put it in the right context to make it ...

If the open-source values of not only giving people access to the core workings, but also the ability to modify and redistribute, where expanded to all other facets of human experience things would be better. Since all would have access to the core, solutions to the challenges we face would be a lot easier to get to with if we could modify them to work to the situation we face or want to solve. And if that new building blocks could be distributed too, the benefits of that work would reach a lot more people. Hiding, or not allowing people, to modify the core of anything is not good in the long run for society at large. Innovation is a lot easier if we all can access the core and work with it to make it better, or to make it work in different ways to better suit other set of parameters. Time after time a lot of projects have shown that the open-source paradigm has show that it work to foster innovation and as a business model. If we could apply it to our communities, so ...

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, o...

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 w...

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 wh...

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 develop...

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...