Tsikbal: from my perspective

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...

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...

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 ...

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 th...

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 everythi...

I find it amusing, ironic and a bit sad that Blackberry blasts Apple for its use of encryption to protect their user's privacy. In more than one way, I didn't see coming something like this from Blackberry, who's encryption software is one of the best and the reason many of its costumers use it to begin with. But most importantly, while it's true that criminals and terrorists make use of encryption, using as that an argument against encryption is a fallacy. Encryption isn't the most important tool than enables criminal or terrorist actions, or makes it impossible to conduct or collect data to prevent or punish those actions. Most importantly, that encryption can be used to do bad doesn't take away that most uses are legit and it protects the privacy of good people. Saying that it was because of encryption, that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are not able to prevent crime and terrorism is shortsighted and at the verge of being a lie. To b...

I find it ironic that most of the biggest software and hardware companies are using open source to build their own systems, they keep telling their costumers that they should put their trust on proprietary systems. It seems that foolish that those companies that use open source to build their system, don't embrace open source on the costumer side. In a way, they are losing on the most important side of open source software and hardware. After all, who would be more interested in making their software and hardware even better than the costumers who use it. Costumers invest more than money on the systems they use, they also invest time and build expertise on those systems they use. With this in mind, it makes sense to let the costumers that use your system to actually be able to freely contribute to make the system as a whole better. After all, they are more likely to find things to improve or bugs to fix since they come to scenarios that are hard to replicate in other w...