Tsikbal: from my perspective

One of the most common misconceptions about free and open-source software , is that it must cost no money. Yet , FOSS is not always meant to be free of monetary cost. It's meant to respect the users freedoms , yet it doesn't mean that it will be free of cost. As such, you can expect to have to pay for some FOSS software while expecting to be able to exercise the four freedoms on it. It's sad to see that at the core of the FOSS philosophy is not monetary gain, but the ability to use the software you acquire(especially the software you pay for) as you see fit to use it. That means that you should get full access to every part of it, even the source code, in order to make it work as you want it to work. As such, it's on our best interest to be able to make public those changes and to be able to share those changes with others. Any restriction to the users freedoms is to be avoided, since those restrictions don't benefit the user, but the only benefit a few...

With the Internet permeating all of lives, and becoming ever more integrated into our daily routines, it's easy forget that it's a tool. As such, it's best used when it enhances our lives and helps us to live a happier and fulfilling one. The temptation to live our whole lives in the Internet, is one that many have found irresistible. In some ways, the drive to take failure out of lives as something to be avoided at all cost instead of a way of learning, has made many people not just afraid of it. It many cases, some individuals have become incapable of coping with it to the point of being unable to engage in daily life in a normal way. For some, it was become a refuge where they can do thing without dealing with the consequences of their actions. The relative anonymity that it can still be found on the Internet lets them do some of the things they can't do otherwise. At the end, many people fail to see that Internet is just a tool that allows people come toge...

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 ...

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, ...

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 ...