Big changes seem to coming...

With Microsoft open sourcing its ASP.NET framework, and the fact that a replacement for the Internet Explorer browser called Spartan in the works to be shipped with Windows 10, radical change might be coming faster and deeper than anyone can imagine.

I believe that Microsoft might continue to keep making more of its software open source, yet I don't think that it would open source all of it. Ideally, Microsoft should make the move completely to open source. The move would be greatly beneficial for Microsoft itself, the users of its products, and the open source community.

The idea of having Windows becoming open source, is one that can really makes me happy and gives me some hope that it would make easier for open source software to reach more people. Having Windows as an example of open source, would make a lot to help people to trust open source software in a way they don't do at the moment.

What's more, turning software from proprietary to open source seems to be a path that many companies are taking because the benefits that comes with taking such a step. If the trend continues, it isn't that far fetched that Microsoft would take such a step. Profits aren't something that go against open source, if the software abide by the the free software definition.

Time will say how far, and deep, will Microsoft take those changes.

The right tool for the job...

At work, tablets proved to be a popular gift. And though I find tablets can be useful, they are not for me. My needs are not meet by tablets at all, I prefer ultrabooks and smartphone combination.

The main reason for this, is that I prefer the ultrabook when I'm not moving around. Since I tend to read, while I've several other thing running on the background like my audio player and IMs, or writing, the tablet doesn't really does a good job at that.

When I'm on the move, I like to have something I can get on my pocket and get out of the way when I'm not responding to messages, checking for directions, taking a picture, or listening to music.

As such, the tablet doesn't really fits my needs. When I write comments, and specially on my blog, I prefer the comfort that a physical keyboard gives me. Call me old fashioned, but I like the feedback I get from the keyboard with each stroke. And for the short messages on Whatsapp, Facebook, or Twitter, the smartphone does the job quite nicely.

I agree that tablets are quite useful, at the right place and time. As with ultrabooks and smartphones, they are tools that serve a purpose. Yet, none of these tools are the answer to everyone, since we all have different needs to fulfill. As such, we need to keep in mind that those needs determine which tool will be the best for each of us.

I don't see any tablets completely replace laptops or PCs. At the end, all will have their places.

Back to Unity...

It seems that no matter what, I keep coming back to the Unity user interface. After a couple of weeks of using the MATE user interface, I just had to move back to Unity.

I really liked the experience I got with MATE, yet it lack something that Unity gives me. It's not something tangible, it's mostly my personal taste. I do recommend MATE as an option, yet personally I prefer running Unity. The major change I make to the stock setting, is using the Numix theme and circular icons.

Personally, no other user interface quite fits what I want my desktop to work and feel quite as well as Unity does. My two other favorite user interfaces, MATE and Cinnamon simply don't work as well for me.

In a way, this is way I like GNU/Linux. I like to have my choice of how my OS works, and how it looks. My personal choice is Ubuntu running Unity, though I also like and recommend Linux Mint running Cinnamon. I haven't used Mate on Linux Mint, yet I do like it and recommend it on Ubuntu.

In a way, Ubuntu gives me all what I want and like on my OS. It runs all the apps I both love, and the ones I need to keep in touch with family and friends. Most importantly, it does it in a way that doesn't intrude with how I do things.

When I moved away from Windows, I never could have imagined how much I'd come to like the experience of using GNU/Linux. Most importantly, the level of choice that comes with it. In more than one way, I've always enjoyed computers and software. Most importantly, how they allow people to come together in ways most people don't give a second thought.

Computers, along with smart phones, can be powerful tools to build communities by helping people together around what they love, hate, or whatever they are concerned about. Used correctly, they empower the people.

Most importantly, this power can be multiplied by FLOSS. That's why I moved to Ubuntu on my laptop, and Android for my smart phone.

Dissent is welcome, but bullying isn't...

That Tallef Fog Heen had to quit as a Debian systemd maintainer do to bulling as he explains on his blog, reflects badly on all the open source community. There is an urgent need to change the way dissent is shown, since it is only given in a negative way which is not beneficial to anyone.

Though dissent, and the debate that comes with it, make communities healthy, we can't allow it to descend into bulling when other don't agree with the other's side view point. Sometimes the project we support, makes the choices we agree with. While other times, it will make the choices we don't agree, or like, with.

Keep in mind that with any change comes to a project, it must come with consensus of the majority. This means that not everyone needs to agree with the change, if the majority comes to the agreement to make the change proposed.

By resorting to name calling, and bullying, those who don't agree with us, we are not creating the kind of environment really needed to move the projects forward on a healthy way. What's more, it scares away people from adopting open source because they don't feel comfortable coming to a place where they don't seem to be able to be treated in a friendly manner.

While there are projects that are friendly, and where the interaction is much more mature, it's hard to sell them when people come along with examples where people are mistreated much more often. We are metaphorically shooting our own foot every time a debate becomes a shouting match of name calling and abuse.

It's time to change the way we engage in debate, and stop being sour losers. Sometimes you get want you want, sometimes you don't. So grow up, and move forward and change things.

If in the past it was okay to be nasty, now we can't tolerate it any longer. It's okay to disagree, but let's make that disagreement heard in a way that helps the open source community grow.

Loving the Mate desktop environment so far...

After hearing a lot of good things about the Mate desktop environment, and the fact that it became available for Ubuntu, I've decided to give it a spin.

So far, I've liked much. I got remained of why I fell in love with GNU/Linux, and Ubuntu in particular, in the first place. I felt right at home from the start, and I didn't have much trouble getting up to speed with it.

Ever since Ubuntu started using Unity desktop environment as default on the Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal release, Unity became my go to desktop environment. I've tried using Cinnamon desktop environment with Linux Mint a couple of times now, but never felt as comfortable with as I'm with Unity.

Yet, Mate has felt a lot better than both Unity and Cinnamon have so far. The best part for me, is that I can run it on Ubuntu with ease. Which means that I don't have to leave my favorite distro to use Mate, while getting the desktop experience I feel most comfortable with.

I know that I could get Cinnamon to run on Ubuntu, but I don't see the case since I prefer using Unity. But, now Mate is giving Unity a run for it's money to become my favorite desktop environment. And since I can use it on Ubuntu, I feel right at home with Mate. It might be a case of nostalgia, but if all goes as it has so far, Mate will become my go to desktop environment leaving Unity on second place.

Now I find myself wanting for Ubuntu Mate to become an official flavor of Ubuntu. Yet, even if this doesn't come to pass, I still plan to use Mate as my desktop environment on Ubuntu.

Open source software is for everyone...

One of the biggest misconceptions about open source software, is that one needs to be a skilled programmer, or even a hacker, in order to use it at all. Yet, even though having such skill do help trouble shoot some of the problems one can encounter while using any software, it's not mandatory since there are ways to get help from people who know how to fix the problems you might encounter.

What's true, is that depending on the GNU/Linux distribution the needed technical skill change. Distros like Linux Mint and Ubuntu are really friendly to people who don't have that many computers skills to use it.

Then you have distros like Arch Linux and Debian, where having a strong technical skill set is very important to have to use it to their full potential. It's not like your average user wouldn't be able to use it, but they will not have a good experience with them when they run into problems.

Open source software can be used by everyone, independently of how skilled they are on computers. If you know how to use and configure things on Windows, you can do the same on Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Most of it is just as easy, since this distros have made it really user friendly to do some customization.

Nowadays, open source software has made a lot of inroads to be a lot more user friendly. I find it hard not to see a lot of people who wouldn't feel at home in many of the more user friendly GNU/Linux distros in a short time. While there would be some getting used to the differences that exist coming from Windows or OS X, there aren't big enough for them to stick to the distro they like.

The best example of this that comes to mind, is how popular Android has become. With this in mind, it's not far fetched to think that people could make the jump to GNU/Linux if given the right distro for them.

Need to change how we convey what free and open source software is all about...

Robert Lindh's blog post over at opensource.com, make a good point arguing that open source software might need a re branding. There is no need to change the core principals of the movement, but how they are conveyed to people who are not familiar with them.

One of the biggest obstacles that keep people from embracing free software is their perception, and it only gets worse when it comes to free and open-source software. At the core of free and open source software are the user rights, so that they truly own their both their computer and software. They can do with them as they please, but that doesn't mean that others can do it as well.

It's also about people coming together to build communities around the software they use to make it better, by sharing the changes they made to it among themselves. Also, making it safer by looking for bugs and vulnerabilities in order to take them out.

Free and open source is not about people working for free, or stealing from others. It's about making the tools that people need for whatever reason, and to share them with others so that tools can benefit others. The benefit can come in many ways; from having access to the software that people may need and making the changes they need, to developers making money from their work.

Free and open source software has already proven that its quality and its security. While every software has its flaws, the communities around several examples of free and open source software projects have rallied together time and time again to prove that they can deal with them.

What it's needed, is to find a way to change the perceptions out their that stop the wide spread adoption of free and open source software. We need the find a way to convey what out story better, only then we can start bringing more people to adopt it.

We need to make it clear that free and open source software is not just for geeks, or computer guys. It can be used by everyone, for whatever purpose they want it for.

Quite happy with Ubuntu 14.10 Utipic Unicorn...

I upgraded to the Ubuntu 14.10 Utupic Unicorn last Friday, and even though there aren't that many changes on the user side, I've felt an improvement from the Ubuntu 14.04 LTS Trusty Tahr release.

One of the main things that people points out about Utupic Unicorn, is the fact that it doesn't bring that many changes along with it. I don't really see it as an issue, since with all the work being done on Mir display server, Unity 8 and Ubuntu Touch it's just a matter of time before we are just getting some breathing room before the bulk of the changes to Ubuntu come our way on later releases leading to the 16.04 LTS release.

As I said before, so far my experience with Utupic Unicorn has been quite good. There has been some small bumps along the way, but having passed just a few days since it was released it's expected. Getting it just the way I like it took me about 45 minutes at most, and easy as pie.

So far, Canonical has been delivering an OS that I really enjoy using and support it whole heartily. Ubuntu has become my go to OS, and I recommend fully to everyone.

Happy belated 10th birthday Ubuntu...

Yesterday Ubuntu marked it's 10th birthday, quite a landmark since there many other distros that have come and gone during this time. Personally I've been using Ubuntu for the constantly since the 10.04 LTS Lucid Lynx release.

I've just stop using Ubuntu for a about 4 mouths, when I tried the cinnamon shell variant of Linux Mint 17 LTS Qiana. Though I liked Linux Mint, it doesn't quite feel as right as Ubuntu does for me. The Unity shell fits the bill for me on how I expect my desktop to look and work.

When the move was made from GNOME to Unity on the 11.04 Natty Narwhal release, I was somewhat doubtful about it. I really liked how GNOME work, even though it didn't feel as well as Unity does now. If there was a moment where I could have jump to another distro, it was then. After more of two years of using Unity, and seeing it getting better over time, I must admit that it was become my favorite shell out there.

I freely admit that Ubuntu is far from perfect, but it's the best distro for me since it gives me the best user experience. I gave GNOME 3 a spin as soon as possible when it was available on the Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat, and it didn't like it that much. I could have grown to like it, but it really didn't do much for me.

Unless something cataclysmic happens on future releases, Ubuntu is my go to GNU/Linux distro.

Long road into FOSS, but I'm not looking back...

The first piece of software that took me on the long way away from Windows, and all proprietary software, was NeoPlanet. I came to it looking for an option for the now ubiquitous Internet Explorer that I still dislike with a passion.

From NeoPlanet, I made the jump to Firefox(which still is my favorite web browser by a long shoot). With Firefox entered my keen interest and support for free and open source software(FOSS), which has led me make the jump to Ubuntu full time with the 10.04 LTS Lucid Lynx release.

Even though I've given a try to Linux Mint(my second favorite distro, and the one I recommend to those who want to make the jump to GNU/Linux but want something similar to Windows.) and Fedora(my third favorite distro), Ubuntu still holds the top spot. Ubuntu is the OS that better suits me for the use I give my computer, while it doesn't get in the way of how I do things.

Now even my smart phone is GNU/Linux, since it's running Android. I've been eying to make the change ever since Android supported devices came to Mexico, but I didn't get the chance to make the move until a couple of months ago. I must say that I'm really happy with the OS, and the other other mobile OS that I would like to give a try now is Ubuntu Touch when I get the chance to put my hand on a device running it.

I can't imagine not running FOSS on my personal laptop and smart phone. For me the perfect combination is Ubuntu for my computer, and Android for my smart phone. Though this might change once I get the chance to try a smart phone running Ubuntu Touch.

I also highly recommend everyone to make the move to FOSS when they get the chance. If you're using Chrome or Firefox to read this blog, or use an Android device, you have the prove of how good FOSS can be. If you can, the best first step into the FOSS world if you don't have confidence on your technical skills to install a distro yourself(though installing Ubuntu and Linux Mint is really simple in my personal experience) a Chromebook is the best option.

There a lot of reasons to make the jump, like security and respect to your privacy, to use FOSS. Since the ease to make the jump has steadfastly increasing all the time, now is the best time to come over.

With enough developers, with the right auditing tools, all bugs are shallow...

Reading this article at wired.com, there is a point that seems really good for me. There is a real need to change how code security audits are done, in order to catch bugs like like Shellshock a lot faster.

Yet, I disagree with the tenant that the Linus's Law is a lie, since having more eye balls looking for bugs makes catching them more likely in a faster way. What happens with some project, as the article correctly points out, is that they just don't have enough people working on them to catch bugs as fast and effectively as possible. Which in core projects can be quite a big problem, since the impact of those bugs on security can be quite big and dangerous for users.

This is why there is a urgent need to change how code audits are carried out, and a need to make software open so we have as many people as possible looking at the code. In a sense, what we need is to have better auditing tools being used as widely as possible to make code both better and with much less bugs.

Open source software will always be intrinsically more secure than  proprietary software because the number of developers looking into the code. What it's needed, is to give those core projects the resources to get more developers on board and the audit tools needed to make their code as free of bugs as possible.

That's the only way Linus's Law will really be as effective as we needed to be, making bugs as shallow as possible.

Photoshop coming to Chromebooks is good news...

That you can now stream Photoshop to Chromebooks it's not just not a big win for Google, but to GNU/Linux at large. It means that now the idea that Photoshop could become available in other distros is not really all that crazy.

That Adobe finally decided to bring the flagship photo editing software to GNU/Linux via Chromebooks is a big thing since it takes away another reason for not coming to GNU/Linux.  Most importantly, if it does well on Chromebooks Adobe might have an incentive to bring Photoshop some of the other major GNU/Linux distros like Ubuntu or OpenSUSE.

If more people start moving to use Photoshop on GNU/Linux, it might the spark that GNU/Linux has been looking to really become a mainstream OS and not just something used a few. There will be a bigger set of people that now will be able to see, and use, a GNU/Linux distro as a viable option to use on daily basis to work with.

I still temper my optimism with a grain of salt. It's a great first step, but there still a long road ahead to be called a success since there still much that could give Adobe cold feet. Yet, a very promising news and the kind that give me hope that GNU/Linux might have a break on the desktop.

Most non FOSS user just don't care...

This article at fossforce.com got me wondering, do FOSSers are the only ones who "get" FOSS? While in some cases non FOSS users seem unable to get what FOSS is all about, most of the time it's more about not caring enough to even try to understand FOSS at all.

Most people just want computers that work according to their expectations for whatever use they have for them. For them, that it works the way they expect it to work is all that matters and anything else is irrelevant. So far, the likes of Microsoft and Apple have done quite a good job giving people products that let people a familiar product that lets them work in a way that they feel comfortable with.

Since they have this products that work as they come to expect, why care about much about what FOSS people arguments about how software must respects users freedoms? Let's face it, the whole argument for most users is not a technical one since most people don't really want to get that side of the software. For the average user is more about the protection of their rights, privacy and ethical aspects of their interaction with software.

Most often than not, FOSS matches blow for blow what proprietary software can do. For any given proprietary software, there is a FOSS one that can do at least the same thing or could be developed if there is a need for it.

With the news of the NSA spying on just about everyone, and all the hacking cases that have resulted on high profile private information to be stolen, gives FOSS a chance to get entry into the attention of the average user by making them care software in ways they think before. Suddenly, in the mind of many there is more in computers and software than the technical aspects most of the FOSS community seem to concentrate in.

For the average user, the emotional link is far more important than the technical one. They need to feel that link without having to have that many technical skills to begin with, since those skills can be built later as a result of that emotional link. Let's find ways to bring to FOSS people that don't have a technical background from the beginning, by making it clear that FOSS is as much about them as it is about software.

Until this happens, the average people just won't have a reason to care, much less have a reason to use, what's FOSS all about.

Personally, I'd love to see Apple becoming part of the FOSS community...

This article in infoworld.com, about the pros and cons that Apple face about open sourcing its new Swift programing language got me thinking that I'd love to see Apple coming to the FOSS community completely.

I know there are many people at the FOSS community at large that, to say the least, hate Apple with a passion. And for the looks of it, Apple feels quite the same way about FOSS. But if Apple came to embrace the FOSS movement completely, the benefits for itself and the FOSS movement at large would be many and to good to ignore.

For Apple, some advantages would be having access to a wider set of developers to work with them to make their software better. It would have more developers looking to make their software better in more ways than any one could think about now. Not only that, it could take advantage of developments that are being put forward at places outside itself a lot easier and faster that if does now.

Developers would have a proven platform that is known to be solid. Like or not, Apple produces some great software that people want to use. My main problem with it, is not the quality of Apple's products, but all the restrictions that are imposed on both developers and users so that Apple can keep control over the software it creates. Those restrictions are way to heavy on users, since they restricts our freedoms to use the software so it fits our needs the best way we see fit.

Yes, since they coded the software to begin with they get a say on the development, to set the parameters and set the goals they want to get to. In a way, every GNU/Linux distro does this but they don't restrict their developers to take the distro and take another road with it.

Lastly, users could benefit by having Apple's way of making it's software as user friendly as it can. There are already some GNU/Linux distros that do a good job on the user experience. My top two are Linux Mint and Ubuntu, while Chrome OS seems to be doing a good job at to give a good user experience too. Yet, there seems to be some rough edges that might keep the average user away.

This is where Apple's design team excels at, and where GNU/Linux could really use their expertise to give users a better experience.

I know that the odds of Apple changing its hearth and embracing FOSS doesn't have that many chances of ever happening. Yet, dreaming doesn't cost a thing...

Chromebooks are becoming quite a good option...

If this SanDisk SD card can be paired with Chromebooks, suddenly having a Chromebook becomes an option worth considering for me.

The main issue for me with having a Chromebook, is the internal storage capacity. Until now, most Chromebooks top at 64 GB is way lower than the amount of storage that I feel comfortable with. For me, the minimum size for the hard drive is 500 GB.

This means, that an SD card with a capacity of 512 GB hits the mark quite nicely. As a plus, storing my data on an SD card means that it can be easier to move it around devices.

With the local data storage issue solved, Chromebooks also have the benefit of price. They are cheaper, and most of them offer a great value for me since they are a perfect fit for my computing needs. I just need something to edit text, do some light work on spreadsheets, listen music and do light Internet browsing. All this can be done with ease with a Chromebooks, meaning that a Windows laptop might be an over kill.

Since Chrome OS, which runs all Chromebooks, is based on the GNU/Linux kernel, it makes the need to install another GNU/Linux becomes less important. In a way, Chrome OS is itself a GNU/Linux distro. So, I would be jumping to another distro from Linux Mint.

If I could dual boot Chrome OS and Linux Mint on a Chromebook, it would become a closed deal for me. Like this, I'd get to try Chrome OS, while using Linux Mint when I feel the need.

Moving to Android has proven to be the right choice...

I've been using Mobo smartphone(link in Spanish) running Android 4.1.2 for a couple of mouths now, and even though it's somewhat on the low end spectrum I've really liked Android as a whole.

If anything, I don't really like that I can move some of the apps to my SD card so I can free the internal memory. Yet the device holds the apps I use the most, so I really don't this hasn't become much of an issue. Most importantly, the over all experience has been rather good.

So much so, that I've become an Android fan. When time comes to get a new smartphone, I'll get one that comes with more internal memory. Basically I've come to realize that for what I use my smartphone, Android is the OS to go and I need one with more internal storage to better fit my mobile lifestyle.

Most importantly on a personal level, is that now my laptop and smartphone are underpinned by GNU/Linux. My go to distro for my laptop has become Linux Mint, though I also recommend Ubuntu, using Cinnamon. And, unless a device using Ubuntu Touch comes along, Android is my go to mobile OS.

If all goes as it has been so far, I'm staying with Linux Mint for my desktop and Android for my smartphone. This combination feels the best for me, and it's working great.

It's true that it hasn't been completely without some issues, but all of them have been minor and easy to fix. So, there is no real reason for me to stop using either OS. As a matter of fact, I recommend everyone to use them.

So far, moving to the Android camp has been really good...

The let's blame our users game...

It seems that Apple is happy to blame its users every time something wrong happens with any of its products, no matter what issue is found.

Even though some of the blame can be placed on Apple's own security implantation, it's rather odd and insensitive to place the blame on users while the investigation is still ongoing. Even worse when it seems that such blaming games are the modus operandi of a company that prides itself of making the word's mos advanced desktop OS.

Ever since the antenna gate, Apple seems rather to blame their users as people that can seem to be able to use their rather user friendly products than to accept mistakes. That really bugs me, I don't mind companies making mistakes from time to time if they admit them and correct them. But, blaming users is something that is not ethical to say the least.

In this case, I want to know what was the part that software had to play and what are they going to do to fix it so that something like the celebrity photo hacks won't happen ever again in the same way. And while some of the responsibility might fall on the users side, the remainder will fall on Apple's side.

It's on Apple's best interest to let the investigation run its course, and then be transparent about fully disclosing the findings and what they are going to do fix the problems on their side of the matter.

If this doesn't happen, what remains of my faith and trust on Apple will completely disappear.

China to move to GNU/Linux, I want to be hopeful I won't abandon caution...

That China it's looking into making GNU/Linux custom OS, is both something I look forward to and something that makes me worry quite a bit.

The good part of China moving to GNU/Linux, is that it has the potential to make other countries to look into GNU/Linux as well. Even if not all who do look into it fully migrate to open source software, which would be the ideal thing to happen, it could mean that at least some of their IT moves to it.

Like it or not, China has a lot of sway. Moving to GNU/Linux might start a domino effect not only with some of the other BRIC nations, but with people that do business with the second largest economy. Besides, since it has a population of over 1.35 billion people will have an enormous impact on the economy of scale to produce hardware that supports GNU/Linux and open source software in general.

The part that makes me worry, is that China isn't known to go by the spirit of open source. Hopefully, China will see the benefit of adhering to the open source spirit and share it's code with the world at large. Doing so can be hugely beneficial for open source, since having China pouring resources to make GNU/Linux better can do much to make it all that better.

China could benefit from it too, as being seeing as valued member of the larger open source community.

While there is still a lot to be seen about it, I'm hopeful that China's move to an GNU/Linux OS will be a good thing for everyone. This could be what GNU/Linux needs to break into the desktop.

Monetizing open source projects...

Reading this blog post entitled Work and open source, made me ponder about how to monetize open source projects. Though he's right that not all projects are abandoned because of financial issues; the important thing is what financial issues cause open source projects to stop being maintained.

While Gittip seem to be a good tool to monetize some open source projects, it might not be the answer for every project out there. For me, Gittip seems to be a better fit for those projects that individuals use for whatever reason. It gives people a way to personally tip the developers for their hard work, while making contributions bigger by funneling a large sum from different sources in a single place.

Another idea I like, and agree with, would be to GitHub to help the ones who use it to monetize their projects directly on the site. By adding a monetizing service to their site, GitHub stands at the chance of becoming an even more valuable tool for developers.

Neither Gittip or GitHub will be the full answer to help open source projects get much needed money to work with, but they could help developers a lot by giving people a way to contribute to their projects in ways that are secure and trusted by all involved.

The only thing I don't agree with, it's ads. True, not everyone likes the idea to have ads as a form of income. Yet, I believe that each project should be able to choose ads as a form of income. Done right, it adds a legitimate source of income while helping rise some awareness of the project. There should be a way for developers have a say on what they are willing to advertise, and for the people to advertising to be able to be able to choose on what projects their advertisement appears.

Monetizing a project doesn't go against the spirit of open source, it's a tool to get the resources to get the open source projects ahead.

Convergence migth not be what we think it is...

It seems that this article at arstechnica.com about KDE misses the point about whats going on the GNU/Linux camp, in a sense that it's not about the kernel itself. It's about the desktop environment.

What's going on, is that there seems to be a race toward convergence. Trying to have an user interface that's pretty much the same on the PCs, tablets and smart-phones. On the GNU/Linux camp, the main example that come to my mind is Canonical's Unity user interface.

The main debate it's about how best convergence can be achieved, or if something that can be done. Some argue, like KDE's Aaron Seigo at this article at themutk.com, that convergence isn't coming at all.

Even though I'd like to see full convergence across all platforms, I agree that it wont happen. In a sense, I think that we'll have some level of convergence. Yet, that convergence wont be on the user interface, but on the standards used to run software so we can actually run our files on all our devices.

The main reason that I don't thing that the user interface will be the major point for convergence, is because the way people interact with each type of device and the use we give to each of them. No matter how much people argue that smart-phones, or tablets, will replace PCs or laptops they wont. We use all our devices in a different way, though there are some aspects like listening music or watching videos where we use them both. But even then, we don't use them the same way.

PCs, tablets and smart-phones are great tools, but each has its place. Most importantly they aren't really competing with each other, but they complement each other to help us do what we do better. We don't have to choose one of them, but we can use the ones that better combine to help us do our best.

In some ways, convergence is already here and we just need to make it work for us.

Sound management,the Achilles heel of FOSS...

As with many things in life, the hardest thing to do with any FOSS(free and open-source software) project is manage it so that it doesn't get sidetracked from it's goal and to get things done. In many cases, FOSS projects that have sound technical foundations fail because their resources where mismanaged or they lost focus because of it.

Sometimes it's because of both, which is a shame.

The reason why Red Hat, LibreOffice, Firefox, and even Canonical, have had the success is due they have been well managed. These companies have brought together the technical expertise and the vision, and their management have made the right choices to keep true to them. So, they have arrived to the success they enjoy now.

Yet, as Mozilla has shown, finding the right people to lead the project forward can be somewhat tricky to say the least. Specially since many FOSS project depend on their communities to take it forward.

In a way, the management of some FOSS projects is not like managing a business, while other require that kind of managerial style. All depends on the the community behind the project, and what are the goals that it has set itself to reach.

FOSS works, and what comes out of it can have top notch quality. What it need is to be better managed from the onset.

Open source victories that can make it mainstream...

With examples of the UK government choosing the ODF standard, or Geneva bringing open source software to their schools, are victories that help open source advocates to make the case for wider adoption of open source software and open standards.

In both cases, shows how the benefits are to many to ignore and are quite enough incentive to make the move. The savings on the money that has to be paid in royalties, and for the right to upgrade are considerable. Not only that, at UK case it means that people can access government information without any cost imposed to them just to look said information because they can access it from any suite they choose.

As this article at cnet.com about LibreOffice points out, now people don't have to pay Microsoft for their office suite to be able to access public documents. Whats best, there are several other office suites that can be used to access public documents saved on the ODF format, while being able to handle old Microsoft's formats with ease.

What important about the UK government's decision, is that it frees their documents from a possible lock in to a single vendor office suite. This allows information to flow, independently of what office suite each user uses to access the documents.

For the Geneva school system, it means having software that is easier to maintain and far more stable. What's most important, Ubuntu is proving easier to use for everyone involved.

For me, the best part is that the children using the computers are going to be exposed to using free software from an early age. This means that they are going to grow up without the false ideas that free software is hard to use, or at least as capable as any proprietary software. Which means, that they wont learn skills that lock them to a certain software from a single company.

There are several other examples, like Munich ditching Windows and Office for good, give the open source community at large the legitimacy it deserves. Not only that, it makes it easier to advocate to more cities and companies to make the move and follow suit.

In more than ways, open source can use them as examples that it works and it's can be the tool that people need to move forward.

When the strategy fails, don't blame open source...

This article at infoworld.com got me thinking, Tizen failed because it's open source model or because it was badly managed?

It seems to me that the failure of Tizen has to do more with how the project has been managed so far, rather than with it being open source software. With Samsung betting heavily on Android, and Intel getting its hands on whatever OS can make its chips relevant, Tizen really had much chance to succeed.

As with proprietary software projects, open source projects success depend heavily on how the leader of the projects manage them. On both sides, there are far more projects that fail than those who become success stories. Neither development process comes with a warranty of success attached with it, since there are many factors that can determine if a project will be a success or a failure.

Trying to pin the blame on the open source development of Tizen, is quite shortsighted. As it states, the failure of Tizen is more a matter of strategy than of the open source model itself. Blaming open source instead of the poor strategy misses the point, since what failed was the strategy itself,

In a way, Microsoft has a big failure on its hands with its Windows Phone OS, since it barely stands on the smartphone market. The success story for proprietary software on mobile operating systems goes to Apple with their iOS, and the iPhone.

At the end, Tizen is a model on how not to manage an open source project. The failure can be blamed on the strategy used to mange the project, not on the open source model used to develop the OS.

Modify your software, or business processes, only if it brings added value...

This arstechnica.com article highlights a point that I think is something of a shortsighted view of the integration of software and business processes. It's the choice between choosing to modify the software or the business processes, so that they integrate in a way so that they add value.

There is no single answer, the reality is that each project is different from each other. As such, when the upgrade is being done one should map out when is modifying the software or the business process will bring the most value. In short, choose to modify the one that has to adapt to the other in order to make things work to the best of their capabilities.

It's also important to have in mind that, sometimes you're going to have to modify both in order to achieve the results you're looking for at the end.

That's why having a clear idea of how you're doing things, and the results you want to achieve. Only with this in mind, and fully mapped out, you can make the choice of what software you need to get and if you need to modify it in order to make it work for you. The same goes for your business processes, since the new software can be the key factor in making any changes in your processes be made smoothly.

Trying to force business processes to work with a certain software, or vice versa, is the recipe for waste of money and time. When making any kind of change in order to improve your business, make sure that what's change actually adds value.

Change only those things things that will bring the results you want, or add the value you need to bring in.

Vendors shouldn't be able to lock us in their ecosystem...

That Apple and Google are herding their users toward vendor lock in this arstechnica.com article describes, which spells bad news for users. Even for those who still aren't on either of those ecosystems, since they will be forced to pick a side if iOS and Android as become even more dominant players on the smart phone market place.

Even though Apple isn't that big on the desktop, it can herd some users to their computers if they make it hard enough to use the iPhone along with Microsoft Windows or Google's Chrome OS. The same goes for Android, that could have an easier way of locking people in since more OEM have access to their mobile OS.

Users should be the one who choose if they want to use devices from just a single vendor, or use a mix of devices from as many vendors as they choose.

That's why vendor should always use a common standard as a platform, so that interoperability between all our devices becomes the norm independently of the software that each one runs. It boils down to the fact vendors shouldn't any control on limiting what devices we get, by making it hard for their devices to work nicely with devices of other vendor.

What devices we get as users, which ones we link, and how we do it must be completely controlled by us. Vendors should have not have any control over the interoperability of devices, all should work with each other independently of brand or vendor.

At the end, users are the ones who need to have complete control over his or her devices. This is why interoperability between all devices must be baked in from the onset, by using a common standard as a platform so that all devices can work together seamlessly.

Vendor lock-in is only good for them, as users we must make them use common standards on their platforms.

Took a while, but still there is a long way ahead...

This column in wired.com made a good point about why people can't really share their files easily, and why it took so long for an app that lets you do that to come along.

Most often that not, it seems like the interest of corporations trump the interest of the people when it comes to sharing files. What's more disturbing, is the fact that in some cases governments side with corporations so that governments can control the flow of information. Thus, it becomes a lot easier to censor all that the power want to keep from the public.

While I believe that an app like onionshare and Tor project are available to the public, it also bothers me that they are not all that friendly to people who don't have that much technical know-how to make use of these tools. For must people, just entering to their sites to see what they are about might be a turn down to adopting them.

Now more than ever, there is a real need for projects that make this kind of apps that are easy to use by people with minimal computer skills. Which, in a sense is somewhat sad, because privacy should be something that we could take for granted on-line.

Both, onionshare and the Tor project, are great steps forward. Yet, there are just the first step in a long journey to win back our on-line privacy.

If I had my doubts about the NSA, now I've even more...

If it wasn't bad enough that the NSA was collecting data wholesale, without missing much, is plain wrong. But targeting readers of the Linux Journal, while labeling them as extremist takes the whole thing to a whole level of paranoia that it's really unsettling.

As a regular reader of the Linux Journal, I take offense that I could be labeled as a suspect and my movements tacked just because I've an interest on their content because it's interesting and useful for me as a GNU/Linux user. Not only on the tips on how to keep my privacy, but to get news and to stay up to date on whats going on.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people that are up to no good use information they find on the site for their wrong doing. Yet, I'm quite sure that most of us who access the site are either GNU/Linux professionals or enthusiasts that find the content useful and interesting. As such, it serves as both a forum to discuss whats new, or just have an interesting read to have an insight on whats new.

All in all, it makes no sense to say that the Linux Journal readers actions need to be tracked because we aren't a threat. Yes, the average reader of the Journal is more conscious about privacy issues on the Internet, and some will use the tools that appear on the Journal if they see fit to use them. But, that's no evidence that those readers who use them are to anything wrong.

If I was not that fond of the NSA, now I really have a problem with how it makes its choices on who to target for surveillance.

Technology is no silver bullet, just a tool that can make change happen...

Is technology the silver bullet that will change the world? The answer is not as simple isn't a yes or no, it's actually a lot more complicated than that. In itself, technology is not the answer, is just the tool we have to make our world a better place.

The truth, is people have to change the world. Technology is just a tool we have at our disposal to make change happen, for better or for worse its impact will depend on the use we give to it.

As many things in life, technology will change our lives and we will have an impact on how technology evolves by the way we use it. What we believe, our habits, and social structure that exist when a certain technology arrives have a role on how it's received and used. It has a huge impact on how widespread it's adoption it will be, and it's not always easy to measure on the early days of it's release to the public.

In a way, technology will not bring paradise to us. Instead, it's the tool that can help us to build it, one step at the time.

Yet, we need to have caution. Technology can be used for good or evil, since in itself it's neutral. People are the ones who are good or evil, and their use of technology defines the outcome we are going to face. The habit of blaming technology for our ills needs to be rooted out, since it's the use we give technology that brings all the outcomes that we have to face when it's not used wisely.

Technology will not save us, we are the ones who have to save ourselves. Technology is the best tool we have at our disposal for the job, but we need to learn how to use and developed it in a way that nurtures the best we have to offer.

In the end, technology is the tool we need to create the best possible future we can.