Spotify, DRM, and other musings...

This year my music listening habits have changed to listening to my music library and to Spotify.

I found that I really like Spotify, since it gives me the right balance of the music I like while letting me discover new music based on my tastes. It also has the plus that the artist get paid for their work.

There is only one thing that I don't like about Spotify, and it's use of digital rights management(DRM). I can't agree on the use of DRM, since it restricts users right to control the software that runs on their devices.

DRM is not the way to help artists make a living, since efforts should be concentrated on making it easier for user to support their favorites artists. Adding artificial restrictions like DRM doesn't do much for help artists, and harm the user in more than one way.

Instead of restricting users, ways to make easier to support artists should be made available. In some ways, artists, producers and content creators should realize that once their creations are made public, they lose some of the control over it. People will use their work for their own purposes, and there isn't much they can do to stop this from happening.

The business model of the music industry has changes, and thus the way of making money has to change as well. The relationship between artists and their fans has changed as well, as such artists have to adapt.

For better or worse, artists and producers don't have as much control over their creations as they did before. New channels need to be found in order for them to be able to make a living.

Electronic payment for public trasportation...

There has been a lot of talk in Guadalajara about using smart cards on buses of the public transportation system, the only step taken toward this has been that a norm has been approved by the local congress a few years back.

So far, only the light rail system and the Macrobus use smart cards. The problem being that they are incompatible, which is at least problematic for riders that use both systems on regular basis.

The ideal would be that the smart card system for all three systems would be integrated, allowing riders use one card for the three systems. That would facilitate things for everyone involved, which is one of the main reasons to adopt the smart card to begin with.

Personally, I'd go one step beyond and allow users to pay with their smartphones. That would facilitate things a lot more, since a large portion of riders already use smartphones to begin with.

I rather use a smart card, specially if it allows me to use it on the three systems. I already use it for the light rail system, and the buses that it uses, and I really find it to be a lot more practical that having to worry about having the spare change to pay for the ride.

The public transportation system is a dire need of modernization, and the payment system is one for those things that would benefit the most. Both the light rail system and the Macrobus have proven that the smart card works, so there is no reason for the buses not to adopt it.

The more I use the Android/MOBO combination, the more I love it...

After a couple of year using Nokia's E63 using Symbian's S60 platform and a year using a Blackberry Bold 9650, I made the jump to Android via an independent manufacturer called MOBO(page is in Spanish since its a Mexican brand).

To be honest, I was really a fan of Nokia's smartphones and of Symbian as an OS. For me it was sad to see Symbian being ditched, and worse when it's place was taken by Windows Phone OS. I've rather seen Nokia move to Android, since I believe that it would have made a much better match.

Since I've being using Android, it has taken Symbian's place as my favorite mobile OS. As devices go, MOBO has become my go to brand since it sells unlocked smartphones at a decent prices that have good quality. And while the specs are not premium, they are more than good enough for most people.

I'm also really conscious about the design of the devices I use, and MOBO's devices have the design I like. The only thing I miss is to have a physical keyboard, but that is more of personal preference.

Another thing that I've come to realize, is that my smartphone hasn't completely replaced the way I use my laptop. As a matter of fact, the laptop/smartphone combination is the one for me. They give me the freedom of movement I want for my lifestyle, since each pro's cancel out each other con's. I don't think I could replace my laptop with a desktop, or my smartphone with a feature phone.

The more I use the Android/MOBO combination, the more it becomes cemented as my favorite. I'm really comfortable with how it works, since it allows me configure my device in a way that better suits my needs and tastes.

Copyleft is growing and gaining relevance...

Many times when I talk about open-source software, the question of why the concept behind it hasn't been applied else ware if its so good come around often. It turns out it has, in the form of Copyleft, and there are many artists actually using it to license their work.

The fact that Copyleft is expanding beyond software development speaks volumes. It tells that Copyleft works, and that its beneficial to creators and users alike. It might not be perfect, but it actually could mean that there be viable alternative to Copyright that benefits both artists and their fans.

In more than one way, it could shift how artists relate to their fans and how their work spreads. It also means that their source of income is going to change even more, and it ways that aren't all that clear at the moment.

The advent of the Internet, smartphones, and tablets has changed the dynamics of how people shares things and what owning ideas or art means. In a way, it has become ever harder to control how people share things around. It seems that all attempts to prevent people to share are simply made to say that something is done.

In that light, Copyleft could be the key to help artist the credit and the income they deserve, while giving people a way to share what they love with others legally.

October comes, and with it Ubuntu 16.10...

October has come, and with it Ubuntu 16.10. Codenamed Yakkety Yak, it isn't that big an update over Ubuntu 16.04 LTS though it has some interesting updates like Linux kernel 4.8, Unity 7.5 and Nautilus 3.20.

In general, so far Ubuntu 16.10 has been worth the upgrade. I haven't come to any problems or serious bug. Performance on my system has been better on some aspects, while on others it has remained the same. Though I'd like to have seen an upgrade to Unity 8, the improvements that came with the 7.5 are really nice.

As it has been the trend for the last couple of years, each new Ubuntu release come with improvements not revolutionary changes. That's good for most of the people that use the OS, and why I really love Ubuntu.

While I can expect some changes, I can also expect that those changes won't be at the expense of braking my system. That is something really valuable for the average user, that wants her or his computer to work as expected after an upgrade. And the changes that come with each upgrade have to add value in order to be worthwhile.

As it is, Yakkety Yak has hit the sweet spot for me yet again. It keeps Ubuntu as my go to distro, and along with Linux Mint one that I can recommend for other to use.

I sure hope Blackberry survives...

Blackberry has become a shadow fo what it was a few years ago, in large part because of Apple's iPhone and Google's Android devices. I can remember a time when the smartphone to get was a Blackberry one, now most consumers wouldn't even consider one.

Personally, my first smartphone was a Nokia E63, which I selected because at the time I was a big Nokia fan. That device really made me a fan of the QWERTY keyboard on smartphones and of the Symbian OS. When time came to replace the Nokia E63 I briefly considered the Nokia N8, in a way to see how having a smartphone without a QWERTY keyboard would work for me.

At the time, Nokia made Symbian open-source for a time before making it proprietary some time later. To be honest, I really was rooting for Nokia and Symbian to be able to make themselves strong players along Google's Android on the smartphone arena. But that didn't come to pass since Nokia went and made a deal with Microsoft, and later sell its mobile division all together to Microsoft to manufacture Windows Phones. That was a big disappointment, since I'd love to see Nokia move to make Android powered devices if Symbian didn't take off.

Blackberry has suffered the same as Nokia, but it seems that it will just stop manufacturing devices itself. Instead it will license it's brand to others to manufacture devices and on the software side of things. On the software side, it seems that it will license it's Blackberry 10 and it's security software to harden Android devices security. For the time being, it seems that it will not disappear, and at least it will keep their relevance on the mind of people looking for secure smartphones.

To be honest, if Blackberry had started manufacturing Android smartphones earlier I'd move to it when Nokia moved to making Windows Phones. Not only that, it could have actually taken a big share of the market of the premium Android phones from Samsung has with it's Galaxy series of smartphones.

While I agree with this Wired article that states the Blackberry won't disappear, I'm just sure of it on the medium term. On the long run, Blackberry's survival depends on it actually finding costumers for it's offerings. And while it has a good odds, it's not something all that certain.

Each distro is a solution to a different problem...

This article on Linux Journal, called "The Many Paths to a Solution", really gave an idea to explain to people who don't know much about Linux why are the so many distros out there.

Many seem to believe that the main reason that there are so many reason for there being more than 50 actively maintained distros, is that Linux must not be really that good. That's not really the case, since the users of most of those distros could easily make a point for why their distro is great for them.

Each distro represents a path to a solution to a problem that a group of users have to solve. That's why not every distro is a fit for every user, and also why many become disenchanted with Linux. In many of those cases, the user wasn't matched to the right distro to begin with. While in other times, the expectations weren't meet to what the distro offered.

That's why its vital to match new users to the distro that better suits their needs, not to the distro that we like best or we currently use.

There is no distro that will fit every user out there, while distros like Ubuntu and Linux Mint will be a great fit for most users, there are some others that would need something else. For example, big companies needs are better meet by Red Hat Enterprise Linux or CentOS. There is even a distro focused on science laboratories called Scientific Linux.

As such, before recommending a distro its vital to know that the user need and expects from it. Otherwise you can be doomed to fail to give the best solution to that user's needs.

It's time to take a better way to match user to the distro they need. Only that way Linux, and FLOSS in general, can have the level of usage and good will they deserve.

When something doesn't go as it should...

Last Monday the SAP server got busted by a virus, and all hell broke out. It took the better part of three days to set it back up, and by the fourth day it wasn't up to speed.

Until this happened, nobody really gave a second thought to the fact that we all are dependent on central server to get the info we all need to do our jobs. SAP is vital for every department pass the information needed for all departments work smoothly. And while some of us use local storage to actually work some of the info in a more detailed way, our main source of information is centralized at a single server.

At least in my case, and of my coworkers at my department, my work didn't come to a complete halt. Some of the info I work with, isn't dependent on SAP. As such, it means that I still could go ahead with some of my work. The same goes some of the other departments, though having access to the info on SAP sure does makes thing a lot easier.

Yet, this event highlights the dangers of having just one point of access to info, and an app, that's vital for things to work smoothly. There is no way to guarantee a 100% up time, so there should be always a plan B for when things go wrong.

In a way, this is why I'm for a hybrid approach between cloud computing and computing locally. Its the best way to have the pro's of each paradigm, while mitigating the con's that each have.

Cloud computing has a place to take, but its not a solution for every need out there.

The 3.5 mm headphone jack seems to have it's days numbered...

Its official, Apple ditched the 3.5 mm headphone jack in favor of it's Lightning connector on the iPhone 7. Now, Intel says that the 3.5 mm headphone jack should be replaced with a USB-C connector port.

The main problem with the change, is the potential for users to get locked into an ecosystem because of compatibility issues. At this point, if you buy an iPhone 7 you'll need an adapter to use your current headphones. No doubt it the near future headphones using the Lightning connector will hit the market.

The main issue here, is if Android smartphones will go with the Lighting connector or with the USB-C connector. The odds are that they go with the USB-C connector since Android already has support for it and they won't have to have to pay license fees to Apple to use it's Lightning connector.

To be honest, USB-C connector is becoming ever more common. As such it has better odd of being able to replace the 3.5 mm headphone jack, and has better odds of becoming the de facto standard for headphones and other peripherals to interact with our smartphones.

Though the 3.5 mm headphone jack is far from dead, it seems that it can be replaced sooner rather than later. Even thought that personally I don't want see it going away, I'll rather see it replaced by the USB-C connector.

Let's face it, we all knew that the 3.5 mm headphone jack would be replaced someday. We just didn't when and with what, and now we are seeing the first steps toward finding what connector will become the replacement.

It seems to be the begging of the end for OpenOffice...

Ever since OpenOffice.org became Apache OpenOffice.org, after Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems, it has been losing developers. Most of them went to fork, develop LibreOffice out of fear that OpenOffice would become an afterthought for Oracle.

Even though Oracle gave contributed OpenOffice and it's source code to the Apache Software Foundation, after it indeed stop the development of the office suite, developers didn't came back to the project. As a consequence, development of OpenOffice has virtually stopped.

On the other hand, LibreOffice has gained not only many new developers, but also widespread acceptance. Almost every mayor distro ships with it, and even the Italian government joining.

So, learning that there is some serious consideration about shutting down the OpenOffice project all together due to lack of developers comes to the surprise of anyone.

For me, its a bittersweet thing. For one, OpenOffice was the first open source office suite that was really more than good enough for most people to replace MS Office. But, because of the lack of developers and the coming of LibreOffice I simply made the jump to the latter. And the frequent updates, and each one making it progressively better, to LibreOffice I see no point to go back to OpenOffice.

While the is a chance that OpenOffice won't be close, I simply don't see it happening. LibreOffice has taken it's place and I don't developers LibreOffice or Calligra Suite giving any time to OpenOffice. Not to mention that most new developers interested on contributing to a office suite are most likely to pick LibreOffice.

So, the end of an era seems to finally be coming to an end.

FOSS needs to have more mainstream promotion...

One of the biggest misconceptions of free and open-source software(FOSS) is that is free of cost. In reality, FOSS can have a monetary cost and still be fully compliant with the FOSS concept.

In order to be considered free software it has to respect the following four freedoms:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

Freedoms 1 and 3 require source code to be available because studying and modifying software without its source code can range from highly impractical to nearly impossible.

While some prefer keep the open-source part out, and just talk about free software, I prefer to the free and open-source software term since the source code needs to be available for software to be fully free. Specially when I talk about the subject with people who aren't versed on software development, since it helps to explain the concept in a more concise and in a way more readily understandable for people who aren't that much into software.

Personally, I've found the most people aren't aware that FOSS exist. Even when they use Firefox or Android(tough it has some proprietary components on some devices), they're unaware that FOSS is a viable alternative. Other popular, and robust FOSS include LibreOffice, GIMP and Ubuntu.

In a way, FOSS needs more mainstream promotion. Most of the time, most people seem to thing of FOSS of something only geeks and computer engineers can user. While some FOSS is aimed for those user, there are many others aimed for the average users. The most famous examples again would be Firefox and Android.

On the operating systems side, I can recommend to most users Ubuntu or Linux Mint, since I've used both of them and I've found them really easy to use. Both have all what the average user will ever need, and any extras can be easily found on the stores that both operating systems have.

FOSS has proven it's worth on the technical side, now the question is how to make the case for it's use to the average users. They are more than capable to use it, but there are many psychological barriers to be torn down, and some ease of access ones, before there will be more willingness to use it.

In the end, it's time to do some serious marketing aimed to a wider audience.

Patreon account..

One of the things I enjoy most, is to create content for you all. But with my current job, I don't have as much time as I'd like to devote to create that content.

For this reason, I created an account in Patreon. If you like the content that I create for you, and would like to see more of it posted you could have a part on it by sponsoring a monthly amount, or as you see fit.

In order to be able devote myself a 100% to create content, I need about $500 dollars a month. The best thing for you and me, is that many of you can help me achieve that goal.

If we can achieve more of $500 a month, there would be more daily updates and other ways to say thanks for your support.
I thank you in advance for your support, and here's the link:

patreon.com/nothaleon

Whatsapp start sharing data with Facebook...

When Facebook bought Whatsapp I hoped against all hope that Whatsapp wouldn't succumb to collecting data from users, and use it so Facebook would strengthen it's add business. It actually scored some kudos when it added end-to-end encryption, a good thing to protect our privacy.

Alas, Whatsapp has announced that it will start collecting data and it will serve it to Facebook in order for it to be able to better able to serve ads on Facebook. So far, they claim that Whatsapp won't be serving ads on the app itself.

Yet since Whatsapp promised it wouldn't serve data to Facebook to begin with, it becomes harder to believe that they'll keep their promise that they won't serve ads in the future. It now becomes a question of when they'll start doing it, and how would they look.

Personally, I liked to use Whatsapp because it respected user privacy by not collecting data. And when it started using full encryption end-to-end, it strengthen it's position as my favorite messaging app. I didn't mind paying the $1 dollar a year if it meant that Whatsapp respected my privacy.

Now, that trust has been shaken. I don't feel comfortable using apps that share my data, and one that change it's policy after promising it wouldn't so makes matter worse.

The hunt for a new messaging app has begun, though I won't be able to stop using Whatsapp fully since some important contacts use and it's our main communication line. So far, Telegram and Line are the ones who have been recommended to me by people I trust. Telegram would be the 1st option, since most of my current contacts have it and it has end-to-end encryption.

Also, it has the option to erase messages after a predetermined time set by the user. Thus, its a very appealing app for me.

Its a bit sad, and disconcerting, to see Whatsapp to make such a move. But its not surprising, since it has to fit the business model of it's parent company, Facebook. Personally, I would rather keep paying the yearly $1 dollar, than have my data being shared to Facebook. And I've the feeling I'm not alone in this.

Open-source software is not enough, it must be free(libre) as well...

While open-source software has it's advantages for everyone, it doesn't really goes as far as it should to protect users freedoms or to make innovation easier. For that, it also needs to be free software, which is possible using a free software license such as GNU General Public License and the Mozilla Public License.

Its not enough for users to have access to the source code to study it, users need to be free to modify and redistribute it as well. In order to raise awareness among as many users as possible, I believe that its vital to refer to software that has both attributes as free and open-source software.

For many non-technical users, don't really see or understand that just because application is open-source it doesn't mean its free software, most specifically libre software. There is some confusion, since that access to the source code doesn't mean that your four freedoms are respected.

These freedoms are the following:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

This freedoms don't translate to the software produced this way should be free of cost(gratis), it just means that the software you got respects those freedoms regardless of cost.

Only when the four freedoms are fully respected, and enforced, computers will give people truly empower people and create innovation that reaches a wider range of people faster. We want to collaborate, so lets make this collaboration happen in a more open and wider community.

The fact it that most what was been tried to prevent people to get into the source code, or to distribute software and media in ways that the owners intended, have failed. The time has come to let people do this legally, while allowing people to make a living from their work. It can be done, companies like Red Hat, Canonical, Dropbox, and Facebook have proven.

At the end, user freedoms, innovation and making profits is something that can go together.

Security though obscurity is not good enough security...

As this article points out, security through obscurity in software is not really all that safer than software using FLOSS. The evidence so far seems that proprietary software doesn't have that good run so far, and what it make it worse is that in some cases people could have cough on what was going on if it was possible to audit the software independently by third parties.

To be honest, all software is vulnerable to have malicious code injected and to have bugs that could be maliciously exploited. But the difference between between free software and proprietary software, is that on free software that malicious code can be discovered in a faster and easier way.

True, there are examples where there has been vulnerabilities that have been missed for years. But, most of the time vulnerabilities are found and corrected relatively fast. This is particularly important on code used on applications that where human lives are on the line, where is vital to have third parties audit the code to make sure that is as safe as possible.

Let's face it, most companies want to use proprietary software because that way they can get away with things that aren't in our best interest more easily. Is not a case of making their things safer for us, but they being able to make the most money by taking away our freedoms over the product, and do things they wouldn't be able to do other wise.

With free software, that wouldn't be an issue since anyone interested in looking into a certain software would be able to audit it. Not only that, they could actually work on it to fix if any vulnerabilities or malicious code was found.

While is true that not all free software is as scrutinized as it should be, the key is that all free software can be scrutinized to make it sure it works as it should and for any vulnerabilities that could compromise its as safe as possible. If anything wrong is found, it can be fixed by either the vendor or the user.

At the end of the day, security through obscurity is not true security since vulnerabilities can't be fixed as fast as possible. Let's face, this leave a lot of people exposed and in some circumstances this could be deathly.

So, we would be better of if free software became the norm.

DRM is not the solution we all need, or deserve...

Denuvo, a DRM solution, has proven that it can be defeated. Though the crack was patched a couple of days later, that someone managed to defeat kind of makes a point against DRM as a solution for piracy.

Let's face it, most of the piracy problem has it's roots on people wanting to share what they love with others. We want to share with others the music, videos, and other content with others. With the advent of computers and the internet, doing so legally speaking has become almost impossible, since the companies who provide such content want to have absolute control on how we share that content.

The truth is not the scale, not the fact that the content is shared. While a portion of that sharing is illegal, most of it is just people sharing what they love with others that have the same taste as they do. As such, DRM and other tech that prevent such sharing among peers, comes in the way of people discovering new thing they would be willing to pay for than otherwise they wouldn't come by.

DRM is not the solution, is the part of the problem why so many artist and people like them don't get as much support, recognition, as they deserve. Instead of letting as many people know them, DRM acts as an artificial wall that prevents them to be known by as many people as possible. The ones who get the most out of protecting content with DRM are not the creators, but those who control the gateways to access the content.

What the Internet has come to show is that most people are willing to pay for the content they like, in some way. But first, they need to get to know the content offered and DRM prevents many to get to know it.

My personal favorite, is that I don't really want to pay for a premium account on Spotify, but I'm willing to listen to adds if that means that artist will be receive a cut of the income that comes from those adds. Most people I know think the same, and would only pay a premium for services that gives them that extra they are looking for.

DRM as a model to protect content has proven as useless, people has spoken against it and the time to look for an alternative. People will find a way to share the content they love, and there is little it can be done against it.

Boeing might kill the 747, something I didn't imagine possible...

Boeing is considering killing the 747, the aircraft that many consider democratized air travel, while Airbus does the same for it's A380. They don't seem to be able to compete with more efficient twin engined aircraft like the Boeing's 787 or Airbus' A350 XWB.

Both the 787 and the A350 XWB are better fit for airlines, since they have lower operating costs. Most importantly, with turbofan engines becoming more reliable and efficient, and thus allowing longer extended operations(ETOPS) for twin engine airplanes, seems to have doomed the 747 and the A380 to the graveyards.

The decision to ax the 747 or A380 hasn't been made, but that both Boeing and Airbus have made public the decision of doing so is on the table makes it at least likely, since such a choice will have quite a big impact on both companies.

As an aviation enthusiast, seeing the 747 or the A380 go is something I don't want to see. The 747 is such an iconic aircraft, and the A380 is one of my favorite airliners, so seeing any of them go feels for like an end of an era even though there will be examples of both flying for some time after their respective production line is closed.

Airplanes have made the world a smaller place, allowing more people to travel further and getting to know different cultures in person. While information technologies gives us the chance to interact with people without having to be there in person, and puts information about those far away places at our finger tips, they don't really come close to the impact of actually being there in person and getting to know the people who lives on those places.

While we don't loose that ability if Boeing decides to close the production line of the 747, it would be bittersweet to see it happen. But in the end, the 747 delivered on it's promise of making the world a smaller place by allowing more people to know more of it.

People's freedoms, and safety, over corporations profits...

While the FCC verdict against TP-Link is good news, since it allows users to run the third party firmware of their choice, it also highlights something that worries me. Most often than not, they way rules are set make it easier to close the door to people to do modify their computers and gadgets with the software, or firmware, or their choice.

One extreme case of this locking out from working on what we own for our own purposes, is the plight the farmers being unable to fix their own tractors. Regulation makes it illegal for them to access the software than runs on their tractors on their own, which they should be allowed to do since what they want to do is just fix their tractor so they can actually go to work. Farmers should be able to have their own tractors by any party they want to.

What worries me the most, is that most laws and regulations are placing the interests of corporations over the interest of the people. This leaves the people vulnerable to whatever corporations interests are, which is to make the most profit for themselves and their share holders.

From time to time, the interests of the people and corporations are the same. But, when they aren't it seems that the stage is set to privilege corporations over the interests of the people. This is not acceptable, since laws and regulations should over privilege the greater good rather than the interests of corporations.

It seems that corporations influence and power are getting out of hand. Their quest for profit shouldn't override the freedoms and safety of the people, and the government's job is to make sure that doesn't happen.

The people should have more control over what they own, and corporations should have less power on how we use our things.

The right choice, one users shouldn't be forced to make...

This podcast on Curious Minds about Richard Stallman & The History of Free Software and Open Source is really good, since it really clarifies it's history and what free software is all about. Free software, and open source software, is not just about the technical aspects, but also a movement about protecting user's freedoms from corporate interests.

Users shouldn't need to worry about giving away control of what the things they own, and corporations shouldn't have the ability to take control out of users. Once you pay for something, you should have full control over that item.

Even when you subscribe for the use of something, the ultimate control over your personal information should remain yours. The information you disclose to any company should be limited only for internal use, used only for the purposes intended why you shared that information for.

One should never have to have to choose between having the latest tech, or giving up our freedoms. Our freedoms should be respected, and protected, from the onset. The only choice we should be making as users, is what technologies or products you pick up to use.

At the end, free and open software is the one that benefits the interest of the majority. It lends itself better to competition, innovation and to be used by users as they need it to. Proprietary software protects the interest of a few, who depend on controlling users to benefit themselves. So when the interest of those people and the ones of the majority aren't the same, they are going to choose theirs and there is little the users can do about it.

So, its time to start backing FOSS if we want our freedoms stay firmly in our hands.

I love to see Spotify officially supported on Linux...

As an Ubuntu and Spotify user, I find it quite frustrating that there isn't a supported  native client for Linux. While in general the Linux client works quite well, there are some features missing.

The one I miss the most is the ability to minimizing it to the icon tray. In itself, it isn't a big deal. Yet, I'd like to have the option to have Spotify running on the background as I do with the Android client. Yet, I prefer the look and feel of the 1.0.28 version of the client. It feels a lot more modern, and I really thinks it has been a step forward design wise.

While I'd like to see Spotify to have a native client that runs on as many Linux distros as possible, it would be nice to see Canonical and the Linux Mint development team working closer with Spotify to have a native client supported for these two distros. The main reason for this is that they are the two most popular distros, and the ones that biggest share of users that would seriously switch to them if they had a native Spotify client with all the features found on Windows and Mac OS X.

Spotify is becoming more ubiquitous, and there is becoming harder to find someone who doesn't have an account to the service. As such, that Ubuntu and Linux Mint could say they have a supported client would give them some extra points for users to consider them.

For me, while it isn't vital to have it, its important that the OS I use supports Spotify. The app has become an important part of my music listening habits, and a way for me to discover new artists and music. That's why I'd love to see Spotify officially supported on Ubuntu, and Linux Mint.

Most importantly, having more people taking seriously Ubuntu and Linux Mint as options is something that could make more people aware of Linux. With that, more people would become aware of open-source software and the open-source movement. The fact that there is a supported client for Android, which is Linux based, is something that gives me hope that something can be worked out to have a supported client on Linux.

I hope that Canonical would step it and sort something out. I think that if Canonical worked along with Spotify, Ubuntu could have a client with all the features it has on other OSes. That would benefit everyone, and make a lot of Ubuntu users a lot happier with it.

Bad news for Microsoft might be good news for users...

Microsoft's Windows might be the most used operating system on PCs, but on mobile it's presence is basically non-existent. As such, they aren't going to hit their target of installs by 2018.

According to Microsoft, Windows 10 would hit the 1 billion user mark sometime by 2018, and for that they need to sell about 50 million smartphones a year. That seems to be way to optimistic, since Android and iOS dominate the smartphone market in such a way that its hard to see other players coming along to challenge them.

To make things worse for Microsoft, when people go to buy a new smartphone they usually go looking specifically for either an Android or iOS device. There aren't enough people who go looking for a smartphone powered by Windows powered one. Apps are one of the reasons for this, since most developers just focusing their efforts on Android and iOS(with a few just releasing their app on just one of them).

It seems that Windows is doomed to either be a niche mobile OS, or to become a footnote in the history of mobile OSes.

Yet, that people become aware that there they can choose what OS their smartphone runs, and that they are free to choose, might transpire to the PC and laptop market. Specially when more computers running macOS or Chrome OS becoming more mainstream.

While I don't see Windows going away completely on the PC market, or PCs going completely going away, I do see an opportunity for more players actually being active on the the PC market.

At the end, users might be the ones who actually have the most to win out of this.

In urban areas, public transit is the way to go...

On this day and age, is easy to forget what people want from form public transit services is actually good and reliable service. While having things like charging ports and free WiFi are nice perks to have, they are nice extras to have once users have a reliable public transportation service.

People still need to move easily within the city they live, and the public transit is the most efficient way to do so on medium to long distances on urban areas. For most people, I include myself in, public transportation is the best way to move around most of the time. Actually, with a public transportation service that was reliable most people would not need to have a car at all.

Urban areas need a reliable public transit more than they need more cars on the road, in order to improve quality of life within cities. We need mass transit that we can count will arrive on time, its affordable and dependable. Lets face it, most people could be better served by a public transit than a car for the distance they need to cover each day, since they cover it alone most of the time.

Those who need a car are very specific, people like salesmen and other people that move around a lot. Most people just don't need a car, a would be better served by mass transit, that would take them to the places they need to be faster and more comfortably than a car could if the infrastructure was there.

For most people, a reliable public transit system would be more efficient and cost effective way to move around the city. There is a need to change the focus on how people move within the city, in order to improve the quality of life. Car ownership is not the way to go in cities, since there are far to many people to service the quantity of cars needed to move people around.

At the end of the day, public transportation is not just for the poor. Within the system there can be several ways to move people around, the question is how to build a system that works for the people who use it.

Steaming is here to stay, but not to entirely supplant other formats...

As this article at Wired, some miss CD's, vinyl or cassettes out of nostalgia sake. Specially people, who like me, grew up owing music on the medium having them around is somewhat satisfying.

Yet, even younger generations seem to appreciate at least having some MP3 files handy. The thing is, streaming services while being handy way to discovering or accessing music, won't entirely supplant other formats. One of the most important roadblocks, are some right holders simply won't release their music to streaming services.

Also there is the fact that people want to have some of their music available in a way that streaming services like Spotify or Apple music wont allow. There are several legal, technical, and sentimental issues that prevent streaming services ever to supplant owning music in the format of your choice. But, it makes it the perfect way to complement it.

I used to say I wouldn't have a use for streaming services, yet I found Spotify a nice way to discover new music and listen artists whose music I like but not enough to buy a track or record from. I still have a large collection of CD's and music on my hard drive, that's are my go to artists and records the majority of the time. I mainly use Spotify at work, since I don't have access to my music collection, or when I want to listen to something different.

I don't see streaming services going away, just consolidating. The same goes for CD's, vinyl and MP3, since people will always want the feeling these format gives to them while having the convenience that streaming services have to offer. What remains to be seen, is how people will habits will shape up.

Linux desktop around 2% usage mark...

When I read that Linux desktop just passed the 2% market share, I had mixed feelings. On one hand, it means that more people are using a Linux distro on their computers. On the other hand, Linux is not as widely used as Windows or OS X.

Yet, the fact that Linux has increased it's market share is something to at least to be happy about. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage is actually a bit higher since a large number of installations go unnoticed. Specially since the number of times Linux distros is used to have an idea of how wide the user based is.

That number is not all that reliable, since one download could mean several installations on multiple machines. As such, any market share information should always be taken with a grain of salt.

But, I feel happy that Linux gets more widely deployed Because this means that more people will be likely to actually used a Linux distro, and see for themselves that Linux can be at least as user friendly as Windows or OS X. There is no better way to change people minds than with having them directly interact with something.

I don't expect that Linux will make a huge gain on market share, but I hope that this gain will at least sustain itself in time. If that happens, I believe that Linux stands a chance of continuing to increase it's market share.

As an active user of Ubuntu, I know that Linux distros can be used by anyone. Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and Zorin OS are three distros that can be used by beginners and average users with ease. There some other distros like Arch Linux and Fedora targeted to advanced users. While enterprise users would likely use Red Hat Linux or SUSE.

At the end of the day, Linux is about respecting users freedoms.

A victory for open-source software...

If there were any doubts that open-source software is the way to go, the fact that Microsoft just released version 1.0 of .NET Core should go a long dispelling this idea.

.NET Core is a open-source cross platform implementation of Microsoft's .NET Framework development environment that runs on OS X and Linux. While it isn't the same thing as Microsoft open-sourcing Windows, its a sign that open-source software is here to stay and its making inroads with a lot more users that many are willing to admit.

Not that long ago, Microsoft was an enemy of everything open-source. Now, its embracing it in order to stay relevant. Let's face it, open-source software has never been the problem that Microsoft made it to be, but rather a solution for developers and users for a whole host of problems.

Most importantly, it give credence to the idea that open-source software is a valid development tool. This helps both developers and users, since it gives both a better and faster way to address their needs. There is no need to wait for Microsoft address their needs or correct the bugs that affect them, since now they can now independently develop their solutions and have them approved by Microsoft in a matter of hours.

There is still some way to go until open-source software gets to the place it deserves to be. Yet, that Microsoft conceded this victory is an important step to get there. It validates open-source software,  while it opens the way for more people to use it and to be aware of it as a valid tool.