FOSS is as good, or better, as proprietary software...

When someone ask how FOSS(Free and open-source software) can be any good, I just have to point them to Firefox or LibreOffice. Both are FOSS apps that are cross platform, meaning that why run on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux, that are FOSS and are really good apps that anyone can use.

There are many other FOSS examples to give. On the OS level there are Ubuntu(which is my favorite) and Linux Mint, and other apps include GIMP to edit images, Kino an video editing app, Pitivi a non-linear video editing app, or Rhythmbox as an audio playback app.

Granted that there isn't a substitute for every proprietary out there, yet with every passing day this is less of a trouble. As of now, I'm quite certain that there is an FOSS alternative for almost every user. Personally, I've been using Ubuntu or Linux Mint for almost 6 years now and I haven't run into any significant problem that can't be easily solve by a Google search.

As I said, if someone isn't ready to jump to a Linux distro to go fully FOSS they can still have access to good FOSS apps like Firefox, Thunderbird, or Clementine that can be used Windows and Mac OS X.

As time goes on, its becoming harder not to come by, and support, FOSS in some way. Even if you can't use an FOSS OS, there are FOSS apps that can be used on proprietary OSes to begin with.

Yet, FOSS is better since it respects users freedoms. There is no good reason, or real one, to forgo these freedoms. All of the reasons given no to use FOSS are FUD(fear uncertainty and doubt) tactics, not based on any real issues.

FOSS is as safe, if not safer, than proprietary software. And just as good, if not better.

Ubuntu 16.04 LTS(Xenial Xerus) holds as my favorite OS...

As an Ubuntu, and fan I must confess, every six mouths is a good time since I get a new OS. This time around, I couldn't contain myself and upgraded to Ubuntu 16.04 LTS a few days earlier than usual.

I've been using it for almost a week, and so far I do feel that the Xenial Xerus(the code name for the 16.04 release) is really a good one. I've encountered no significant bug do far. It actually it seems to be a step forward from Ubuntu 15.10 even though it's a conservative one since Ubuntu 16.04 is a Long Term Support release.

While is a boring release in terms of features added, for me it has been a good one. I do see my laptop a bit being faster, and in some cases being quite more stable. Not that 15.10 gave any more trouble, it just feels like LTS version is just polishing some of the rough edges of the OS.

Ubuntu 16.04 is turning out to be a solid release for those who need an OS that will have a relative long life(for five years), and a nice upgrade for those of us that like Ubuntu.

I'm an user who likes to upgrade every time there is a new version of Ubuntu, since for my needs Ubuntu has software that might not as bleeding edge as in other distros, but is stable enough for everyday use. As such, for my needs Ubuntu has the right balance for me.

While I'd love to have seen Unity 8 on this release, I can see why Canonical decided to stick with Unity 7 for a LTS release. Unity has become quite a solid graphical shell, sticking to a proven version for a LTS release makes sense, at least until the next version proves itself stable enough.

Other than that, Ubuntu is still my go to Linux distro. It's still one of the distros I recommend to beginners and Linux users that want a distro that just works.

Validating open source development...

As this article at techrepulic.com points out, Microsoft has been opening up to open source and Linux because it needs them to stay relevant. It's more of a pragmatic move, rather than Microsoft changing it's hearth about open source software.

The irony is not lost on me, but I'm happy about it all because it validates what the open source movement stands for. No matter what Microsoft says, Linux has shown that open source development of software is the way to go to develop software successfully.

That even Facebook, Google, and Apple do open source in some way, gives even more credit to the open source development model in both hardware and software development. Even if they do it on behalf on their interests, at the long run it helps everyone that they open to everyone their designs. Not only that, they benefit themselves, since any improvement made by anyone would also benefit them by allowing them to use it to improve their machines as well.

In some way, it was a matter of time that the open source development model would be validated. It has been more a question of when and how, never if it would happen.

The irony resides in the fact that Microsoft is doing so, even if it isn't what the company intended to happen. They had to validate open source software in some way to remain relevant, even if they don't explicitly advocate it. In a way, they are giving users motives to use open source software or at least see that software developed as open source is a valid option.

Yes, it might not be the best way to bring forward open source software. Yet, it gives open source software an opportunity to shine on a wider stage and for a bigger audience. It's up to us to take the moment, and make the best out of it.

Encryption is vital for any full and healthy democracy...

I'm not paranoid, or into doing anything unlawful, but I don't like the idea of anyone being able to eavesdrop into my conversations. So the fact that WhatsApp just added end-to-end encryption, is something I really appreciate.

Encryption has to do more with privacy, than with the ability to do crimes. It's more about keeping your private conversations that way, without having to worry about any third party getting into them. Each individual, has the right to keep things private and only share what he, or she, wants with those he chooses.

The computers, and other electronic devices, we own are meant for private use. As such, only the information we choose to share publicly should be considered to be at the public square. And that we choose to share on private channels should remain private.

Encryption is vital to the ability of individuals to be able to keep private information that way. As such, any healthy democracy should allow full use of encryption to their citizens. Even going as far as granting use of it should be a right granted to all of us, since encryption it's vital to privacy.

As such, citizens should be able to make full use of encryption on the services they use. Not to mention that their devices should have encryption on by default, so that we can have a reasonable level of confidence that our private information remains only available to those who we choose to share it with.

Privacy and encryption go hand in hand in our modern world, and encryption should be built into all communication, and personal electronic devices, that people use for private communications. There is a difference between our private and public lives, and that difference needs to be respected.