Let's give even more importance to the average user...

I find the idea of trying to crown a sole Linux distro as the best distro is not only shortsighted, it doesn't help Linux to grow among users. That's because the distro that is best suited for a certain group of user, is not what other users need or want.

It doesn't have to do with the technical merits of the distros, but it has more to do with what users are going to be using the distro they choose for. Not all users have the same needs or expectations from the OS they use. If they face a distro that fails them, they won't think about moving to another one. They'll just move back to Windows or OS X, because they know those OS and they fulfill the their expectations on how computers are suppose to run.

So, instead of trying to get users to adopt a certain Linux distro we need to change tactics. Let's match the distro to the user, that way users will get the experience that will make them most likely to stick with Linux.

Rather than name a single Linux distro as the king of the hill, let's separate distros into categories defined by their target audience. That will make it easier for users to pick the distro that best matches their needs and expectations, by giving them the package that better suits the way they use their computer.

What we need, is a solid base on which to build those distros. We already have the engine to run them, that being Linux. All that's left is to have to add the rest of the software.

There great web browsers like Firefox and Chrome. On the office suite side there's LibreOffice to begin with, and the list goes on.

So, let's shift some of the focus to the user experience without loosing the great things that Linux and the distros already have. We need to give users something that will not only make them want to stay, but to share with others around them. 

It can be done. If we want to see Linux being even more successful than it already is, there is no other way to do it.

Users must be the ones choosing which desktop environments survive...

When it comes to desktop environments, having several options is a good thing. I like the idea of having different desktop environments available, because it give the users a choice about which one to use.

No two people work the same, or have the same way of doing things, so being able to select a desktop environment that better fits the way the user does things is a good thing have. Not only that, it gives the user, and distros, the option to change to another one if the desktop environment developers take a road that they disagree with.

At the end, it's a good thing to have since it means that people are free to choose what fits better.

The desktop environment should shouldn't get in the way of the user's work flow as it can. It should be almost unnoticeable to the user as it can be, as if it isn't there as all.

One size doesn't fit all, and user's shouldn't be forces to accept a desktop environment just because someone else says they have to. User's should have the freedom to select what desktop environment works for them, and their choices shouldn't be limited by any one else.

A desktop environment success should be determined by how many users adopt it because they like it, and want to use it, not because it was forced to them to use.

If users flock to 2-3 desktop environments, that good. Let the users be the ones who determine which ones survive, and how many of them can co-exist in the market.

Technology has become almost invisible...

It's impressive how most technology out there goes almost unnoticed. Thing like computers, mobile phones, HD flat TVs, even cars loaded with computing capabilities that no one though possible a few years ago.

We are so used to have technology in our lives, that we have arrived to the point that we don't really notice it. We expect it to work, and since it mostly does it's notices when it stops doing what it's supposed to do. We like it or not, we have become dependent on technology to get through our daily routines.

Also, we expect it to become even more helpful, and do thing better, with each passing day. We expect, and want, that with every new version of any gadget some new feature to be added. Or at least, it does things better than the last version.

But, the catch is that we don't want out gadgets change much. We want them to be familiar, and not to have to relearn to use it with every new version. And if we need to do things differently, we expect to be able to transition almost seamlessly to the new version. After all, technology is supposed to adapt to us, not the other way around.

I do believe that most tech companies are doing a good job. They are coming with new technologies that are making life easier in a wide range of subjects. Which are good news for all of us, since this will not just make life easier for people. It will help to improve our quality of life.

Don't be a jack of all trades...

Let's face it, no software is perfect or fits every user needs. All depends what the software is needed for, and how it was developed.

It's important to keep in mind that users needs are not the same, in a sense in some case the one size fit's all isn't the best way to do things. That's why software that tries to do everything doesn't really strike the sweet point, and disappoints everyone. When you try to cover everything, you never do anything well enough to give users a good reason to adopt your software.

There are few areas where it's acceptable to cover several things in one, but in most cases it's not a good idea.

In a way that's why I think that Linux has an advantage, since it can be tailored to fit as tightly as to the target users need it to be. If they need a general purpose OS, it can be that.

But if they need something really specific, you can build it to meet those specifications with ease. At the end, it's up to what users need Linux to do and how they need Linux to get things done. After all, Linux is the engine that runs the OS you want to build.

In a sense, what you need to build around Linux is the car that suits your needs.

That you can do it, and then redistribute it, freely is what makes Linux so flexible. It empowers users to do what they need to do, as they need to do it, knowing that they can do it within very acceptable rules. Rules that don't restrict them to do things their way.

Linux truthfully gives users freedom to do.

Let's talk to people about Linux in a different way...

For me, one of the main reasons why Linux distros aren't that successful is the way they are promoted.

Many tend to focus on the technical side, which most people don't really fully understand or really care about. For most those are just numbers, or technical jargon, that means little since they don't really know how to translate on how it will benefit them.

If there is to be a gain of new users, the focus needs to change to what people want from they computers. They want them to be easy to use, and that it just works when they need them to.

To get them to realize that there are many Linux distro that easy to use, and that they come with all the software people needs or wants, direct interaction is crucial. Just telling how easy it is to use this or that distro, or showing a video, is far from enough. Hands on experience, ideally with someone that helps them understand what's going on, is the best way to get people to make the switch.

Of course technical specifications need to be given, but shouldn't be the priority or given at the beginning of the interaction with a person that's new to Linux or is just the average computer user. As I said before, their focus is elsewhere.

Let's talk to them in a way we communicate how Linux can help them do what they want, in a better way. More importantly, let's talk to them with respect. Their focus is different, but just as good as any other.

Control should be on the user's hands...

It seems that a lot of people have a problem with Linux, and FOSS at large, not having a central governing body telling users what they should be using and how they should be using it.

Rather than a central authority making all the mayor choices, there are a series of communities building what works for them. An contrary to popular belief, most of those use common code much more often than not. Only on certain areas, where there is no other way or because it was decided like that, not compatible code is made for that particular part of the program.

Linux is not broken, as much as it's customized to the needs of a particular community or group. But the baseline is compatible to all distros, so most software will work with most of them. Only the software that's coded for a specific distro, or user interface, won't be available for all distros.

The fact that communities, and individuals, can make choices about where they want to take the software they use is not a weakness. It's actually a mayor strength, since it gives the user the control over what goes on her or his computer.

Users should be the ones making choices about what they run on their computers, and forming communities around those needs to be able to service them. If they want to move to another community for whatever reason, it's up to the user to make the choice.

There is no need for a central body to direct what users need. If there should be a central body, is to give the standards to build software that can work nicely with all platforms.

Control over each user system, should always remain with the user.

A lot of bias...

There are still many reactions about the Apple vs Samsung case, and most of them seem to be really biased to Apple's side or just plainly to the closed source side of software development.

Of course there are some that are biased toward Android, claiming that Apple is all evil. Going to either extreme is equally wrong, and following that path is not a good thing for anyone. Yet, it seems that many are not that willing to see the other's side point of view.

Let's face it, Apple's lawsuit against Samsung is not only about patents or protecting any market share. Is also about feeling threatened, and instead of making their products better they want to keep their competitors out by not letting them do anything that might compete directly with them.

Yes, Samsung made their phones similar to Apple's. Yet, if you pay attention to what you are buying there is little chance any one will get confused. Most of the people that buy a Samsung's handset do so knowing is not an iPhone, making the choice because what Samsung offers is better for them.

At the end, the lawsuit wasn't just about defending their work. It was mainly to get competition out of their way.

Ubuntu 10.04 spotted...

Today I had the pleasant surprised when I spotted Ubuntu 10.04 running on a package delivery company computers. These computers are set on the reception area, where one gets the packages to be sent.

It made me feel good, because it proved my point that Linux distros can be used in any setting. Not only that, package delivery companies need software that is specially reliable and easy to use.

The need of reliability steams from their need to be able to keep track of packages continuously, and to be able to put into the system new orders as they arrive. They can't know how many packages the clients will bring, or if all will go to the to the same destination.

It's also important for it to be easy to use, since many of the people who interact with the system doesn't have advanced technical skills. So, it's crucial that the software is easy to use, but robust enough for the task at hand.

And Ubuntu has the right balance of robustness and ease of use. Because of this, for me it was no wonder that they where running Ubuntu in such a critical part of their operations.

Science and technology should work for the common good...

It's ironic that science in general is getting a less money to work with, even though modern society is based on what science has achieved.

In society forgets rather easily that we are dependent on what science has given us, to do most of what we do on daily basis. Most technology is so deeply integrated to what we do, that is easy to forget that is there and take it for granted.

Life as we know it couldn't be possible with science, and the technology that it help develop. There is virtually no part of our life that it hasn't become part of, from health care to how we communicate technology plays a part in it.

The think that makes me more amazed, is how well technology has been integrated into our everyday activities. The only moment we notice it, is when it fails to work properly. If not, we act as if the technology we use has always been there.

For most intends and purposes, we all accept technology as something natural and that is there for our service. Unless is something radical, or that it touches something taboo, there is little resistance to embrace it. As matter of fact, what once was science fiction is routinely becoming science fact. New technologies are coming almost as fast as they can be envisioned.

That's why we need to give it more resources, and more importantly we need to keep science and technology working for the common good. That's why we need to keep public research centers well founded.

If we want science to produce technology that has the good of the society as the most important aim, society must be its biggest sponsor.

Android core is unaffected by verdict...

One of the things that the Apple vs. Samsung made me see, is that many people see the verdict as a defeat to the whole Android ecosystem. The truth is that it isn't, because the case was only against Samsung's implementation of Android.

Android can be modified by each smartphone manufacturer to better fit its needs, and what each carries ask to add to it so it can be offered by them. That's why you Samsung's implementation is different from Sony's or HTC's. Also, you can see different apps on the same model from carrier to carrier.

This is because all want to look different from everyone else, and add whatever each one of them thinks will make a difference for its users.

At the end, Android is the platform that enables manufactures to run a modern and powerful mobile OS. All this while they can modify it in order to differentiate their implementation from other in the market, and also giving user access to apps across a large range of handsets.

It makes the market a lot more diverse. It add value to the OS making it more flexible for both manufactures and users, while also giving a larger choice and freedom.

At the end, Google and the other manufactures remain free to work on Android to make better for all of us. The good thing, is since Android is open source anyone can take it copy of its source code and work on it too.

I hope that with time, there will be a whole community of independent developers working on it to help make Android as good as it can be. For me, that's the true spirit of open source.

Users are not stupid...

I wonder how many people that use mobile phones really confuse the iPhone with any Android handset, if there are given a good look of them.

By the looks of it, most people are more than able to differentiate between them without much trouble after a few seconds. The same goes for the iPad and all the rest of the tablets, most people don't have any problem at all telling them apart.

The people that call any tablet an iPad, do so because for them the brand has become somewhat of a generic term for all tablet computers. On the iPhone side, it doesn't happen that much because people are used of having several handset with the same general design characteristics.

As a matter of fact, most users that use smartphones can tell one handset from the other with ease. Usually the ones that have trouble are the ones who have little or no information about the differences, or simply don't care much about the matter all together.

Let's face it, Android has a larger user base than iOS does. Only when you look the numbers by manufactures iPhone comes ahead of some Android phones. Time after time it has been proven that many users buy Android phones knowing what they where buying, not because they didn't know it wasn't an iPhone.

Google has implemented things on Android in a different way than Apple has on the iPhone. And almost all companies that use Android use their own user interface to make it look different from other Android powered phones, trying to appeal users to use their products.

I find it offensive to users that one of the main arguments that Apple had against Android is the fact that users would be stupid enough for not being able to tell the difference between the two.

Let's face it, most of Apple arguments are based on the fact that users are not smart enough to decide by themselves.