Jumping to another distro...

I've been considering giving another Linux distro a try, and one that I haven't used before. The main reason to do so, is that I want to try something new while still using Linux.

Pear Linux is the one I'm the most interested in, mainly because it's based on Debian and Ubuntu. Which means that the main software I like is available, and it would be easy to install with my current know how. Also, jumping to it would mean that I've to learn some new ways to do things without to have to relearn how to do everything.

I'll look if another distro that catches my eye, if that doesn't happen Pear Linux will be the one I'll install. If any one has a recommendation, post it on the comments please.

After 2 years using Ubuntu, it'll be nice to use and experience another distro for a change. Which is one of the great things about Linux, there are new distros to discover if you ever feel the need for a change and new things to discover.

There is no single way to do things, there are several way to get to the same place.

Users should decide how many OS's are enough...

There are some people that don't see the point of having Firefox OS, or Ubuntu for phones, on the marking it to the market. They say that Android and iOS are more than enough, even going to the extent of saying that the Blackberry OS might be doomed to disappear out of irrelevance.

I disagree, I think that there is some room for more OS's. The real question is how many more can make it, and how make sure that all of them are built around a common set of open standards that allow for apps to run on whichever OS the users choose to use them with ease. Let the users be the ones who decide what OS is best for them, and to be free to jump from one to another as the user seems fit for his interests.

Android and iOS aren't likely to lose their dominance on the market, yet that doesn't mean that there isn't room for more OS's which are better suited for some users needs and tastes. Instead of asking if there is a need for a certain new OS, the question that should be asked is who might need or use it.

It isn't over until the market actually gives it's verdict, until then all is pure speculation. In my case, until recently Android was the OS I wanted to power my next smartphone, with Blackberry being a close second. Now, after seeing the first reviews of Firefox OS and Ubuntu for phones reviews Android is no longer the clear winner. Having the ability to choose from three OS's for the one that best suits me, is always a good thing to have.

So, let's stop all the pessimism about the having several OS options for our mobile devices. Let's start make it so users can have different offers at their disposal.

Open standards are the best option for the people's interest...

If we want to keep the Internet, and all computer related technology, free and open for everyone to have equal access to them we need to keep building on free and open standards. If not, we will run into a situation on which whoever has a patent over a standard can have the power to keep people out that at their will.

All standards should be open and freely available for everyone to use, even though some of the software using them isn't and people has to pay to use it. But even that software has to make use of those standards, so it can use files created using competing software. There is no valid reason for users to be locked into using a particular software at all, since the use of any software is something that has to be decided by the user itself.

Software developers should be competing by giving extra value, not by making users content or files incompatible to use on other platforms.

Just because some individuals might make wrong use of open and free standards, it doesn't mean that the majority of users which are doing the right things should be punished along by not allowing them to use their files on the software they prefer. Most of won't do anything illegal if we are given a way to do things legally, and open standards are the best way to give users that chance.

So, let's make the rules of the game clear using open and free standards. There is a need to let the people to be the ones deciding by themselves what they want.

Privacy on the Internet age...

As electronic devices, especially those with Internet connectivity, become ever more ubiquitous there several issues that become ever more important to address. On the user end, privacy is becoming a mayor contention point.

User's data private data belongs to him, yet many companies and governments have their eyes on acquiring it for their own purposes. For companies, and some private individuals, user's data is valuable in order to make a profit. They use it to target ads tailored made for particular users using their own data, or they can sell that data to third parties for their use.

On the government front, they can use the data to monitor people behavior in order to suppress our freedoms, by cutting communications or entry to particular forums. In some cases, they can use our data  to target particular individuals in order hinder their ability to communicate ideas that the government doesn't want shared.

That's why we need to be mindful of what information are we giving, and to who are we are giving it to. It's easy to think that all sites have the same levels of privacy, or that the wont share our data with third parties. That's not true, privacy levels vary from site to site widely. Because of this we need to be aware of what's the privacy policy for each of the sites we interact with, and only give them the information as needed.

Above that, we need to make certain that us are the ones controlling the Internet. If one entity comes to govern the Internet, us as users have the most to lose from it because we would have to play by their rules. The Internet is the collective property of the people, with only sites being owned by an individual or company. It should remain like this, so that truly free and unrestricted flow of communication among people remains open, and so that the people decides what they share and with who.

At the end, by keeping the Internet free we can ensure our privacy.

Free to install what we want...

There needs to be more pressure by the people to manufactures, so that they stops practices directed to restrict what they install on their computers. Once anyone buys a computer, that person should be able to decide what software will run in it.

Even if the user decides to ditch the software originally installed, and replace it, companies shouldn't have the right to prevent this from happening. To keep the original software or to replace it, is a choice that should be made only by the user. No one else should have say on what the user can run, or not, on any computer he or she owns.

Any attempt to lock down any device to prevent the user to change any software should be forbidden, since the users has the right to change any piece of software including the OS to meet their personal needs. Taking away the ability to do so, is taking away our freedom of choose among several options for the one that works best for us.

Instead of telling us that we aren't competent to know what we need, or that we need protection, information should be made available so we can take informed choices. We need to know, and have access to all the information we need to take the best decisions we can. There is no need to give us protection we didn't ask for, much less to lose our freedoms in order to be taken care of by third parties.

We are the ultimate judge on what to install on our devices, with companies and governments only giving us the products and information needed to take good decisions.

Community as an asset...

The value of FLOSS is not reliant on the software itself, part of that value comes from that community that develop and uses the software. Much of the value of a FLOSS project comes from the community that it creates around it, since this community is the main force that moves the project forward and develops it according to what they dim to be the best road.

In many ways, any FLOSS project is a reflection of the community around it. The more committed, dynamic and functional the community is, the better the project will be. The strengths and weaknesses of any given project are those of the community that was built around it.

The way a project moves, in any way, is a reflection of how the community works together to get things done. The better they work as a team, the software they put forward will be better. The bigger the project is, the more vital it's to have a community that knows how to work as team and contribute what they promised on time and shape. There is no other way to make great software, since no single person can coupe with the workload that would mean doing everything by himself.

That's why many times projects with promising ideas fail, because the community around it didn't manage to find an effective way to work toward the common objective. There are some other cases where a community willing, and able, to work as team don't get their act together because their project wasn't based on a solid or workable idea.

A strong, committed, and active community is one of the most valuable asset to any FLOSS project. I would rank it to the same level to the software itself, since both are interdependent. You can't have one without the other, that's why it's of vital importance to take care of the community that drives the project forward. There is a real need to listen to what the community has to say, and more importantly have an open communication line with and among it as a whole.

Not paying attention to the community, is one of the best way to ruin any project since losing it is a fatal shoot. Once you lose the community, is almost impossible to build it back up.

FLOSS quality...

There is a common misconception that if software it's FLOSS, it must be bad, poorly implemented or supported. Which is the case, but that goes for many closed sourced software projects as well.

It all comes down to the people behind the project that develops the software, not the model they work or license the software they code. It's the people that work on the project, and how they manage it, that determine how well done and implemented it is and how well the support for any problem or doubt will be.

There are several examples of great FLOSS projects that show how good can they get are Firefox and LibreOffice. Both are great software to use, are well implemented, and have good support for their users. They aren't perfect, yet they are constantly being worked to make them better.

So before you strike FLOSS out, check what offerings are out there for the need you need to fulfill. You might be surprised to find out that there is something that not only fulfills your needs better, but it's also quite cheaper and easier to used than the closed source counterpart. With the added bonus that FLOSS will give you more freedom and flexibility.

Let's keep in mind quality come from the people working on something, not from the thing itself.

Mobile computing...

There is a lot of people arguing what the future of mobile computing is, mainly arguing that we all will gravitate to tablets or smartphones. All the while, the laptop is being ignored or doomed to be completely replaced.

I disagree, mainly because the choice between the laptop and a tablet is mainly based on what will be the main use for the device. The tablet is mainly a consumption device, while the laptop is where you produce or work with. So, in many ways, for the time being both can coexist rather peacefully and I can see them doing so for quite some time.

The smartphone give us access to a mobile computing, when it's not practical to use a laptop or a tablet. In essence, it's there for those cases when we just need to check for something quickly, or just communicate quickly with others.

At the end, each user will choose the combination of devices that better go with the needs that need to be meet. The correct combination varies, all dependent of what use is intended for the devices and what the person using them needs from the devices. What works for other people, won't necessary will work for you.

There is no golden rule that fits everyone, you got to choose the device that makes you fell comfortable and allows to work at ease. The one that need to feel comfortable using the devices for what you do with them, is you.

BlackBerry 10 and Ubuntu Phone...

I'm becoming interested in BlackBerry 10 mobile OS, along with the BlackBerry Z10, and the Ubuntu Phone OS. So far, they seem like good options on the smartphone arena, even though Ubuntu Phone hasn't yet being paired with a particular handset for users so far.

Thus, if I had to pick between the two today BlackBerry would be the clear winner. Yet, personally I would prefer to get an Ubuntu Phone, since it's based on Linux making it FLOSS. Besides, I already use Ubuntu on my laptop, making it a more convenient for me.

As it stands, an Android device would be my fist choice followed by an Ubuntu Phone. BlackBerry stands third, ahead from the iPhone, mainly because it's closed source nature. The first and second place could change in time, according on how the Ubuntu Phone project moves along. Which I hope it move along well, and it comes along on the time frame it's promised to come along.

If I have to get a new device sooner, I'd get an Android one. The BlackBerry option is just one I plan to act on if there is an Android device is not a realistic option.

It has been a while since I've gotten so interested as much on the mobile OS as I do on the device running it. So, I'm looking forward to at least trying one of those devices.

Linux distros can be really easy to use...

I find it someone ironic when some people I know bash Linux based operating systems to be hard to use, while ragging as mad how easy to use their Android powered smartphones, or tablets, are to use. They seem surprised when I point out that the OS they like so much, is actually Linux based.

Many people still believe that Linux based operating systems for computers are hard to use, and still use a command-line interface. This is true that for some distros, command-line interface is the default user interface. Also, all Linux based distros allow the user to use command-line even though they use a graphical user interface by default.

The truth, is that there are several great and easy to use Linux based distros for every level of user. There are several distros that better suited for beginners, while others are targeted for power users. The distro to used is determined by each user, and what they need from the distro for their daily routines.

Linux based operating systems really let the users control the experience they get from computers, by allowing them to choose from several options the one they feel more comfortable with. It might seem a bit confusing, yet there are distros where technical knowledge needed by the users amounts to just knowing how to install software on their computer. The experience they get once the OS is install, is virtually the same they already know. There is a slight learning curve, but most distros targeted for beginners such curve is not that steep.

I've using Ubuntu for some years now, and used Linux Mint for quite a while too, and if you want to try Linux I whole heartily recommend any of these options even if you are a beginner. They are easy to use, and they come with a graphical user interface for default.

Value of a fork...

Forking a project is a good thing? Yes, being able to create forks of a project is good. Having a fork, or several, of any given project gives people options, making it possible for users to be able to choose from different proposals the one that better works for them.

The real question when it comes to forks, is whether or not any values is added. If no value is added, then there is little motive for users to move to the fork and it adds to the stock of options made available to developers to work with.

Forks are valuable for the project's community at large, since they widen the capabilities of the software by adding features or simply by giving options on the way to implement it. It makes the software more robust, and less dependent on the continued existence of a single core of developers. The software can be taken to other places by other developers, without compromising the quality or the support given to keep it updated.

The value of good forks can't be overstated, since they make software better and the ecosystem healthy. They can drive innovation, since they make developers working hard to make their particular branch of the fork relevant. Users benefit the most out of this, since they get to choose among several options that need to give something of value to them in order to keep them using their offering.

Developers also benefit, since they have a wider network to rely on in order to help them solve any problem the could face. Also, it means that if they have doubts about something the odds are that there is someone that can help them.

Forks should be encouraged, but keep in mind that support should go to the ones that are add value and are well made.