No need to the perfect distro...

Going through the comments of a post on Google + today, I came to realize that the GNU/Linux community doesn't actually needs a perfect distro.

There is a need that available distros work the best they can for the purpose they where made. Each and every distro will have it's inherent strengths and weaknesses, and there is nothing bad or wrong with it. The main thing, is that they do what their users need from them.

The fact that GNU/Linux has the flexibility to be used to make the vast array of distros, from general purpose to specific use, speaks volumes of how good it is for developers and users alike. It gives both the ability to create distros that carter specific needs, tastes and work flows all built on a common base.

In some sense, the perfect distro depends on the specific needs of each user. What's the intended use for the distro will dictate what it needs to work, and how it should do things. It's a mistake to try to have one distro to do all, specially when we can have as many as they are needed. What it's a strength in one distro, can be a weakness on another.

If anything, we need to make the underlying technologies of GNU/Linux stronger so that all distros can work on top of them. In some respects, we need to strengthen the standards on which distros work so that users can trust that their distro of choice will work.

At the core of GNU/Linux should always be the openness that has allowed us to have the variety of distros that conform to the needs of us the users. There will be disagreements, but if they can made to work to our benefit, and make our communities stronger.

A laptop and a smartphone, my perfect combo...

The more I think about it, the more I realize that tablets aren't for me. If I aren't at home, where using a laptop is way more convenient for me, I'm more likely to be at my favorite coffee shop or bar where using my smartphone to check in or send a quick text is way more practical.

At home, I'm either surfing the web, editing my blogs, chatting or on a video call. For me, it's a lot more practical to use my laptop, which has the added bonus that I can take to my favorite coffee shop or my best friend house to either do some work or just geek out. I simply can't see myself using a tablet to do any of this, I just find it to be rather uncomfortable and they still can't do the kind of multitasking I do.

When I go out, I prefer to take a smartphone with me. It allows me to quickly check in on Foursquare, take a quick photo or note, and to listen to my music on the go. Not only that, it also helps me to keep me in touch with texts, Whatsapp or a quick call. Not only that, I can keep share whatever I want to on Facebook, Google + or Twitter with ease and without loosing a hearth beat.

I can keep track of what I have to do using my agenda and the calendar app at my smartphone, and quite easily I must say. And since I always have one of the at hand, it's really hard for me to be reminded of what I've to do.

It's not like I've anything personal against tablets, I just don't think that they are for everyone or that we all need to have one despite all the hype around them. They are just one way people can access mobile computing, and should be seen as the option they are.

More than ever, I come to believe that there will be several ways to have access to mobile computing. How we access it will depend on our lifestyles, and how integrated we want it to be.

For better, or worse, mobile computing is here to stay and will keep evolving in ways we may not phantom today. I want to see it evolve in a way that it enhances the human experience, and it helps us create a better society.

The headaches of proprietary software...

At work, we use SAP to manage our most of our key aspects of our daily operations. It has made evident the weaknesses of using proprietary software, and how frustrating they can be.

Two of weaknesses are the most evident, and the ones that impact us the most. The first one, is the fact that when a fix is needed on the inner working of the software there is no way it can be done within the organization itself. We need to go the people who provide us with the licences so that they fix the problem. This means that it takes longer to solve the problem, and at times there have been some misunderstandings since the one who made the fix wasn't the one who received the information about it on first place.

In our case, we have people who are more than capable to fix any of the problems we have been facing. Yet, they have their hands tied because they can't do it because they don't have the access needed to make it so.

The other problem, is that we are in a position where the vendor has us locked to use their services. While we could move to another service provider, it isn't that practical because we just own the client side of the software. It's not the best position to be in, since the amount of data we produce is copious and we depend on the the software to be able to do business.

This causes a lack of flexibility that is problematic, since problems that could be solve sooner if the they could be worked in house simply can't be worked on the spot. The worst part is that, some of those problems haven't been completely solve and have been dragging simply because we depend on the them to give us the solution.

With an open source software, our IT department could be the one that handles most of those problems. While we could hire support to an outside company, access to the core parts by our IT department could be our first option to solve most of our problems.

In many ways, the more I use proprietary software the more I love open source software.

Phones running Ubuntu Touch finally coming out this year...

As an Ubuntu fan, to hear that two Ubuntu Touch phones are coming out this year is really good news. For me, the only downside is that neither of them is coming out in Mexico.

On the other hand, the wait for a release in Mexico is even closer and even more possible. With the added plus that by the time a device running Ubuntu Touch reaches Mexico, the app ecosystem for it should have matured enough so that there should be a healthy selection to choose from.

I really hope that Ubuntu Touch arrives to Mexico, and running on several devices on at least two of our mobile phone carriers. Not only because I'm a fan of Ubuntu, but because it will bring a wider selection for costumers and giving them another open source option to run on their devices.

When, and if, a phone comes out in Mexico running Ubuntu Touch it will be my number one option.

If only Nokia had done this before...

After what it seems like an eternity, Nokia finally released an Android device. To be honest, it was something that I really wanted to happen for a long time, but the timing seems to be against it. With Microsoft's deal to acquire Nokia, there isn't much chance that it will continue to have an Android device for long.

Nokia was my favorite mobile phone manufacturer until it made the deal to make Window's phone exclusively. As many said at the time, it was an ill fated alliance that saw the downfall of one of my favorite brands.

One can just wonder what if Nokia had produced Android devices along Windows, though it's hard to imagine that it could have had the same result as we have now. I'd say that Nokia could have made some of the best Android smartphones if it had worked on them, since they showed with it's N9 smartphone. It was the last Nokia device that I really coveted, since then there hasn't been one that I really wanted to have.

For me having Nokia producing smartphone with Android was simply one of the best things that could ever happen. Been an FLOSS advocate, having Nokia's weight behind a project like Android would have been fantastic, but alas it seems that now it will never be.

Even if it is hoping against all hope, I just wish that Nokia doesn't kill their Android device.

The need to secure data, and spying...

This Edward Snowden interview puts the spaying carried on not only by the US, but other governments it quite new perspective. It comes to show how no government has clean hands on this matter, and the importance of securing data has to give people at least a minimal amount of privacy.

It's not that surprising to me, that the laws on the books at the moment aren't follow in spirit. There are many loopholes that allow governments to virtually spy on their own citizens while technically braking the law. The worse part is, that such spying doesn't have to be justified to the courts of law that are supposed to see that our rights aren't wrongfully violated by the government that has the obligation to protect them.

Edward Snowden is right to point out that moving our data behind closed gardens isn't the best solution. Even if our data is protected that way, without it being properly secured it doesn't matter where we put out data in. The key is to secure our data in way that it can't be retrieved without the government going to the proper channels to justify the need to get the data of any individual.

In more than one way, we shouldn't be questioning the actions of Edward Snowden, but the actions of the governments that have the mandate to protect our rights even against the government's own actions. All government surveillance shouldn't be massive, but targeted to the individuals the government has reasonable suspicions of engagement in unlawful activity and can give sufficient evidence to support such claims.

The actions of Edward Snowden are not those of a traitor, but of someone that brought our attention to the wrongdoings of the US governments. It's the US government that it's at fault, and has to do all to restore the confidence not only of it's citizens, but the trust of the rest of the word.

Even if you don't agree with what he did, the important thing is why he did it.

There needs to be a way to reach the average user...

One of the questions I ask myself frequently about how to reach the average person about FLOSS, since most people don't really readily know much about it.

For most, FLOSS is an obscure part in the world of computers where you absolutely need to have a college degree to be able to even start using it. As I've said before, they don't seem to able equate software like Firefox or Android with FLOSS. Even then, they seem to be weary to even try any of the GNU/Linux distros available for desktops and laptops.

There is a need to find a way to reach those people, and get them to at least give FLOSS a good chance by using it for a meaningful amount of time so they can actually have a better idea of how good it actually is.

GNU/Linux distros like Linux Mint and Ubuntu could lure a lot of people away from Windows and Mac OS X, since they are at least as easy to use. They come with all what the average user know, and is ever going to need for the every day computing. Not only that, most of the software that people uses is available, or has an equivalent app to replace the one they where using.

Most importantly, there is a need to find a way to speak to the average person on equal terms. What seems to put aback most people, is the fact that the way they are engaged seems to be to technical and they feel lost before they even start. As it is, is more a matter to find a way to make them feel like they are welcomed to join the party as welcomed members, not like if they have to wait around as if they are unwanted.

In a way, they need to stop feeling like if they need technical skills from the start. Instead, they need to feel that they can learn those skills as they need them and want to get more of them as they go further into the FLOSS community they choose. At the same time, those who choose to remain just users need to know that is just as cool.

If FLOSS can get this going, we can get the break we are hoping for.

FOSS has a big issue of perception...

One of the biggest problems I face when explaining FOSS(Free and Open Source Software) to people that haven't heard of it before, is one of perception.

Many seem to perceive FOSS as meaning that it will cost no money. Not only that, it seems that some think that all software that is given away for free is FOSS.

Nothing farther than the truth. If any software is to be considered FOSS, it most respect these user 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 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.

Note that price is not an issue, since anyone can charge for the software they made if it complies to giving users the freedoms mentioned above. Without respect for these freedoms no piece of software can be truly be considered FOSS, regardless of the price.

Other issue, is that many seem to assume that the quality of any software developed under FOSS will be low. Seems that many don't know that software like Firefox are open source, not to mention that most of the Internet traffic passes trough GNU/Linux based servers.

Another area where FOSS software can prove it's worth, is that it powers almost all the most powerful supercomputers used to advance science and technology. 

In more ways that one, it seems that the most important issue holding widespread adoption of FOSS is one of perception. The quality and robustness of FOSS has been long being proven, now there is a big need to change how people thinks of FOSS.

CentOS gains entry to the Red Hat family...

The news that CentOS joins the Red Hat family is actually good news, and in many ways underpins the benefits of being open source.

What CentOS has always given to Red Hat, is the power of collaboration to make it's product better. What this deal means, is that now almost all the work of putting those collaboration efforts now can be made under the same roof with official support.

I hope that this deal makes CentOS better, since Fedora is a good example that the deal could be beneficial not only for the parties directly involved. If all goes smoothly, it should be beneficial for the open source community at large.

Any way, Red Hat could keep CentOS free and still make a profit.

Retina display is a high definition display...

When I heard a coworker saying that Apple's relied solely on GPU's for it's resolution I was kind of expecting for him to be joking, since he does know about computers.

Yet, he really didn't know that the GPU was only part of the game. It seems that he doesn't know that the display also plays a major role for the the high definition that Apple's computers support. Not only that, he was at a lost on the fact that support for such high definition could be implemented on GNU/Linux and Windows.

The key part is that the ability to run high definition is not only based on hardware, you also need the software to support it. If the OS you run doesn't have the implementation to run high definition, you won't get it no matter how many GPU's you have nor the fact that you have a display that supports it.

The fact that Mac OS X looks the way it does has to do with the fact that the display supports the high pixel density needed. It helps to have a GPU to help run the show, but you still need the high definition display to be able to run have that level of resolution.

Thoughts on cracking...

One thing that has been making my mind spinning, is the comments made by some people casually talking about cracking software. It basically turned around the fact that it was cheaper than buying the original, or they did it just to feel that they could out do the security of the software they cracked.

What bothered me somewhat, is the fact that one of them didn't seem to be bothered at all about stealing the hard work of other. On the other hand, that the price of that software is keeping people from using such a powerful tool as the computer can be.

Both sides of the matter are plain wrong, since they mean that people don't really benefit either from the hard work they did on making the software. Meanwhile, the price means that they simply can't afford to learn series of skills that are needed in a world where computers are ever more integrated to our daily activities at work and at play.

Yet, free and open-source software(FOSS) is a viable alternative to prevent having to use cracking software, while giving people the chance to afford a computer with all the modern tools they need to learn the skills they would ever need. It empowers, both developers and users, to have a legal and affordable way to access the software they need use without having the cost barriers  that proprietary software imposes to them.

It's not just about money, it's about being ethical and fair on how we treat others work while having the software tools needed to be able to learn the skills needed to work and play.

There are alternatives out there that can be used without having to use to cracking on 

software. We need to extend their use, and let people know that they exist and that they can be as easy to use as the software they currently use.