Hope that Mozilla find it's way again...

After reading this, it really got me thinking and somewhat worried. Mozilla's Firefox and Google's Chrome are the strongest, and in my view, best open-source options to Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

Firefox, which is my personal favorite, and Chrome have the best chance of taking the crown away from IE to become the dominant force on which people browse the Internet. Either one by itself hasn't enough user base to really do anything against IE. Besides, FLOSS is about having choice, and losing either one would really give a virtual monopoly to the one who is left standing.

On whichever camp you are, Firefox or Chrome, we need to stand together to bring more people to the FLOSS camp. While in some ways you can prefer the implementation of one over the other, that is small compared with the bigger issue of having browsers that bring an open Internet to the people.

In many ways, both Firefox and Chrome are about standing for a truly open Internet that respects users privacy. As things stand now, users that care about those issues need both Mozilla and Google to stand with us to keep the Internet they way we want it.

Losing one, will be a huge blow for that vision. One from which would be hard to recover from, even if some other group comes along to take the place of the fallen.

As it stand, Mozilla is dire need of a leader that can actually bring together community that makes it so great. I stand by Mozilla not just because Firefox and Thunderbird are two of my software of choice, and I enjoy using them. I stand behind Mozilla because of the what represents, so I want someone that reflects that on the helm.

I'd hate to see Mozilla go down, that's why I worry about the time being lost not having someone at the head moving forward.

The "killer of whatever" moniker is becoming over used...

It really annoys me when any anything gets applied the as the "killer for x" moniker. I mean, it seems like if all new products will be revolutionary, and will come to supplant all that came before them.

Most often than not, most often than not those products fail to do so and end up finding a place along some of those products they were supposed to replace. Just look to tablets, they were suppose to completely replace PCs, and laptops, and ended up finding a niche. People seem to get over excited about some products, and don't seem to think thing through before coming with those grandiose claims about how this or that new product will just replace what came before it.

While there some examples that prove to be correct, those are the exception rather than the rule. Mainly, those examples can be found where moving to that new product is not a choice to the end user. The move is dictated by an imposition, where there is no real option not to make the change or the benefits of making the change are really that good to be ignored.

For me, it seems that "killer" moniker has become little more than a marketing ploy to get attention, or used by fans to praise their new toy.

In order to be sure if a product earns that title we have to wain, it's something that takes time to determine. And let's not forget that nothing has to become a "killer" product to be successful, and there is no reason why it can't live along with established technologies.

All technologies will be replaced with something better with time, yet not all need to be replaced with a the next one by a "killer" technology.

Firefox OS or Android...

Once again, it's time to start thinking about replacing my mobile phone. Now that I've seen, and tried, a couple of devices running Firefox OS it's a contender along with an Android powered device.

The Firefox devices have the plus that they aren't expensive, and the fact that they are on the small side of the smart phone spectrum. I rather have a small device, since I don't feel comfortable using anything with a screen bigger than 4".

On the Android side, Android is has more applications for the OS. Mainly, all the apps that I use are already on it. This means, that I wont have to without them for any period of time.

In more than one way, personally I prefer Firefox OS and the devices it runs in. I really felt comfortable using them, and I can see myself using them for an extended period time. And since I already use Firefox as my web browser of choice, it comes naturally that I use Mozilla's mobile OS as to power my next smart phone. Most importantly, it suits my mobile needs the best since I don't really need a high end smart phone to support my mobile habits.

When I need to use more computing power, I rather use my laptop. The main reason for this, is the fact to do things like video conferencing, writing, or answering e-mail I prefer the screen size and keyboard of the laptop. Even the gaming I do on my mobile is quite light, and when I browse the web on it I mainly just read short notes, upload a photo or make a quick comment on my social networks. The only app where I write significantly is on WhatsApp messages. or when text friends.

There a couple of Android devices that might worth some consideration, but so far it seems that the Firefox OS devices will take the cake.

Design: beauty and functionality need to go together...

More often than not, it seems to me that people think about design as a matter of beauty or of functionality. I say that it's about both, good design should be as much about to achieve beauty as much as functionality.

It's quite possible to create software, from operating systems to applications, that is as functional as it's beautiful. You need to take into account that both are quite elusive, since what both mean is up to the user to define beauty and functionality. With some users you might hit one, but miss the other.

That's why is really hard to design software that it's universally acclaimed to have high marks on both areas. There will be some people that won't like one thing or another. Because of this is important to keep in mind the intended use for the software you're making.

What the software will be used for, will define  how it will look depending on what it's asked from it. Some will argue that the way the software is presented to the user is determined on what functions it has to perform to give the results it has to give. The way any OS, or app, looks is part of the functionality.

This is why I believe that it's shortsighted to try separate the way software looks from it's functionality, since the way it looks will play a mayor part on how users interact with it. This is way it's important to make any software as easy to use, and make it so that people enjoys using it. Implementing an user interface that gives it's user the functionality needed to perform the task at hand while making it so that it's one that they enjoy to use, is a tall order to achieve. Then again, fulfilling it is something that needs to be done to have the best software possible.

Good design should always consider to give users the best interface possible from the start, since users are the ones that are going to have to work the tools to make things happen. While you don't have to please everyone, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to make it so that people can actually enjoy using your app most of the time.

Remember, the users you have to have in mind are the ones who actually are going to use your software. Focus on giving your core users of your software the experience they want, any other user outside your target group is a bonus. Creating software this way can save you a lot of trouble, since you'll actually be able to focus on feedback from the users that actually use your software to get their work done, and not the ones that don't really matter.

Bake the best user interface for their needs into your software from the start, so that any changes that need to be made later on are not that important. Keep in mind that ease of use is a key functionality, even if the user doesn't say it outright. Help your user enjoy using your software, so that they come back to you time and time again.

Good design makes how the software looks a key functionality, even if it doesn't advertise it like one.

The impact of a Little Free Library can be anything but little...

One of I often see, is that some of the barriers that impede people get the love of reading are cost and not having some easy access to books.  That's why this article about Elk Ridge City's first little free library got my eye, since it makes both of those barriers mute.

The Little Free Library is quite interesting, and could do a lot for people who live in people who don't have public libraries nearby, or just want to share books with people around you. I really like the idea, is that you don't have to bring back the book you took. You just have to bring a book in, whichever book you want to share with people.

What's important about the project, is that it's about more just about bringing the love of reading to a community. It gives the people a way to interact with others in their community, and share ideas and books with others. It could be a powerful tool to bring communities together while making them stronger, all while empower its members with knowledge.

The idea of being able to get people to be able to share the books they love with others like this, is one that makes me happy and gives me some hope. Sharing books is something that gives ideas wings, and people the power to change the world with the ideas and knowledge that books gives them.

Sharing a book that you love, is the best way to say others that you care for them. Your are sharing more than printed words, but you are sharing a part of you with others. A book contains more than ideas, stories or characters. It contains inside its pages who the author is, and it can be said it also says a lot about the reader.

Knowledge not only wants to be free, it makes those who have it free. That's why the Little Free Library is so important, since it brings knowledge to those who wouldn't be able to access it for whatever reason.

I leave you with this little video if you need even more reasons to feel excited about the Little Free Library. Let's make our world better one book at a time.

Quick thoughts on Firefox 29...

I've been using Firefox 29 for a couple of weeks now, I really have enjoyed it. The new Australis interface it's one of the features I like the most, mostly because I like the level of customization that gives me.

Even though it looks like Google's Chrome, I feel like anyone can tell them apart quite easily. The similarities are only skin deep, and there are many differences on the implementation of several features that clearly differentiate both browsers. The one that strikes me the most, is how much control you have on what controls you can have, and how many of them you can select the ones you actually use the most for easy access.

Another thing like I like personally, is how the StumbleUpon  tool bar is implemented and the fact that now you can hide easily using an icon integrated to the right of the search box. Most importantly, for me, is that tool bar is the same I love from previous versions of Firefox. When I compare it to how's implemented on Chrome, Firefox's is a far better implementation for what I'm concerned.

All my background themes work like a charm, and all the my other add-ons do as well. So, I get to enjoy Firefox more with the new Australis interface.

The only complaint I've, is that it crashes at times when I try to post a comment on Facebook. It seems to be a problem for those running GNU/Linux distros, but I don't know for sure. While this bug can be annoying, it doesn't diminish my love for Firefox all that much. I just hope that the bug gets squashed quickly.

Though I recommend both Mozilla's Firefox and Google's Chrome, my personal favorite is Firefox by a landslide. Firefox 29 has ensure this, and has cemented it as my go to browser for surfing the web.

Chromebooks are good news for GNU/Linux...

When a computer using an open source OS like Chromebooks can be considered a great Mother's day gift, it underscores how far open source software has come on usability for new nontechnical users.

I don't mean that that there aren't any mothers out there that have advanced technical skills, but when you can consider giving a Chromebook to anyone at any skill level it speaks well on how easy to use some user interfaces are on the open source arena. Chromebooks can be the first step to show mainstream users how easy to user GNU/Linux distros can be, and help to bring more people to our side of the field.

Chromebooks can be that missing link that has eluded GNU/Linux to become ubiquitous, and finally take the crown from Microsoft Windows. As such, it would be of great help to the GNU/Linux community at large, specially if Google plays fair and shares the changes it upstream improve the OS.

Not only that, by making aware of how easy to use and good GNU/Linux based distros can be, it could be great news for other distros by sending some users their way. By giving users an easy way in to an open source OS, supported by a company like Google with all that implies, much of the distrust and uncertainty about adopting a GNU/Linux based OS could be dispelled. With that, other distros like Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu and SUSE can have a bigger chance of being adopted by users that have needs that aren't covered by a Chromebook.

If the Chromebook's OS, Chrome OS, was offered on its own for users to install on hardware they already have could magnify the beneficial impact. While Chromium OS is offered for download, it would be nice to have an easier way to use Chrome OS without having to buy a Chromebook.

Yet, that Google's partners have started to meet a certain success selling Chromebooks gives some hope that GNU/Linux is on its way to become a mayor player on the consumer OS markets.

AMD's low power chips could mean great news...

The idea that AMD is moving away from using Intel's x86 got me thinking about what needs have people at the consumer level. Even though we won't see the new architecture at least until 2016, the idea of having such processor on you average laptop, tablet or desktop isn't that bad.

I mean, the K12 processor will be 64 bit compatible is good news. If it gets low power consumption and a good performance, it might be an option for people that don't need high computing power. I can see myself using a something like an ultrabook powered by this kind of processor, since I don't need that much power to begin with.

Besides, I like to bring my laptop with me and I can't really on finding an outlet to connect to easily all the time. So, if AMD can offer a processor based on ARM that give me the right mix of performance and long battery life I'm sold. It would make my life all that easier, and I can think of many more people who would like the idea as much as I do.

Sure, there will be a market for high performance processors based on Intel's x86 architecture. Yet, is seems that that market will become more of a niche market. Yet, I don't see the architecture going away if Intel play its cards right. Odds are that both architectures will coexist, and on occasion serve particular markets that are better suited by the strengths of each architecture.

In my case, the news are quite welcome. Hope to see AMD's ARM based go into consumer product and take off, since it would be beneficial to consumers that don't need that much processing power while needing low power use for extended battery life.

Let's not forget that high performance processors are not all there is to a computer, and not everyone needs them to have a good performing computer. At the end of the day, processing power it's just part of the equation to consider when buying a new computer. For most uses, there is no need for a high power processor because they won't be using it at its peak performance at all.

So, AMD releasing this new ARM based architecture is a big thing for user that don't need the performance that the x86 offers while having a much better suited for extended periods of time using your battery do to its low power consumption.

I want to see how all pans out, and hope for it to become a trend.

It's not about the devices, is about the people who use them...

What makes technology useful to people, is when it actually does well helping people to complete their work, learn new things, connect with others or really enjoy their spare time without getting in the way.

The moment any piece of technology gets in they way, it fails at the job it was given to do. All technology should be seamlessly integrate into the activity it was design to be used in, and not take more attention from the user that it's necessary to use effectively. At the core of whatever we are doing, should always be the activity itself and not the tools around it.

Also, let's get rid of the idea that we need a single do it all device or hundreds of devices for each of our activities. Each person should be able to have as many devices as he, or she, wants to have. True, some activities can use a single device while others might need a dedicated device. The important thing, is that the devices used should always be designed with the user in mind.

With every device, there always will be a learning curve if the user doesn't know how to use it. Yet, the learning curve shouldn't be a barrier for new users.

In many ways, we should be put people at the center when designing new devices. The we need to adapt devices to the needs of the people who are to use it, and not have the people to get out of their way to adapt each time a new device comes along. Most of the building blocks on what people need to be there are out there, there is no need to reinvent the wheel each time a new device comes along.

While there are found new ways to arrange the work flow, in order that people do things more effectively, people still have the same physical limitations to adapt to the new work flow. The moment we don't let people be the focus of the device, and the work flow, we have doom the whole thing to failure.

The focus should always be how the devices falls into how people will use, and interact, with it. What will the people who will be use the device expects from it, and how it will be used at the field. There will be things to will need to be polished after it's released, since it's almost impossible to get everything right from the start, but that's better than missing all the marks because we didn't put the users first.

I say we put the people first, and have technology serve our needs. Great technology is the one that fulfills our needs, lets us become better persons. In the end, is about make both individuals and society better than we ever were.

All and every operating system can, and will, crash...

Now and then, I've meet people who said that one or another OS is uncrushable. They seem to believe that just because they haven't crashed their system at some point in time, it means that no one will ever be able to do so. This belief seems to be most spread on people using an Apple's OS.

Any OS can crash, but some are more stable and robust than other. By this I mean, than some operating systems are harder to crash because they are more resilient because of the way they where designed. In essence, under what operating load an OS will crash is determined by the design parameters.

If an OS is well designed, and used as intended, crashes shouldn't happen under normal circumstances. The only OS that crashed on me on regular basis has been Windows Vista, which seem to crash for no particular reason. Windows 95, 7 and XP did crash on me on from time to time. Yet, those times where when I did put to much strain on the system resources until the system just gave up.

Since I moved on to GNU/Linux, some 7 years ago, I've come along two systems crashes. One on Ubuntu and another using Linux Mint.  On both cases, putting to much strain on system resources was the cause, not a fault of the OS it self.

On the Apple's operating systems, I've no first hand experience. Yet, I've seen people who use OS X on regular basis crash it from time to time. So, as with Windows and GNU/Linux, OS X can be crashed.

It seems to me, that GNU/Linux and OS X are a lot more resilient to system crashes than Windows. On all my experience with Ubuntu and Linux Mint I mainly have to worry about certain application crashing because I had another one eating too much RAM at the time, but most of the time it has been smooth sailing. And for the people who use OS X, it's pretty much the same thing, a rouge application crashing because of the same reason.

Yet, I wouldn't call any GNU/Linux or OS X crash proof. It's a matter of how you use your OS, and of time, before a full system crash comes along.

Better use of the information technology we have...

As I have been digging more into the system we use at work to manage inventory, the more I come to realize how far behind we are in being able to use to use it to help the people at the floor to be more efficient.

Even though we are set to use it along with other tools to have a better control over the inventory, and to help the people who are filling the orders not to lose time finding the items they need. Not only that, it would help to have a better flow of information among all the areas.

As things are, there is a lot of lag on how the information flows. That lag really hurts us since not all the areas are at the same page at the same time, with all the misunderstandings and confusion that in brings. The most important thing, is that the table is set in other to have the information flowing in a timely manner to the people who need it.

Most importantly, the data bases needed to work with are already there. Now, what is needed is to use them to create information that is valuable and get it where is needed at the right time.

There are already plans to start having more tools on the floor to make this a reality, and I can only see it making the whole process a lot more efficient and easy to follow. At the moment, there are too many blind spots that make improvement a bit tricky. Eliminating those blind spots, means that when an area of improvement is detected it can be done much faster.

Not only that, areas where value can be added can be identified a lot faster. The same goes to those areas that are not really needed, and should be dropped. The energy can be better directed to improve things, and to add value to costumers.

If we really follow that path, I've high hopes.