There are options for unlocked smartphones...

The first smartphone OS I came in contact with was Symbian on a Nokia E63, then I used BlackBerry OS on a BlackBerry Bold. I had good user experiences with both, though with the BlackBerry Bold, my carrier tried to force me to a contract to use cellular data.

So, when I came to my first Android device, I was somewhat uncertain about not having a physical keyboard. Other than that, I've had heard only good things about the OS and it runs all the apps I prefer. So, making the jump to Android made a lot of sense for me, since the other viable options are Apple's iPhone running iOS or a Windows Phone, both options that don't resonate with me for philosophical reasons.

I decided to try a MOBO(site in Spanish) device, mainly because they sell vanilla unlocked Android devices. Currently I'm on my 3rd device, a MOBO MB400. I used a MB500 before, which had lasted 6 months, since the battery got busted because of short circuit and it wasn't user replaceable. Other than that, I was quite happy with it. The first MOBO device I had was a MOBO Hyper, an entry level smartphone that was quite good.

Ever since, I've been an Android fan for my mobile OS. While at the time I got my first Android device I was considering getting one with Firefox OS, getting an unlocked Android device really sold Android to me. Though I still miss a physical keyboard, mainly because of nostalgic reasons, Android has won me over because if goes well with my lifestyle.

MOBO has won me over as my favorite smartphone distributor, since it's devices are unlocked. As such, I can use them with the cellular carrier of my liking, and change to another carrier if I choose so without the hassle of having to change my device as well.

While MOBO devices don't come with the latest and greatest Android, they do offer a reasonable modern Android version with some nice hardware. Unless you have some special needs, MOBO has you covered.

The Android/MOBO combination has me covered. The main thing for me, is the freedom of choice the combination gives me; and that it as close it's practical to my views on free software as you can get now.

Local storage, streaming and cloud computing are complementary...

There is no doubt that cloud computing and streaming media are here to stay. It's quite an useful tool, there is no question about that, since it allows a level of collaboration not seen before. Besides, it allows to share data among several people or devices in a much convenient way.

Yet, I don't see everyone going completely to the cloud. While having some files in the cloud, or using some streaming services is something almost everyone use for practical reasons, sometimes local storage is a better option.

On the streaming media side, there is some music, movies or series we like but not enough to own a physical copy. As such, we are content enough with having a service that will make it available to us on demand. At the end, we'll own just the media we love enough to have a copy from stored at our hard drive or other physical medium like a CD, vinyl  album or DVD.

That's way I see that most people using a mix of local and cloud storage.

Everyone likes, and needs, to disconnect from time to time. That's why local storage will be used, to have access to those files, audio and video that a person might want to have access at any moment online and offline. Even though at some point all of our lives will be digitized, individuals will make make use of local and cloud.

The main reason for this is that even though we like to share things with others, we don't want or should share everything. So, there is a limit of how much and for what we'll use cloud and streaming services. That limit is different for everyone, but it's there.

At the end of the day, cloud computing and streaming have a place in our daily lives. Yet, it won't replace local storage completely, as they'd complement each other.

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.

Nylas N1, nice open source alternative...

I've been using Nylas N1 as my main email client for almost a couple of weeks now, and I've liked it very much.

To be honest, I've been used it mostly as it came out of the box. I found that the base functionality and I liked the themes that came with it, since they are minimalist and elegant at the same time.

I had been using Mozilla Thunderbird for some years now, and though I still like it, Nylas N1 has become my go to email client. Mostly because Nylas N1 fills my needs better, and I simply like Nylas N1 better. There is also the fact that Thunderbird's future is becoming more uncertain as time goes on, as Mozilla is prioritizing Firefox's development.

One of the things I like the most of Nylas N1, is the fact I can see all my inboxes together or one of the time. Personally, I prefer seeing all of them together since it means I don't have to jump to different folders to read my emails. Or if I want to concentrate on just one of my accounts, I can do so.

While Nylas N1 has some way to go, I can see it getting momentum and a community of users to give it some love. It has been getting better with each update, and gaining usability.

For me, the fact that it's open source software and it looks so good makes me a fan. I strongly recommended it, since it's an email that can be used by everyday users,with the option for extended functionalities for those who want to hack it.

FOSS is more than good enough...

As a free and open-source software user(I run Ubuntu on my personal laptop and Android on my smartphone), every time I hear that it isn't user user friendly or that you can't get things done on it I can barely control my eyes from rolling.

Specially when the person that said that uses Firefox, or on a lesser degree Chrome. The over kill is when they use an Android power smartphone, since Android is the how user friendly and good a FOSS powered device can be. And if you add OSes like Ubuntu and Linux Mint to the mix, it gets harder to make the point that the average user can't use, or be comfortable with FOSS.

I agree that FOSS is far from perfect, then again most software isn't made to be perfect at everything. Every FOSS project is intended to be used at a certain field, and that gives it a set of strengths and weaknesses to make it work in the best possible way for the task it was design to do.

When someone ask me if I recommend FOSS, the first question is what do they do. After I know what they want from their computer, I can direct them to what FOSS they can use. Ubuntu and Linux Mint being my go to OSes for the average users, and something like Ubuntu Studio for those who want an OS geared for someone who is a multimedia producer.

There is something for almost every user needs, with SteamOS now covering gamers on the FOSS community. There are some areas that aren't covered, or at least not as they should be, as of yet. But, as more people are becoming aware of the benefits of FOSS it isn't all that far fetched to think that soon every user will have a place in the community.

As such, users that already can prove that FOSS is a viable alternative to come forward and bring more people in to use FOSS. Now more than ever, I'm certain that FOSS can be used even by non-technical people, and we need to bring those users in. Every user is as valuable as the developer, and both should be equally welcome to the community.

Technology made by the people for the people...

One of the biggest mistakes anyone can make, is to think that technology will solve their problems.

Any technology by itself won't solve any problem, since it's just a tool built to help solve an specific problem. Yes, as any tool it can be adapted to solve more than the problem it was originally built for, but that doesn't mean that we can relay on it to save humanity. People using technology will save humanity, or at least give it a fighting chance to see a tomorrow.

It's easy to forget that people are the ones that will lead other to a better tomorrow, and that technology will be forever changing and adapting to the needs of the people. And as time goes on, every new technology is going to be able to be ever more democratized.

We live at the time when people are able to be a part of new technologies, or at least of movements that make use of these new technologies, in a way that its hard to imagine in other time period. As such, its harder for elites keep the people out from these new technologies, much less keeping them from sharing them among themselves in any meaningful way.

As such, the information that is contained by the new technologies is harder to control or censor. And with more individuals being better educated, the people will have a better guide to make the best use of both the new technologies and the information contained in them.

Now more than ever, social revolution is at our hands. Most importantly, the revolution won't necesesary mean bloodshed. Even if said revolution doesn't come easy, it doesn't mean that blood will have to be sacrified for said revolution to come.

It seeems that revolution will come without much fanfare.

All software can be maliciously exploited...

This article points out the obvious, that Mac OS X isn't more secure that Windows. Or than any Linux distro for that matter.

Most of the safety in Mac OS X and Linux, comes from the fact that they are used by much less people than Windows. As such, most black hat hackers used to bypass Mac OS X and Linux in favor of Windows, since the odds of hitting valuable information, or money, was most likely to be found targeting Windows users.

Yet, with more people moving to Apple's ecosystem it has become more worth while target for black hat hackers. Most Linux users still are relative safe, since most Linux distros aren't worth targeting yet due to their relative shallow user base numbers.

Let's face it, all software has vulnerabilities that can be maliciously exploited. What made OS X different from Windows wasn't it's security, but the audience that it was targeted too. While Windows has been mostly a Jack of all trades, or a gamer's rig, OS X has been mostly been used by people that are more on the creative side of things.

All that is needed for black hat hackers to target an OS is incentive, for some is just it's to prestige while for others is financial gain. And as Apple's products gain market share, it's software will make a bigger target.

Safety doesn't really on the software development, it also relies on how savvy the user is and a certain degree of paranoia.

Social awareness and the Internet...

With Bernie's rise, even though he might just not get the Democratic nomination, might spell a change not only in America, but in the world in general.

Since most of Bernie's popularity is among the young people, who are becoming more socially aware and sensitive on social justice, one might ask how much of that awareness comes from being able to share and access information over social media on the Internet rather than on a more restricted media.

I hypnotize that the Internet has enabled socialism to become indirectly, by making people more aware and sensitive to social injustice. The Internet has allowed for people to come closer in a less restrictive, and sometimes with less censure that one could get from more traditional media outlets. As such, a larger amount of people comes to ideas that be dismissed as socialism pipe dreams and see that they are needed, and must be taken, if we want have a fair society and to build a better world.

The Internet, without it being design for it as such, has made the people not only aware of social injustices, but it has given us a tool to bring social justice about by allowing us to organize ourselves in ways that weren't possible before. It has become a platform that helps unite people across the world, in ways that are hard to control from a centralized point and allow different movements to have several ways to organize themselves.

We don't have to think if we can organize, rather we have to think how we can organize. More than ever, change is more a matter of will. If there is the will to fight and bring change about, the way to make things happen will be found by those who want the change to come about.

Most importantly, if you use well all the tools that the Internet has, more than one way to rally people can be used to bring social justice. All of those ways can be used as effectively as they can, to work together for the same goal. Good coordination is key, but the Internet allows this coordination to be possible if the different tools are used correctly.

At the end social justice doesn't mean we all must be the same, or think the same way. Social justice means that we all get a level playing field so live our lives as we see fit, and live our lives as we see fit without harming others. We can work together, while not being the same.

Socialism is about social justice, without taking the individuality of the people who compose said society. As such, how socialism is applied depends on each society to making better for those who live in it. The aim is to balance what's good for the individual and the good for the society. And the Internet is a vital tool to get this balance right.