Security though obscurity is not good enough security...

As this article points out, security through obscurity in software is not really all that safer than software using FLOSS. The evidence so far seems that proprietary software doesn't have that good run so far, and what it make it worse is that in some cases people could have cough on what was going on if it was possible to audit the software independently by third parties.

To be honest, all software is vulnerable to have malicious code injected and to have bugs that could be maliciously exploited. But the difference between between free software and proprietary software, is that on free software that malicious code can be discovered in a faster and easier way.

True, there are examples where there has been vulnerabilities that have been missed for years. But, most of the time vulnerabilities are found and corrected relatively fast. This is particularly important on code used on applications that where human lives are on the line, where is vital to have third parties audit the code to make sure that is as safe as possible.

Let's face it, most companies want to use proprietary software because that way they can get away with things that aren't in our best interest more easily. Is not a case of making their things safer for us, but they being able to make the most money by taking away our freedoms over the product, and do things they wouldn't be able to do other wise.

With free software, that wouldn't be an issue since anyone interested in looking into a certain software would be able to audit it. Not only that, they could actually work on it to fix if any vulnerabilities or malicious code was found.

While is true that not all free software is as scrutinized as it should be, the key is that all free software can be scrutinized to make it sure it works as it should and for any vulnerabilities that could compromise its as safe as possible. If anything wrong is found, it can be fixed by either the vendor or the user.

At the end of the day, security through obscurity is not true security since vulnerabilities can't be fixed as fast as possible. Let's face, this leave a lot of people exposed and in some circumstances this could be deathly.

So, we would be better of if free software became the norm.

DRM is not the solution we all need, or deserve...

Denuvo, a DRM solution, has proven that it can be defeated. Though the crack was patched a couple of days later, that someone managed to defeat kind of makes a point against DRM as a solution for piracy.

Let's face it, most of the piracy problem has it's roots on people wanting to share what they love with others. We want to share with others the music, videos, and other content with others. With the advent of computers and the internet, doing so legally speaking has become almost impossible, since the companies who provide such content want to have absolute control on how we share that content.

The truth is not the scale, not the fact that the content is shared. While a portion of that sharing is illegal, most of it is just people sharing what they love with others that have the same taste as they do. As such, DRM and other tech that prevent such sharing among peers, comes in the way of people discovering new thing they would be willing to pay for than otherwise they wouldn't come by.

DRM is not the solution, is the part of the problem why so many artist and people like them don't get as much support, recognition, as they deserve. Instead of letting as many people know them, DRM acts as an artificial wall that prevents them to be known by as many people as possible. The ones who get the most out of protecting content with DRM are not the creators, but those who control the gateways to access the content.

What the Internet has come to show is that most people are willing to pay for the content they like, in some way. But first, they need to get to know the content offered and DRM prevents many to get to know it.

My personal favorite, is that I don't really want to pay for a premium account on Spotify, but I'm willing to listen to adds if that means that artist will be receive a cut of the income that comes from those adds. Most people I know think the same, and would only pay a premium for services that gives them that extra they are looking for.

DRM as a model to protect content has proven as useless, people has spoken against it and the time to look for an alternative. People will find a way to share the content they love, and there is little it can be done against it.

Boeing might kill the 747, something I didn't imagine possible...

Boeing is considering killing the 747, the aircraft that many consider democratized air travel, while Airbus does the same for it's A380. They don't seem to be able to compete with more efficient twin engined aircraft like the Boeing's 787 or Airbus' A350 XWB.

Both the 787 and the A350 XWB are better fit for airlines, since they have lower operating costs. Most importantly, with turbofan engines becoming more reliable and efficient, and thus allowing longer extended operations(ETOPS) for twin engine airplanes, seems to have doomed the 747 and the A380 to the graveyards.

The decision to ax the 747 or A380 hasn't been made, but that both Boeing and Airbus have made public the decision of doing so is on the table makes it at least likely, since such a choice will have quite a big impact on both companies.

As an aviation enthusiast, seeing the 747 or the A380 go is something I don't want to see. The 747 is such an iconic aircraft, and the A380 is one of my favorite airliners, so seeing any of them go feels for like an end of an era even though there will be examples of both flying for some time after their respective production line is closed.

Airplanes have made the world a smaller place, allowing more people to travel further and getting to know different cultures in person. While information technologies gives us the chance to interact with people without having to be there in person, and puts information about those far away places at our finger tips, they don't really come close to the impact of actually being there in person and getting to know the people who lives on those places.

While we don't loose that ability if Boeing decides to close the production line of the 747, it would be bittersweet to see it happen. But in the end, the 747 delivered on it's promise of making the world a smaller place by allowing more people to know more of it.

People's freedoms, and safety, over corporations profits...

While the FCC verdict against TP-Link is good news, since it allows users to run the third party firmware of their choice, it also highlights something that worries me. Most often than not, they way rules are set make it easier to close the door to people to do modify their computers and gadgets with the software, or firmware, or their choice.

One extreme case of this locking out from working on what we own for our own purposes, is the plight the farmers being unable to fix their own tractors. Regulation makes it illegal for them to access the software than runs on their tractors on their own, which they should be allowed to do since what they want to do is just fix their tractor so they can actually go to work. Farmers should be able to have their own tractors by any party they want to.

What worries me the most, is that most laws and regulations are placing the interests of corporations over the interest of the people. This leaves the people vulnerable to whatever corporations interests are, which is to make the most profit for themselves and their share holders.

From time to time, the interests of the people and corporations are the same. But, when they aren't it seems that the stage is set to privilege corporations over the interests of the people. This is not acceptable, since laws and regulations should over privilege the greater good rather than the interests of corporations.

It seems that corporations influence and power are getting out of hand. Their quest for profit shouldn't override the freedoms and safety of the people, and the government's job is to make sure that doesn't happen.

The people should have more control over what they own, and corporations should have less power on how we use our things.

The right choice, one users shouldn't be forced to make...

This podcast on Curious Minds about Richard Stallman & The History of Free Software and Open Source is really good, since it really clarifies it's history and what free software is all about. Free software, and open source software, is not just about the technical aspects, but also a movement about protecting user's freedoms from corporate interests.

Users shouldn't need to worry about giving away control of what the things they own, and corporations shouldn't have the ability to take control out of users. Once you pay for something, you should have full control over that item.

Even when you subscribe for the use of something, the ultimate control over your personal information should remain yours. The information you disclose to any company should be limited only for internal use, used only for the purposes intended why you shared that information for.

One should never have to have to choose between having the latest tech, or giving up our freedoms. Our freedoms should be respected, and protected, from the onset. The only choice we should be making as users, is what technologies or products you pick up to use.

At the end, free and open software is the one that benefits the interest of the majority. It lends itself better to competition, innovation and to be used by users as they need it to. Proprietary software protects the interest of a few, who depend on controlling users to benefit themselves. So when the interest of those people and the ones of the majority aren't the same, they are going to choose theirs and there is little the users can do about it.

So, its time to start backing FOSS if we want our freedoms stay firmly in our hands.

I love to see Spotify officially supported on Linux...

As an Ubuntu and Spotify user, I find it quite frustrating that there isn't a supported  native client for Linux. While in general the Linux client works quite well, there are some features missing.

The one I miss the most is the ability to minimizing it to the icon tray. In itself, it isn't a big deal. Yet, I'd like to have the option to have Spotify running on the background as I do with the Android client. Yet, I prefer the look and feel of the 1.0.28 version of the client. It feels a lot more modern, and I really thinks it has been a step forward design wise.

While I'd like to see Spotify to have a native client that runs on as many Linux distros as possible, it would be nice to see Canonical and the Linux Mint development team working closer with Spotify to have a native client supported for these two distros. The main reason for this is that they are the two most popular distros, and the ones that biggest share of users that would seriously switch to them if they had a native Spotify client with all the features found on Windows and Mac OS X.

Spotify is becoming more ubiquitous, and there is becoming harder to find someone who doesn't have an account to the service. As such, that Ubuntu and Linux Mint could say they have a supported client would give them some extra points for users to consider them.

For me, while it isn't vital to have it, its important that the OS I use supports Spotify. The app has become an important part of my music listening habits, and a way for me to discover new artists and music. That's why I'd love to see Spotify officially supported on Ubuntu, and Linux Mint.

Most importantly, having more people taking seriously Ubuntu and Linux Mint as options is something that could make more people aware of Linux. With that, more people would become aware of open-source software and the open-source movement. The fact that there is a supported client for Android, which is Linux based, is something that gives me hope that something can be worked out to have a supported client on Linux.

I hope that Canonical would step it and sort something out. I think that if Canonical worked along with Spotify, Ubuntu could have a client with all the features it has on other OSes. That would benefit everyone, and make a lot of Ubuntu users a lot happier with it.

Bad news for Microsoft might be good news for users...

Microsoft's Windows might be the most used operating system on PCs, but on mobile it's presence is basically non-existent. As such, they aren't going to hit their target of installs by 2018.

According to Microsoft, Windows 10 would hit the 1 billion user mark sometime by 2018, and for that they need to sell about 50 million smartphones a year. That seems to be way to optimistic, since Android and iOS dominate the smartphone market in such a way that its hard to see other players coming along to challenge them.

To make things worse for Microsoft, when people go to buy a new smartphone they usually go looking specifically for either an Android or iOS device. There aren't enough people who go looking for a smartphone powered by Windows powered one. Apps are one of the reasons for this, since most developers just focusing their efforts on Android and iOS(with a few just releasing their app on just one of them).

It seems that Windows is doomed to either be a niche mobile OS, or to become a footnote in the history of mobile OSes.

Yet, that people become aware that there they can choose what OS their smartphone runs, and that they are free to choose, might transpire to the PC and laptop market. Specially when more computers running macOS or Chrome OS becoming more mainstream.

While I don't see Windows going away completely on the PC market, or PCs going completely going away, I do see an opportunity for more players actually being active on the the PC market.

At the end, users might be the ones who actually have the most to win out of this.

In urban areas, public transit is the way to go...

On this day and age, is easy to forget what people want from form public transit services is actually good and reliable service. While having things like charging ports and free WiFi are nice perks to have, they are nice extras to have once users have a reliable public transportation service.

People still need to move easily within the city they live, and the public transit is the most efficient way to do so on medium to long distances on urban areas. For most people, I include myself in, public transportation is the best way to move around most of the time. Actually, with a public transportation service that was reliable most people would not need to have a car at all.

Urban areas need a reliable public transit more than they need more cars on the road, in order to improve quality of life within cities. We need mass transit that we can count will arrive on time, its affordable and dependable. Lets face it, most people could be better served by a public transit than a car for the distance they need to cover each day, since they cover it alone most of the time.

Those who need a car are very specific, people like salesmen and other people that move around a lot. Most people just don't need a car, a would be better served by mass transit, that would take them to the places they need to be faster and more comfortably than a car could if the infrastructure was there.

For most people, a reliable public transit system would be more efficient and cost effective way to move around the city. There is a need to change the focus on how people move within the city, in order to improve the quality of life. Car ownership is not the way to go in cities, since there are far to many people to service the quantity of cars needed to move people around.

At the end of the day, public transportation is not just for the poor. Within the system there can be several ways to move people around, the question is how to build a system that works for the people who use it.

Steaming is here to stay, but not to entirely supplant other formats...

As this article at Wired, some miss CD's, vinyl or cassettes out of nostalgia sake. Specially people, who like me, grew up owing music on the medium having them around is somewhat satisfying.

Yet, even younger generations seem to appreciate at least having some MP3 files handy. The thing is, streaming services while being handy way to discovering or accessing music, won't entirely supplant other formats. One of the most important roadblocks, are some right holders simply won't release their music to streaming services.

Also there is the fact that people want to have some of their music available in a way that streaming services like Spotify or Apple music wont allow. There are several legal, technical, and sentimental issues that prevent streaming services ever to supplant owning music in the format of your choice. But, it makes it the perfect way to complement it.

I used to say I wouldn't have a use for streaming services, yet I found Spotify a nice way to discover new music and listen artists whose music I like but not enough to buy a track or record from. I still have a large collection of CD's and music on my hard drive, that's are my go to artists and records the majority of the time. I mainly use Spotify at work, since I don't have access to my music collection, or when I want to listen to something different.

I don't see streaming services going away, just consolidating. The same goes for CD's, vinyl and MP3, since people will always want the feeling these format gives to them while having the convenience that streaming services have to offer. What remains to be seen, is how people will habits will shape up.

Linux desktop around 2% usage mark...

When I read that Linux desktop just passed the 2% market share, I had mixed feelings. On one hand, it means that more people are using a Linux distro on their computers. On the other hand, Linux is not as widely used as Windows or OS X.

Yet, the fact that Linux has increased it's market share is something to at least to be happy about. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage is actually a bit higher since a large number of installations go unnoticed. Specially since the number of times Linux distros is used to have an idea of how wide the user based is.

That number is not all that reliable, since one download could mean several installations on multiple machines. As such, any market share information should always be taken with a grain of salt.

But, I feel happy that Linux gets more widely deployed Because this means that more people will be likely to actually used a Linux distro, and see for themselves that Linux can be at least as user friendly as Windows or OS X. There is no better way to change people minds than with having them directly interact with something.

I don't expect that Linux will make a huge gain on market share, but I hope that this gain will at least sustain itself in time. If that happens, I believe that Linux stands a chance of continuing to increase it's market share.

As an active user of Ubuntu, I know that Linux distros can be used by anyone. Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and Zorin OS are three distros that can be used by beginners and average users with ease. There some other distros like Arch Linux and Fedora targeted to advanced users. While enterprise users would likely use Red Hat Linux or SUSE.

At the end of the day, Linux is about respecting users freedoms.

A victory for open-source software...

If there were any doubts that open-source software is the way to go, the fact that Microsoft just released version 1.0 of .NET Core should go a long dispelling this idea.

.NET Core is a open-source cross platform implementation of Microsoft's .NET Framework development environment that runs on OS X and Linux. While it isn't the same thing as Microsoft open-sourcing Windows, its a sign that open-source software is here to stay and its making inroads with a lot more users that many are willing to admit.

Not that long ago, Microsoft was an enemy of everything open-source. Now, its embracing it in order to stay relevant. Let's face it, open-source software has never been the problem that Microsoft made it to be, but rather a solution for developers and users for a whole host of problems.

Most importantly, it give credence to the idea that open-source software is a valid development tool. This helps both developers and users, since it gives both a better and faster way to address their needs. There is no need to wait for Microsoft address their needs or correct the bugs that affect them, since now they can now independently develop their solutions and have them approved by Microsoft in a matter of hours.

There is still some way to go until open-source software gets to the place it deserves to be. Yet, that Microsoft conceded this victory is an important step to get there. It validates open-source software,  while it opens the way for more people to use it and to be aware of it as a valid tool.