Photoshop coming to Chromebooks is good news...

That you can now stream Photoshop to Chromebooks it's not just not a big win for Google, but to GNU/Linux at large. It means that now the idea that Photoshop could become available in other distros is not really all that crazy.

That Adobe finally decided to bring the flagship photo editing software to GNU/Linux via Chromebooks is a big thing since it takes away another reason for not coming to GNU/Linux.  Most importantly, if it does well on Chromebooks Adobe might have an incentive to bring Photoshop some of the other major GNU/Linux distros like Ubuntu or OpenSUSE.

If more people start moving to use Photoshop on GNU/Linux, it might the spark that GNU/Linux has been looking to really become a mainstream OS and not just something used a few. There will be a bigger set of people that now will be able to see, and use, a GNU/Linux distro as a viable option to use on daily basis to work with.

I still temper my optimism with a grain of salt. It's a great first step, but there still a long road ahead to be called a success since there still much that could give Adobe cold feet. Yet, a very promising news and the kind that give me hope that GNU/Linux might have a break on the desktop.

Most non FOSS user just don't care...

This article at fossforce.com got me wondering, do FOSSers are the only ones who "get" FOSS? While in some cases non FOSS users seem unable to get what FOSS is all about, most of the time it's more about not caring enough to even try to understand FOSS at all.

Most people just want computers that work according to their expectations for whatever use they have for them. For them, that it works the way they expect it to work is all that matters and anything else is irrelevant. So far, the likes of Microsoft and Apple have done quite a good job giving people products that let people a familiar product that lets them work in a way that they feel comfortable with.

Since they have this products that work as they come to expect, why care about much about what FOSS people arguments about how software must respects users freedoms? Let's face it, the whole argument for most users is not a technical one since most people don't really want to get that side of the software. For the average user is more about the protection of their rights, privacy and ethical aspects of their interaction with software.

Most often than not, FOSS matches blow for blow what proprietary software can do. For any given proprietary software, there is a FOSS one that can do at least the same thing or could be developed if there is a need for it.

With the news of the NSA spying on just about everyone, and all the hacking cases that have resulted on high profile private information to be stolen, gives FOSS a chance to get entry into the attention of the average user by making them care software in ways they think before. Suddenly, in the mind of many there is more in computers and software than the technical aspects most of the FOSS community seem to concentrate in.

For the average user, the emotional link is far more important than the technical one. They need to feel that link without having to have that many technical skills to begin with, since those skills can be built later as a result of that emotional link. Let's find ways to bring to FOSS people that don't have a technical background from the beginning, by making it clear that FOSS is as much about them as it is about software.

Until this happens, the average people just won't have a reason to care, much less have a reason to use, what's FOSS all about.

Personally, I'd love to see Apple becoming part of the FOSS community...

This article in infoworld.com, about the pros and cons that Apple face about open sourcing its new Swift programing language got me thinking that I'd love to see Apple coming to the FOSS community completely.

I know there are many people at the FOSS community at large that, to say the least, hate Apple with a passion. And for the looks of it, Apple feels quite the same way about FOSS. But if Apple came to embrace the FOSS movement completely, the benefits for itself and the FOSS movement at large would be many and to good to ignore.

For Apple, some advantages would be having access to a wider set of developers to work with them to make their software better. It would have more developers looking to make their software better in more ways than any one could think about now. Not only that, it could take advantage of developments that are being put forward at places outside itself a lot easier and faster that if does now.

Developers would have a proven platform that is known to be solid. Like or not, Apple produces some great software that people want to use. My main problem with it, is not the quality of Apple's products, but all the restrictions that are imposed on both developers and users so that Apple can keep control over the software it creates. Those restrictions are way to heavy on users, since they restricts our freedoms to use the software so it fits our needs the best way we see fit.

Yes, since they coded the software to begin with they get a say on the development, to set the parameters and set the goals they want to get to. In a way, every GNU/Linux distro does this but they don't restrict their developers to take the distro and take another road with it.

Lastly, users could benefit by having Apple's way of making it's software as user friendly as it can. There are already some GNU/Linux distros that do a good job on the user experience. My top two are Linux Mint and Ubuntu, while Chrome OS seems to be doing a good job at to give a good user experience too. Yet, there seems to be some rough edges that might keep the average user away.

This is where Apple's design team excels at, and where GNU/Linux could really use their expertise to give users a better experience.

I know that the odds of Apple changing its hearth and embracing FOSS doesn't have that many chances of ever happening. Yet, dreaming doesn't cost a thing...

Chromebooks are becoming quite a good option...

If this SanDisk SD card can be paired with Chromebooks, suddenly having a Chromebook becomes an option worth considering for me.

The main issue for me with having a Chromebook, is the internal storage capacity. Until now, most Chromebooks top at 64 GB is way lower than the amount of storage that I feel comfortable with. For me, the minimum size for the hard drive is 500 GB.

This means, that an SD card with a capacity of 512 GB hits the mark quite nicely. As a plus, storing my data on an SD card means that it can be easier to move it around devices.

With the local data storage issue solved, Chromebooks also have the benefit of price. They are cheaper, and most of them offer a great value for me since they are a perfect fit for my computing needs. I just need something to edit text, do some light work on spreadsheets, listen music and do light Internet browsing. All this can be done with ease with a Chromebooks, meaning that a Windows laptop might be an over kill.

Since Chrome OS, which runs all Chromebooks, is based on the GNU/Linux kernel, it makes the need to install another GNU/Linux becomes less important. In a way, Chrome OS is itself a GNU/Linux distro. So, I would be jumping to another distro from Linux Mint.

If I could dual boot Chrome OS and Linux Mint on a Chromebook, it would become a closed deal for me. Like this, I'd get to try Chrome OS, while using Linux Mint when I feel the need.

Moving to Android has proven to be the right choice...

I've been using Mobo smartphone(link in Spanish) running Android 4.1.2 for a couple of mouths now, and even though it's somewhat on the low end spectrum I've really liked Android as a whole.

If anything, I don't really like that I can move some of the apps to my SD card so I can free the internal memory. Yet the device holds the apps I use the most, so I really don't this hasn't become much of an issue. Most importantly, the over all experience has been rather good.

So much so, that I've become an Android fan. When time comes to get a new smartphone, I'll get one that comes with more internal memory. Basically I've come to realize that for what I use my smartphone, Android is the OS to go and I need one with more internal storage to better fit my mobile lifestyle.

Most importantly on a personal level, is that now my laptop and smartphone are underpinned by GNU/Linux. My go to distro for my laptop has become Linux Mint, though I also recommend Ubuntu, using Cinnamon. And, unless a device using Ubuntu Touch comes along, Android is my go to mobile OS.

If all goes as it has been so far, I'm staying with Linux Mint for my desktop and Android for my smartphone. This combination feels the best for me, and it's working great.

It's true that it hasn't been completely without some issues, but all of them have been minor and easy to fix. So, there is no real reason for me to stop using either OS. As a matter of fact, I recommend everyone to use them.

So far, moving to the Android camp has been really good...

The let's blame our users game...

It seems that Apple is happy to blame its users every time something wrong happens with any of its products, no matter what issue is found.

Even though some of the blame can be placed on Apple's own security implantation, it's rather odd and insensitive to place the blame on users while the investigation is still ongoing. Even worse when it seems that such blaming games are the modus operandi of a company that prides itself of making the word's mos advanced desktop OS.

Ever since the antenna gate, Apple seems rather to blame their users as people that can seem to be able to use their rather user friendly products than to accept mistakes. That really bugs me, I don't mind companies making mistakes from time to time if they admit them and correct them. But, blaming users is something that is not ethical to say the least.

In this case, I want to know what was the part that software had to play and what are they going to do to fix it so that something like the celebrity photo hacks won't happen ever again in the same way. And while some of the responsibility might fall on the users side, the remainder will fall on Apple's side.

It's on Apple's best interest to let the investigation run its course, and then be transparent about fully disclosing the findings and what they are going to do fix the problems on their side of the matter.

If this doesn't happen, what remains of my faith and trust on Apple will completely disappear.

China to move to GNU/Linux, I want to be hopeful I won't abandon caution...

That China it's looking into making GNU/Linux custom OS, is both something I look forward to and something that makes me worry quite a bit.

The good part of China moving to GNU/Linux, is that it has the potential to make other countries to look into GNU/Linux as well. Even if not all who do look into it fully migrate to open source software, which would be the ideal thing to happen, it could mean that at least some of their IT moves to it.

Like it or not, China has a lot of sway. Moving to GNU/Linux might start a domino effect not only with some of the other BRIC nations, but with people that do business with the second largest economy. Besides, since it has a population of over 1.35 billion people will have an enormous impact on the economy of scale to produce hardware that supports GNU/Linux and open source software in general.

The part that makes me worry, is that China isn't known to go by the spirit of open source. Hopefully, China will see the benefit of adhering to the open source spirit and share it's code with the world at large. Doing so can be hugely beneficial for open source, since having China pouring resources to make GNU/Linux better can do much to make it all that better.

China could benefit from it too, as being seeing as valued member of the larger open source community.

While there is still a lot to be seen about it, I'm hopeful that China's move to an GNU/Linux OS will be a good thing for everyone. This could be what GNU/Linux needs to break into the desktop.

Monetizing open source projects...

Reading this blog post entitled Work and open source, made me ponder about how to monetize open source projects. Though he's right that not all projects are abandoned because of financial issues; the important thing is what financial issues cause open source projects to stop being maintained.

While Gittip seem to be a good tool to monetize some open source projects, it might not be the answer for every project out there. For me, Gittip seems to be a better fit for those projects that individuals use for whatever reason. It gives people a way to personally tip the developers for their hard work, while making contributions bigger by funneling a large sum from different sources in a single place.

Another idea I like, and agree with, would be to GitHub to help the ones who use it to monetize their projects directly on the site. By adding a monetizing service to their site, GitHub stands at the chance of becoming an even more valuable tool for developers.

Neither Gittip or GitHub will be the full answer to help open source projects get much needed money to work with, but they could help developers a lot by giving people a way to contribute to their projects in ways that are secure and trusted by all involved.

The only thing I don't agree with, it's ads. True, not everyone likes the idea to have ads as a form of income. Yet, I believe that each project should be able to choose ads as a form of income. Done right, it adds a legitimate source of income while helping rise some awareness of the project. There should be a way for developers have a say on what they are willing to advertise, and for the people to advertising to be able to be able to choose on what projects their advertisement appears.

Monetizing a project doesn't go against the spirit of open source, it's a tool to get the resources to get the open source projects ahead.

Convergence migth not be what we think it is...

It seems that this article at arstechnica.com about KDE misses the point about whats going on the GNU/Linux camp, in a sense that it's not about the kernel itself. It's about the desktop environment.

What's going on, is that there seems to be a race toward convergence. Trying to have an user interface that's pretty much the same on the PCs, tablets and smart-phones. On the GNU/Linux camp, the main example that come to my mind is Canonical's Unity user interface.

The main debate it's about how best convergence can be achieved, or if something that can be done. Some argue, like KDE's Aaron Seigo at this article at themutk.com, that convergence isn't coming at all.

Even though I'd like to see full convergence across all platforms, I agree that it wont happen. In a sense, I think that we'll have some level of convergence. Yet, that convergence wont be on the user interface, but on the standards used to run software so we can actually run our files on all our devices.

The main reason that I don't thing that the user interface will be the major point for convergence, is because the way people interact with each type of device and the use we give to each of them. No matter how much people argue that smart-phones, or tablets, will replace PCs or laptops they wont. We use all our devices in a different way, though there are some aspects like listening music or watching videos where we use them both. But even then, we don't use them the same way.

PCs, tablets and smart-phones are great tools, but each has its place. Most importantly they aren't really competing with each other, but they complement each other to help us do what we do better. We don't have to choose one of them, but we can use the ones that better combine to help us do our best.

In some ways, convergence is already here and we just need to make it work for us.

Sound management,the Achilles heel of FOSS...

As with many things in life, the hardest thing to do with any FOSS(free and open-source software) project is manage it so that it doesn't get sidetracked from it's goal and to get things done. In many cases, FOSS projects that have sound technical foundations fail because their resources where mismanaged or they lost focus because of it.

Sometimes it's because of both, which is a shame.

The reason why Red Hat, LibreOffice, Firefox, and even Canonical, have had the success is due they have been well managed. These companies have brought together the technical expertise and the vision, and their management have made the right choices to keep true to them. So, they have arrived to the success they enjoy now.

Yet, as Mozilla has shown, finding the right people to lead the project forward can be somewhat tricky to say the least. Specially since many FOSS project depend on their communities to take it forward.

In a way, the management of some FOSS projects is not like managing a business, while other require that kind of managerial style. All depends on the the community behind the project, and what are the goals that it has set itself to reach.

FOSS works, and what comes out of it can have top notch quality. What it need is to be better managed from the onset.

Open source victories that can make it mainstream...

With examples of the UK government choosing the ODF standard, or Geneva bringing open source software to their schools, are victories that help open source advocates to make the case for wider adoption of open source software and open standards.

In both cases, shows how the benefits are to many to ignore and are quite enough incentive to make the move. The savings on the money that has to be paid in royalties, and for the right to upgrade are considerable. Not only that, at UK case it means that people can access government information without any cost imposed to them just to look said information because they can access it from any suite they choose.

As this article at cnet.com about LibreOffice points out, now people don't have to pay Microsoft for their office suite to be able to access public documents. Whats best, there are several other office suites that can be used to access public documents saved on the ODF format, while being able to handle old Microsoft's formats with ease.

What important about the UK government's decision, is that it frees their documents from a possible lock in to a single vendor office suite. This allows information to flow, independently of what office suite each user uses to access the documents.

For the Geneva school system, it means having software that is easier to maintain and far more stable. What's most important, Ubuntu is proving easier to use for everyone involved.

For me, the best part is that the children using the computers are going to be exposed to using free software from an early age. This means that they are going to grow up without the false ideas that free software is hard to use, or at least as capable as any proprietary software. Which means, that they wont learn skills that lock them to a certain software from a single company.

There are several other examples, like Munich ditching Windows and Office for good, give the open source community at large the legitimacy it deserves. Not only that, it makes it easier to advocate to more cities and companies to make the move and follow suit.

In more than ways, open source can use them as examples that it works and it's can be the tool that people need to move forward.