Software bugs, and the ultimate control over our devices...

In this article about Google Chrome, there are two main things that I take from it.

To begin with, that no software is perfect. As such, all software will have some issues that will affect users in some ways. There is no such thing as a perfect software, there are always issues from security flaws to take care of to quirks that make it do unexpected things from time to time.

Some of this bugs won't be a problem to most people, while they can be a deal breaker for other. Good software, will keep this to a minimum. Yet, there will be some for whom it just won't work. Trying to to frame those users as being the guilty ones is not fair, since it's not their fault that the software doesn't work for them.

On the other hand, the developers of the software can't be expected to make their product one that works perfectly for everyone who uses it.

I'm aware that browsers are a special kind of software that will cover the needs of a broader set of user. But, this doesn't mean that it will cover the needs and tastes of every user out there. As such, the odds that someone will find a deal breaker bug is to be expected.

The second point, is that Google can't take ultimate control from the user over what happens on her or his devices. There is no valid reason for any company to take such a move, though users should be warned of the risks of not updating their apps.

While Google, and other software companies, manage their updates in a way that most users don't notice those updates most of the time, the end user is the one who has to have the final say on what software she or he will run. That includes the version, even if it means not upgrading to the latest if the users doesn't want to do so every time a new version comes along.

At the end, the most important and disturbing issue here is that Google doesn't respect users control over the devices she or he owns. There needs to be an easy and clear path for the end user to make user that the only updates that are wanted, or required, are the ones pushed to the devices that need them. On the other hand, the users should be made aware in a clear way on what are the risk of not getting an update.

For me, the main issue is the fact that Google doesn't respect the user by forcing updates even if they are not wanted for any reason. That is a breach of trust, and one that stand behind.

Law enforcement agencies should use FLOSS...

As Richard Stallman in this article says, that the NSA uses GNU/Linux or any other FLOSS isn't bad at all. In a way it speaks well on how good the software is, since it can be used in such critical missions.

The problem with the NSA lies somewhere else, and not directly with the technology it uses to do its work.

To begin with, the NSA shouldn't be spying on everyone in the name of safety. That's a violation of basic human rights, since we all should have a reasonable level of confidence that we aren't being spied by any government at any given point of time without a good cause.

Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be able to get any data on anyone without having to give a good reason why an individual should be a target of their investigations. It's better for all, that the bar is high in order to get a warrant to get our data.

Also, if law enforcement agencies used FLOSS we the people would have a good reason to be sure that the tools they use do what they say they do. Outside parties would be able to fully audit those tools to make sure they do the job they are devised to do. It would be harder to hide bad behavior on their part, since it would be a lot easier to catch.

In all, we need to push for all the use of FLOSS in every public office, since it would make them more transparent and easier to audit by outside parties. The people has the right to do so.

Open source software and standards role in the government...

If we want a truly open and transparent government, all it's to relay on open standards and open source software.

The reliance on proprietary software, and closed standards, would mean that the government would be at the mercy of a particular vendor or whoever hold the rights to the patents to the the standard. This is unacceptable, since the government shouldn't have to be subject to such limitations.

What's more, every we all have the right to study the software that the government uses to see how it works and to make sure that it does what the government says it does. After all, we all have to interact with it, and need to be certain that it does what it made for in the best way possible.

On the open standards, one of the main reasons to use them is the fact that all should be able to access the government's platforms without any limitation artificially imposed by a third party. By using open standards, government could make sure that all the people have equal and fair access to its platforms.

Most importantly, the government should be laying the frameworks for open standards, and creating an environment in which open source to become the norm. In our digital world, open source software and open standards need to be the foundation to make sure that we all have access to it in a level playing field.

After all, the government has to represent the interest of the people.

Swift being released as open source is a good thing...

That Apple is to open source it's Swift programming language, and that it will have support on Linux, is some good and welcome news.

Swift is becoming popular fast, and it seems there are lot of good reasons for it to gain popularity. And that it's backed by a company like Apple, should give people the reassurance that it won't lack support in the long term.

Even though I admit some suspicions on why Apple moved to open source Swift, I do welcome the idea to have such a tool for open source developers to use to work with. Specially because it could be a good place for beginners to learn to code, making it less intimidating to learn a skill that is becoming ever more relevant in the modern world.

One of the things that Apple does well, is good software. While it's true that it has an iron grip on it, one has to admit that the quality of it is high. Many of the criticisms out there about Apple's software have more to do with the way it manages it, and the way development goes along.

I'm cautious and excited about this development, but I'm hopeful it will a positive thing for Apple and the open source community.

The open source model is about collaboration...

If you need that the open source model not only works on software, but that it can be adapted to other areas go ahead and read this article at Arstechnica.

At the core of the open source model is not sharing for the sake of sharing, but collaboration among people that have a common problem that need to be solved. By allowing collaboration with other people, with whom one normally wouldn't have the chance to do so. Since the network of people working on a common platform on the same problem, the time needed to solve problems and ending with a mature design, is reduced by a wide margin.

By adopting an open source model, the benefits out weight the cons that can be encountered by using it. Most importantly, you can concentrate more on differentiating your product rather than on solving the same design problems others are working on or have been already solved.

With more time to work on the details that you need to work on to give your target market asks of your product, gives you a better chance to be successful by getting to your gaol more efficiently. The open source model gives you a way to tap on the expertise and experience of others, in a way that no other model can.

The best work comes out of collaboration, and people just need the right platform to be able to collaborate in a way allows them to solve the problems that they are facing by working with others that have what they need.

It won't always work as intended, but that is part of doing things. Yet, if the platform is managed in way that actually helps people to work together and collaborate in a way that allows them to get things done, the success ratio should be one that makes it sustainable.

Back to Linux Mint, and liking it...

After having some trouble with Ubuntu not turning off, or suspending, properly on a Gateway NEseries laptop I decided to move on to another Linux distro.

The fist one I decide to give a try, was Kubuntu. I've heard great things of the distro itself, and the KDE Plasma Desktop user interface.

Though I liked the distro, and KDE, I still had the same troubles I did and KDE didn't do much for me as a user. In someways, I didn't feel as comfortable with KDE as I did with Unity and just couldn't get up to speed or get KDE to my linking.

So, I decided to move back to an old known distro. I jumped back to Linux Mint with Cinnamon as the user interface. I'm using 17.1 Rebeca, and I remembered why Linux Mint is, along with Ubuntu, my top pick of Linux distros.

All in all, I found that Cinnamon 2.4.8 to be a lot more mature and stable. As such, I haven't had any of the bugs I used to encounter jumping at me. The best thing, is that the system as a whole so stable that I've come up to speed faster that I thought.

Since I'd been using Unity for about two year before coming back to Cinnamon, that is to be expected. Yet, both user interfaces have become my favorites and I recommend them full heartedly.

The same goes for Ubuntu and Linux Mint, both are rock solid distros. The choice between them would be more of what specific computing needs and personal tastes.

My dislike for Windows just keep getting stronger...

On my personal computer I run Ubuntu, while at work the computer I use a Windows 7 computer. As such, I get to compare the two on the daily basis and know the pros and cons of both systems.

And every day, I wish that the company I work at to dish Windows in favor of a Linux distro. The main reason why the move is highly unlikely is because our operations rely on SAP, which really sucks on the user interface side.

One of the aspects I loathe about Windows, is the systems updates. Most of the time, it adds about extra 5 minutes to the power down since. It's even worse if there are more than 10 updates to install. On Ubuntu, most the updates don't require to turn off the system to reboot to install and with the upcoming 4.0 Linux kernel the main reason from the reboot will be taken away.

I used to like the Windows 7 user interface, but since Ubuntu moved to Unity I just can't stand it. Most importantly, I just find the Windows user interface to be just in the blink of being a shit load of crap and not get me started on the Windows 8 in general.

Most of the GNU/Linux user interfaces are more user friendly, and which one to use comes more to the end user needs. While some users might find that KDE is best from them, others might find in GNOME a better fit. As I said before, Unity is the one for me since it gives me all I want and need to get things done the way I feel most comfortable and productive.

Now that I've the chance to compare Windows with Ubuntu, I'm sure that I want to avoid Windows as much as I can.

Another reason to use open source software...

And yet again, this wired.com article points out the dangers of depending on proprietary software at all. While it may be true that if you use software from some established vendor you have less to worry about having to deal with this problem, the fact that no one can say it will never happen like it happen to the likes of Kodak.

The fact that open source software gives you the possibility to keep the software you depend upon alive, since the users can come together to continue the work on the software from where the original company left. It puts the control of the software on the hands of the users, and its up to the user the degree of involvement on the development of the software it uses.

Its okay to trust companies to develop and maintain the software we depend upon, but that's not a good reason to give them full control of said software. But, the user should always have ultimate control over the software.

There is no way to understate how important that user have that level of control, since in many cases the software they use becomes part of the core of what they do and there could be no substitute readily available to replace if it can't get support for it should the vendor of said software were decide to stop supporting or went out of business. Open software gives users the option to keep using the software they need either by picking up development themselves, using the support by the people who pick up the development or by hiring someone to do so, to name a few options out there.

Open source software has proven itself, with examples like Firefox and Android leading the way on the consumer software side. The idea that open source software is hard to use, and that it can't be as good as proprietary software, is completely bogus and unfounded.

Now more than ever, it's time that users regain control over the software that they use and depend on.

Mobile OS dilemma...

With Ubuntu Touch finally coming to the market, and with it's possible release in Mexico soon, it all puts me in a peculiar situation. By the time I come to replace my smart phone, I might have to choose between continuing using Android or make the jump to Ubuntu.

So far, I've liked Android. There has been some hiccups, there hasn't been one that I haven't been able to fix myself with a little bit of research. None of those problems has taken me more than a couple of hours to fix, so there isn't much to complain about.

The user experience I've had so far, it has been quite good. The only complain, is that the device doesn't have that much memory. As such, that can't be blamed on Android; besides it has enough memory to house the apps that I like and use regularly without any problem. So, if I choose to continue with Android it would be with a device with more memory than the one I currently have.

On the Ubuntu Touch side, I use Ubuntu on my laptop and I love the OS. So, jumping to an Ubuntu Touch powered device makes sense because I'm already familiar, and love, Ubuntu's Unity user interface.

As such, I like the idea that both my laptop and smart phone give me a common user experience. With that, I move more seamlessly among them.

While I like the user interface that comes with Android, I prefer much more the user interface that Unity has. Unity is simply a better fit for my tastes and the way I interact with my devices.

Ubuntu Touch has some room to mature and develop as consumers start putting it through it's paces. The good news for me, since by the time it hits Mexico many of the bugs encountered may have been fixed and the functionality of the OS in general will be enhanced by the users and carries feedback.

As such, if Ubuntu Touch comes to Mexico in time, I'll be having on the tough spot of choosing between to mobile operating systems I love.

There is a need to chance how women are treated...

With the Women's day at hand, there is a lot of things to ponder about how far women have come over the last century and how much there is left to do for women to reach equality with men.

There can't be any question about the fact that women have proven just as men, and can do all men can just as well. We have examples like Marie Curie, Linda B. Buck, Ada Lovelace, Hedy Lamarr, to name a few, who have more than demonstrated that women have as much to offer as men can. They don't need men to patronize them, or to give them any more help that a man needs to contribute to the advancement of science and technology.

Now more than ever, we need to put in place a system that allows women to contribute freely and as true equals to their male counterparts. While there have been improvements, there aren't enough to level the playing field to allow women to work as a peer.

Its offensive that some propose that women need to be given special places, or treated in a different way than men. They need to be given the same chance that men receive, and let the results of their work speak for them. What's needed is to change things so that gender becomes irrelevant when considering how competent is, and let the results of the work have the most weight when it comes to this.

Until we can say that gender has no role on how we judge a person's work quality, we can't say we live in a fair society. What's more, until women can enter the science and technology fields without people being surprised about it we can't say that women have the same chances than men do.

Women belong at science laboratories, and technology development places, just as much as men do. It's up to each women to decide if she wants to follow that road. That's her prerogative to take, and no one can take that from her.

Governments and open source software...

It's quite sad, and unnerving, that governments seem to be so slow to adopting modern technologies to make it's functionalities as streamed lined to make it work more efficiently. With the limited resources governments have, they have to be a lot more conscious on how they use them with the biggest impact.

One of the areas that would help, would be using open source software to build a common platform for the government. Mainly because by using open source software, government wouldn't be tied up to a single provider to maintain the systems they use. They would be able to actually make better use of the resources they got, by actually being free to pick the service provider that gives them the best value for what they expend on their services.

The adoption of open source software by all the government agencies, has the added benefit that all their operations will become more transparent. Not by allowing full access to their data, but on how they work.

Not all the data that the government manages should be made available, since some some of is sensitive enough that being shared would do more harm than good. But, it order to keep them honest, how they operate should be as open and transparent as possible. And the open source software development model is the best way to achieve this end.

Most importantly, by coming to open source software the systems that the government uses wouldn't be at the expense of whatever the vendor that provides the services decides to do with the software it provides. Open source software would give the control over the government agencies, and ultimately to the people that they serve.

At the end, its for our best interest to make sure that governments employ open source at all levels.