FOSS needs to have more mainstream promotion...

One of the biggest misconceptions of free and open-source software(FOSS) is that is free of cost. In reality, FOSS can have a monetary cost and still be fully compliant with the FOSS concept.

In order to be considered free software it has to respect the following four freedoms:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

Freedoms 1 and 3 require source code to be available because studying and modifying software without its source code can range from highly impractical to nearly impossible.

While some prefer keep the open-source part out, and just talk about free software, I prefer to the free and open-source software term since the source code needs to be available for software to be fully free. Specially when I talk about the subject with people who aren't versed on software development, since it helps to explain the concept in a more concise and in a way more readily understandable for people who aren't that much into software.

Personally, I've found the most people aren't aware that FOSS exist. Even when they use Firefox or Android(tough it has some proprietary components on some devices), they're unaware that FOSS is a viable alternative. Other popular, and robust FOSS include LibreOffice, GIMP and Ubuntu.

In a way, FOSS needs more mainstream promotion. Most of the time, most people seem to thing of FOSS of something only geeks and computer engineers can user. While some FOSS is aimed for those user, there are many others aimed for the average users. The most famous examples again would be Firefox and Android.

On the operating systems side, I can recommend to most users Ubuntu or Linux Mint, since I've used both of them and I've found them really easy to use. Both have all what the average user will ever need, and any extras can be easily found on the stores that both operating systems have.

FOSS has proven it's worth on the technical side, now the question is how to make the case for it's use to the average users. They are more than capable to use it, but there are many psychological barriers to be torn down, and some ease of access ones, before there will be more willingness to use it.

In the end, it's time to do some serious marketing aimed to a wider audience.

Patreon account..

One of the things I enjoy most, is to create content for you all. But with my current job, I don't have as much time as I'd like to devote to create that content.

For this reason, I created an account in Patreon. If you like the content that I create for you, and would like to see more of it posted you could have a part on it by sponsoring a monthly amount, or as you see fit.

In order to be able devote myself a 100% to create content, I need about $500 dollars a month. The best thing for you and me, is that many of you can help me achieve that goal.

If we can achieve more of $500 a month, there would be more daily updates and other ways to say thanks for your support.
I thank you in advance for your support, and here's the link:

patreon.com/nothaleon

Whatsapp start sharing data with Facebook...

When Facebook bought Whatsapp I hoped against all hope that Whatsapp wouldn't succumb to collecting data from users, and use it so Facebook would strengthen it's add business. It actually scored some kudos when it added end-to-end encryption, a good thing to protect our privacy.

Alas, Whatsapp has announced that it will start collecting data and it will serve it to Facebook in order for it to be able to better able to serve ads on Facebook. So far, they claim that Whatsapp won't be serving ads on the app itself.

Yet since Whatsapp promised it wouldn't serve data to Facebook to begin with, it becomes harder to believe that they'll keep their promise that they won't serve ads in the future. It now becomes a question of when they'll start doing it, and how would they look.

Personally, I liked to use Whatsapp because it respected user privacy by not collecting data. And when it started using full encryption end-to-end, it strengthen it's position as my favorite messaging app. I didn't mind paying the $1 dollar a year if it meant that Whatsapp respected my privacy.

Now, that trust has been shaken. I don't feel comfortable using apps that share my data, and one that change it's policy after promising it wouldn't so makes matter worse.

The hunt for a new messaging app has begun, though I won't be able to stop using Whatsapp fully since some important contacts use and it's our main communication line. So far, Telegram and Line are the ones who have been recommended to me by people I trust. Telegram would be the 1st option, since most of my current contacts have it and it has end-to-end encryption.

Also, it has the option to erase messages after a predetermined time set by the user. Thus, its a very appealing app for me.

Its a bit sad, and disconcerting, to see Whatsapp to make such a move. But its not surprising, since it has to fit the business model of it's parent company, Facebook. Personally, I would rather keep paying the yearly $1 dollar, than have my data being shared to Facebook. And I've the feeling I'm not alone in this.

Open-source software is not enough, it must be free(libre) as well...

While open-source software has it's advantages for everyone, it doesn't really goes as far as it should to protect users freedoms or to make innovation easier. For that, it also needs to be free software, which is possible using a free software license such as GNU General Public License and the Mozilla Public License.

Its not enough for users to have access to the source code to study it, users need to be free to modify and redistribute it as well. In order to raise awareness among as many users as possible, I believe that its vital to refer to software that has both attributes as free and open-source software.

For many non-technical users, don't really see or understand that just because application is open-source it doesn't mean its free software, most specifically libre software. There is some confusion, since that access to the source code doesn't mean that your four freedoms are respected.

These freedoms are the following:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

This freedoms don't translate to the software produced this way should be free of cost(gratis), it just means that the software you got respects those freedoms regardless of cost.

Only when the four freedoms are fully respected, and enforced, computers will give people truly empower people and create innovation that reaches a wider range of people faster. We want to collaborate, so lets make this collaboration happen in a more open and wider community.

The fact it that most what was been tried to prevent people to get into the source code, or to distribute software and media in ways that the owners intended, have failed. The time has come to let people do this legally, while allowing people to make a living from their work. It can be done, companies like Red Hat, Canonical, Dropbox, and Facebook have proven.

At the end, user freedoms, innovation and making profits is something that can go together.

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.