October comes, and with it Ubuntu 16.10...

October has come, and with it Ubuntu 16.10. Codenamed Yakkety Yak, it isn't that big an update over Ubuntu 16.04 LTS though it has some interesting updates like Linux kernel 4.8, Unity 7.5 and Nautilus 3.20.

In general, so far Ubuntu 16.10 has been worth the upgrade. I haven't come to any problems or serious bug. Performance on my system has been better on some aspects, while on others it has remained the same. Though I'd like to have seen an upgrade to Unity 8, the improvements that came with the 7.5 are really nice.

As it has been the trend for the last couple of years, each new Ubuntu release come with improvements not revolutionary changes. That's good for most of the people that use the OS, and why I really love Ubuntu.

While I can expect some changes, I can also expect that those changes won't be at the expense of braking my system. That is something really valuable for the average user, that wants her or his computer to work as expected after an upgrade. And the changes that come with each upgrade have to add value in order to be worthwhile.

As it is, Yakkety Yak has hit the sweet spot for me yet again. It keeps Ubuntu as my go to distro, and along with Linux Mint one that I can recommend for other to use.

I sure hope Blackberry survives...

Blackberry has become a shadow fo what it was a few years ago, in large part because of Apple's iPhone and Google's Android devices. I can remember a time when the smartphone to get was a Blackberry one, now most consumers wouldn't even consider one.

Personally, my first smartphone was a Nokia E63, which I selected because at the time I was a big Nokia fan. That device really made me a fan of the QWERTY keyboard on smartphones and of the Symbian OS. When time came to replace the Nokia E63 I briefly considered the Nokia N8, in a way to see how having a smartphone without a QWERTY keyboard would work for me.

At the time, Nokia made Symbian open-source for a time before making it proprietary some time later. To be honest, I really was rooting for Nokia and Symbian to be able to make themselves strong players along Google's Android on the smartphone arena. But that didn't come to pass since Nokia went and made a deal with Microsoft, and later sell its mobile division all together to Microsoft to manufacture Windows Phones. That was a big disappointment, since I'd love to see Nokia move to make Android powered devices if Symbian didn't take off.

Blackberry has suffered the same as Nokia, but it seems that it will just stop manufacturing devices itself. Instead it will license it's brand to others to manufacture devices and on the software side of things. On the software side, it seems that it will license it's Blackberry 10 and it's security software to harden Android devices security. For the time being, it seems that it will not disappear, and at least it will keep their relevance on the mind of people looking for secure smartphones.

To be honest, if Blackberry had started manufacturing Android smartphones earlier I'd move to it when Nokia moved to making Windows Phones. Not only that, it could have actually taken a big share of the market of the premium Android phones from Samsung has with it's Galaxy series of smartphones.

While I agree with this Wired article that states the Blackberry won't disappear, I'm just sure of it on the medium term. On the long run, Blackberry's survival depends on it actually finding costumers for it's offerings. And while it has a good odds, it's not something all that certain.

Each distro is a solution to a different problem...

This article on Linux Journal, called "The Many Paths to a Solution", really gave an idea to explain to people who don't know much about Linux why are the so many distros out there.

Many seem to believe that the main reason that there are so many reason for there being more than 50 actively maintained distros, is that Linux must not be really that good. That's not really the case, since the users of most of those distros could easily make a point for why their distro is great for them.

Each distro represents a path to a solution to a problem that a group of users have to solve. That's why not every distro is a fit for every user, and also why many become disenchanted with Linux. In many of those cases, the user wasn't matched to the right distro to begin with. While in other times, the expectations weren't meet to what the distro offered.

That's why its vital to match new users to the distro that better suits their needs, not to the distro that we like best or we currently use.

There is no distro that will fit every user out there, while distros like Ubuntu and Linux Mint will be a great fit for most users, there are some others that would need something else. For example, big companies needs are better meet by Red Hat Enterprise Linux or CentOS. There is even a distro focused on science laboratories called Scientific Linux.

As such, before recommending a distro its vital to know that the user need and expects from it. Otherwise you can be doomed to fail to give the best solution to that user's needs.

It's time to take a better way to match user to the distro they need. Only that way Linux, and FLOSS in general, can have the level of usage and good will they deserve.

When something doesn't go as it should...

Last Monday the SAP server got busted by a virus, and all hell broke out. It took the better part of three days to set it back up, and by the fourth day it wasn't up to speed.

Until this happened, nobody really gave a second thought to the fact that we all are dependent on central server to get the info we all need to do our jobs. SAP is vital for every department pass the information needed for all departments work smoothly. And while some of us use local storage to actually work some of the info in a more detailed way, our main source of information is centralized at a single server.

At least in my case, and of my coworkers at my department, my work didn't come to a complete halt. Some of the info I work with, isn't dependent on SAP. As such, it means that I still could go ahead with some of my work. The same goes some of the other departments, though having access to the info on SAP sure does makes thing a lot easier.

Yet, this event highlights the dangers of having just one point of access to info, and an app, that's vital for things to work smoothly. There is no way to guarantee a 100% up time, so there should be always a plan B for when things go wrong.

In a way, this is why I'm for a hybrid approach between cloud computing and computing locally. Its the best way to have the pro's of each paradigm, while mitigating the con's that each have.

Cloud computing has a place to take, but its not a solution for every need out there.

The 3.5 mm headphone jack seems to have it's days numbered...

Its official, Apple ditched the 3.5 mm headphone jack in favor of it's Lightning connector on the iPhone 7. Now, Intel says that the 3.5 mm headphone jack should be replaced with a USB-C connector port.

The main problem with the change, is the potential for users to get locked into an ecosystem because of compatibility issues. At this point, if you buy an iPhone 7 you'll need an adapter to use your current headphones. No doubt it the near future headphones using the Lightning connector will hit the market.

The main issue here, is if Android smartphones will go with the Lighting connector or with the USB-C connector. The odds are that they go with the USB-C connector since Android already has support for it and they won't have to have to pay license fees to Apple to use it's Lightning connector.

To be honest, USB-C connector is becoming ever more common. As such it has better odd of being able to replace the 3.5 mm headphone jack, and has better odds of becoming the de facto standard for headphones and other peripherals to interact with our smartphones.

Though the 3.5 mm headphone jack is far from dead, it seems that it can be replaced sooner rather than later. Even thought that personally I don't want see it going away, I'll rather see it replaced by the USB-C connector.

Let's face it, we all knew that the 3.5 mm headphone jack would be replaced someday. We just didn't when and with what, and now we are seeing the first steps toward finding what connector will become the replacement.

It seems to be the begging of the end for OpenOffice...

Ever since OpenOffice.org became Apache OpenOffice.org, after Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems, it has been losing developers. Most of them went to fork, develop LibreOffice out of fear that OpenOffice would become an afterthought for Oracle.

Even though Oracle gave contributed OpenOffice and it's source code to the Apache Software Foundation, after it indeed stop the development of the office suite, developers didn't came back to the project. As a consequence, development of OpenOffice has virtually stopped.

On the other hand, LibreOffice has gained not only many new developers, but also widespread acceptance. Almost every mayor distro ships with it, and even the Italian government joining.

So, learning that there is some serious consideration about shutting down the OpenOffice project all together due to lack of developers comes to the surprise of anyone.

For me, its a bittersweet thing. For one, OpenOffice was the first open source office suite that was really more than good enough for most people to replace MS Office. But, because of the lack of developers and the coming of LibreOffice I simply made the jump to the latter. And the frequent updates, and each one making it progressively better, to LibreOffice I see no point to go back to OpenOffice.

While the is a chance that OpenOffice won't be close, I simply don't see it happening. LibreOffice has taken it's place and I don't developers LibreOffice or Calligra Suite giving any time to OpenOffice. Not to mention that most new developers interested on contributing to a office suite are most likely to pick LibreOffice.

So, the end of an era seems to finally be coming to an end.

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.