The Linux desktop is a viable option for more users.

As a long time Linux user, this article on Forbes by Jason Evangelho about his experience using Ubuntu after ditching Windows is a great example that the Linux desktop is more than good enough for most users.

Personally, I would rather go for Linux Mint, but his overall experience comes to show how much the Linux desktop experience has come usability wise. Nowadays, the main reason to use Windows or Mac is mainly specific apps that don't exist, or have a replacement on Linux. Which, is less common thing to happen nowadays.

Ever since I moved to Linux, I haven't missed Windows. Skype, Firefox, Spotify, and Dropbox have native support on both Linux Mint and Ubuntu. As such, I still can use them as I did on Windows.

The only two apps that didn't have direct replacement where Songbird mainly because it was discontinued, and the Microsoft Office suite. The former was replaced by Rhythmbox, which has become a favorite of mine, and the later with LibreOffice, which while its closing the feature gap with Microsoft Office is not quite there, its still a great option for most people. LibreOffice has bonus points on that its free to use on Windows, macOS and Linux, making it easier to work and share between people without worrying on what platform they work on.

To be honest, I use Windows at work because we use SAP. And though I don't mind using Windows, I feel more at home using Ubuntu or Linux Mint since they fit me workflow a lot better than Windows does.

Slowly but surely, the Linux desktops is becoming an option for the users led by Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Odds are that it won't be as big as Windows, yet it'll be something that will be used by more people than just the geeks or IT professionals.

Spotify has won me over to the music streaming services.

I admit that when music streaming services stared coming available, I was somewhat skeptical about them.

Being used to having my music on physical form(being tapes or cds), or on my devices on a digital format, instilled my with a sense of security, control, and in a way of ownership. So, the idea of moving to a streaming service made me feel like I was losing something, while not having much in return.

After being recommended Spotify by several of my close friends, and some family members, and reading several good things about it, I decided to give it a try. And to be honest, I was pleasantly surprised by how good the experience has been so far.

While I still own quite a significant collection of music, I've come to enjoy using Spotify. I haven't lost any of the security or any sense of control over how I experience music. In several ways, it has been enhanced since I can discover new music while enjoy the music I love.

One of the things I enjoyed from the start, was being able to have access to the Spotify app from my smartphone, and from Windows(which I use at work and has been a great thing to have since I can't put my music on that computer.) and Ubuntu(which I use on my personal computer.) desktops. The main selling point for me, is that the experience is the same since I can use a single account and access all the playlist I've so far.

For several years, I was quite happy using the free service. The sound quality quite good, and dealing with 30 seconds ads every 3-6 songs is quite a good deal.

To be honest, for most users this is the best option.

But I decided to move to Spotify Premium last August when I went to my sister's wedding. I had to make a long flight, and I was going to be there for some days and I didn't want to move my whole music to my smartphone since its 7.1 gigs, and the option of just having to go through it to decide which one to take with me didn't appeal to me either.

Yet, I already had a couple of playlist I on Spotify with more enough tracks for the trip, and there is an option to get better audio and save them to my smartphone like that. Better yet, I could try it for 3 months for a discounted price. So I said to myself, why not?

It'll be a year since I made the jump, and I'm not going back. For me, Spotify Premium is the right fit and value. Spotify has the right music library, and keeps adding more track that makes it great for me.

It has proven that music streaming is a great thing to have, though I still have my old and trusty music library. Better yet, there are several streaming services to pick the one that offers the experience you want. In my family, some use Pandora Radio, while some use Spotify. And I can honestly recommend both depending on your tastes.

Instead of Android vs iOS, it has become Android or iOS.

For me, the whole Android vs. iOS is starting to feel dated and more about fan boys arguing for argument sake. Both mobile operating systems are quite good, both having their own strengths and weaknesses depending on what Google and Apple believe their respective OS should work.

The question for the costumers, is which is better for the needs she or he has. For some, an Android device will be the best option. For some others, an iPhone is the way to go.

Personally, I prefer devices that run Android because it the platform that better fits both my needs and expectations. Though I do like some of the features of the iOS, and the design of the iPhone, they simply don't fit the way I use my smartphone, how I expect it to work, or my lifestyle.

And I've people close to me that it goes the other way around. The iPhone does a far better job for them than an Android device could ever do.

Its time to stop trying to fit people to Android or to iOS, and start fitting the OS to the person in question. Not doing so, will disenchant people and simply make them frustrated that the device they got doesn't do what they want it to do.

I totally get why iPhone fans get excited when a new iPhone or iOS version comes along, since for them brings an upgrade. The same goes for Android users with the manufacturer of their choice, being Samsung, LG or Nokia.

At the end, like with all technology, Android and iOS are about the people who use them to enhance their lives rather than the OSes themselves.

MATE: nice modern desktop.

I've been using MATE as my desktop environment(DE) for a week now, and I must admit it has become my second favorite DE after Cinnamon.

As you can see, I like to keep my desktop itself rather clean. Yet, MATE feels rather snappy and it looks rather good for my tastes. It really makes me feel nostalgic about the all GNOME, but at the same time it makes me feel good about having a nice modern option.

The personalization options out of the box are not all that many, but it you can get many more if you want. Yet, if you want to get your hand dirty you can go to their home page, or wiki, to help them out or just get some nifty options to make your desktop ever more of your liking.

Personally, one of the best selling points for MATE is the fact that there is an official Ubuntu distro shipping with it as its default DE: Ubuntu MATE. Ubuntu is one of my favorite Linux distros, so having the option of installing with MATE as default to begin with is the way to go for me. Though, it has some competition from Linux Mint when I've to decide what distro to install.

I got to say, if you really liked GNOME 2 or just like some kind of retro look for your DE, MATE is the way to go.

Moving to MATE as my desktop environment.

I've never been a big fan of GNOME ever since the version 3 was released. GNOME 2 was one of my favorite desktop environments, but it's place was taken by Cinnamon and Unity.

I used Ubuntu 17.10 with Cinnamon, and I love the experience. But, when I jumped to 18.04, I've been having trouble using it, and I still don't really like using GNOME.

Then I remember MATE, a fork of GNOME 2 which I've read many positive reviews and I used for a while. For the couple of weeks I used it, I enjoyed the experience.

So, I've decided install it and see how it goes. If past experience is any indicator, it should do great and become my go to desktop environment on Ubuntu.

Overly technical descriptions actually scares away potential users.

Though I've learned some technical stuff on the course of using Ubuntu and Linux Mint as my main operating systems, I understand why overly technical talk can be a turn off for many people when considering making their jump to Linux.

Even some of the philosophical part of why someone should consider making the jump can be off putting.

Most people care more if they can use Linux just as easily as they can use Windows or macOS. And the answer is yes, there are distros that are just as easy to use. Some are already using one, since they are using Android on their phones on the daily basis without giving it a second thought.

For some users that might have some technical questions, those concerns tend to be more specific to their end use than on the whole operating system at large. They just need to know if their going to have the apps they need to make the move, and keep being able to work without that many problems.

There is a need to stop using language that obfuscates things for the average user. They don't understand, or even care, about that aspect of the software. They just want to know that it works, and that is mainly answered by using the software.

Yes, that kind of language is still needed by developers to be able to communicate and make great software. But, there is a need to use more friendly language when talking to the average user.

What distro to use is dependent on the user, no the other way around.

Among several reasons why Linux isn't more popular on the desktop, is the culture that surrounds it. For the most average, not to mention beginners, Linux seems like a really difficult OS to use.

It's not hard to see why, when the distros being push by most the experienced, or advanced, users are the ones like Debian or Arch. While both are solid distros, they are not ideal for most users.

Beginners simple don't have the experience, or skills, to deal with the issues that come setting up  those distros. And for users with more experience, and skills, many simply don't want to deal with them, or need a distro that allows them to concentrate on what they need they computer for.

Personally, I just want a distro that I just need to set up once and then just can use it without much of hustle.

For that, there is a need for distros like Ubuntu and Linux Mint. These two distros as user friendly as they come, and allow the user to just focus on what they want to use their computer for. Bashing them for that, is not really seeing that that's why the are so popular with most user, that they offer a easy to use distro that allows them to get done what they want to get done.

Not all users need a powerful, or flexible, distros for their daily computer usage. We need to refocus, and realize that we need to match the user with the right distro so they don't become frustrated with the experience of using Linux. Instead of trying to heard users to a particular distros, we need to give users the distro they actually need. 

While we all belong to particular communities within the Linux, and open source, at the end we all belong to the larger community. It's time to work together for the larger goals, while advancing the goals of our particular communities.

We need to work together, and change how we introduce new users to Linux.

Earth is a small place, and is set to become even smaller.

Nowadays, is easy to forget how much smaller the world has become with modern telecommunications, car, and air travel.

The Internet, and mobile telephony, allows us to be in contact with just about anyone instantly no matter the time or distance between the people. And with the cost of entry, and of the services themselves, becoming lower with time, more people are joining the networks.

In some cases, with the right tools or apps, teleconferences are possible; even when not everyone being at the same physical location. This allows for meetings that couldn't be done before because it wasn't possible to connect more than two points in a single call, or it was simply to expensive to do so.

Even some international calls are becoming so cheap, that they are becoming trivial for a larger amount of people to make on the regular basis. For example, calls to the US and Canada are unlimited for me from Mexico for around $10.00 dollars a month.

Cars, airplanes, buses, and trains, now allow to reach places that used to take days, or even weeks, in a fraction of that time.

In the case of air and bus fares, they have been becoming accessible for a more people constantly over the years. And though they still have along way to go, they are set to become available to a larger portion of the population over time.

These things have become so common place, that now is easy to forget how much more small of place our world truly has become.

Different methods to finds answers to different questions.

For me, one of the biggest misconceptions about science is that its out there trying to prove religion wrong. Even worse is when someone say that its a religion itself.

In reality, science is a method we have to understand the why, and how, the world around us work. Its true that doing so, it has forced us to redefine the role that religion plays in our lives. Some religious tenets have been proven false as our understanding of how the universe works, but that doesn't make the whole religion false.

Yet, that doesn't make science the enemy of religion perse. Science doesn't have the answer to everything, or we want to use it for everything.

In some cases, we can find that religion is where we can find things that we can't find in science. A place where we can find some peace of mind, or deep connections to other people in ways that science doesn't afford us to make.

Science isn't out there trying to prove religion, or spirituality at large, wrong. It's trying to find out how the universe works, and how all this is related to each other. Science helps us to get an insights on what we can expect to happen on the physical universe.

Spirituality, which some people manage with religion, is what we need when we try to find the answers, and connections, that science can't give us. For me, spirituality is more of a personal path to find the meaning of my life. And that can't be extrapolated to other people's experiences.

At the end, it's not science versus religion. They are methods to find quite different answers.

Smartphones, refining how we communicate with others and interact with the world.

I remember when cell phones where startinting to become popular, feature phones were the norm, with smartphones on the other hand being rare; relegated to business executives, government officials, or geeks with Blackberry being king. Now, smartphones are what most people have, with the market being ruled by iPhone and Android devices; with feature phones being few, and far between, so much so that its odd seeing them.

The transition took several years, so much so that the current state of affairs seems to be how things are supposed to be. While many of the predictions made didn't come to pass, or at least not as they were thought to unfold, it seems that smartphones will continue to be a part of our daily lives, even shaping how we live our lives and interact with people, but with business and governments.

My first smartphones was a Nokia E63, which I selected because I was already a big Nokia fan. Before that, my favorite Nokia device was the Nokia 6170. Now I'm using a Mobo MB520(link in Spanish), running Android 6.0, which I'm really digging.

Smartphones have really change how people communicate, and what our expectations on how to interact with the world around us should be. They have allowed us to share in ways that were hard to even imagine a decade ago; not only with people in our area, but with people around the world in real time.

They have enable us not only to consume content, but to create it. At the same time, it gives the chance to have a bigger say on the content we consume, and how we interact with it. They even give us the chance to decide when and how we do.

In many ways, smartphones have become a tool that allows us to share information that makes it easier to organize or change our communities in ways that weren't available to us before. Now information can be accessed in many ways, and can't be controlled all that easy by a central power.

While smartphones have had a big impact on society, their use is still evolving. It still be some time to say exactly how deep their impact will end up being, but it's safe that it won't be what most people imagine will be.

Technology helps to redefine what means to be human.

For many, technology seems the perfect scapegoat to explain their lack of empathy or why society doesn't seem to fit their expectations. They say that technology dehumanize.

I say that technology changes what it means to be human, since it changes how we interact with each other. Not only that, technology changes also changes they way we interact with our surroundings. It has changed how, and when, we engage with other people and our environment.

What we have to keep in mind, is that each individual is the one who choose if he or she will use technology to connect with others, or to isolate himself from such contact. At the end, technology is only a tool and each decides what use is to be given to it.

At the end of the day, technology does our biding. We have to make a choice on how to use it. Technology will change how we do things, and things will not remain the same as time goes by. We might feel nostalgic for what was, but we need to keep adapting to the times.

As things change, we ourselves have to adapt to the new circumstances and make the best out of them. What it means to be human changes with time, and the technologies used at any given time are only one of the parameters used to define what it means to be human. What it means to be human is not set in stone, its definition is fluid with just a few central aspects that remain constant at the core.