Tag Archives: google

Conversations in “social” media (and why OStatus rocks)

So, what’s more social than having a conversation? Two or more participants in an exchange of words or acts that relate to a common subject. It’s called communication and as human beings we have a natural born talent for maintaining several subjects in our mind at once.

The conversation is very important for humans and our social life. We not only want to interact with others – we want to understand the context of a conversation we’re not immediatly being a part of. Be it a political debate, people on the street passing by or when reading posts on an internet forum. Quotations are a great example of how maintaining the intended context is important, as many phrases have multiple interpretations. With the age of books, physically printed literature, keeping the context has been a hard task – but with computers, the internet and hypertext on the world wide web it is no longer difficult.

So one may wonder why websites that are portrayed as “social” are so bad at presenting communication. Lately we have started seeing one-level threads that contain comments and mentions in the “social media”. Not much more than bulletin board systems did during the ’70s and ’80s. The visual representations, event the metadata, of these digitally stored conversations are limited to relatively short bursts of chaotic chatter in the realtime-adapted webservices. Not a very socially sustainable style of communication.

The two major players in the area of asocial media services in Europe and the US are Facebook and Twitter. Both fail to respect human conversation in their own particular way:

  • Facebook has a single-thread style conversation. A user initiates this with a post or link. This notation may be quite long and occasionally sparks an intense debate. However, any replies that are made are only linked to the original post.
    Should a thread get multiple conversation participants that reply on several invisible subthreads it doesn’t take long before it is too chaotic to follow. Even for a trained robot or human being.
  • Twitter conversations are built on reply-to notifications. An original tweet, limited to 140 characters, can often gain attention and be subject to discussions. Any replies to this post will be required to contain a multi-character mention (@username) of the user replying to, while still being subject to a character limit.
    Assuming, contrary to experience, that a 140 char-limit is enough the available characters are quickly reduced with conversation participant, effectively disorienting any third-party that tries to follow up.
    To make matters worse there’s not even a method of linking tweet follow-ups in metadata, which has caused some clients to add any “>>”-like signature to indicate humans to continue reading in the next tweet.

Compare it to mailing lists. Any mailing list or e-mail client can handle threads, replies, carbon-copies and even blind carbon copies since decades ago. That’s like space-age technology compared to the asocial media services’ scrapbooking kit which even lacks a proper glue.

Google+ also uses the single-thread style. There are of course also many other services out there, even some of which have learned from (or even incorporate) mailing lists. Usenet for example should reasonably be an early example of an open social media, lacking only a flashy front-end, a marketing department and better anti-spam measures to be successful.

WordPress is probably the best example of a social web media and sports appealing multi-threaded comments with proper computer-readable markup. However, WordPress currently lacks integrated federation. It’s more of a social oasis, where you park your camel and talk for a while before you head off to the next water hole. Besides, that structure is better used for the topic of a discussion rather than the place of a discussion.

So welcome OStatus, the federated social web protocol. Its main implementation, the software StatusNet (see it in action on identi.ca or freesocial.org), already does threading and proper in-context metadata. It has the backbone for cross-domain notifications and replying without clogging the post with the @-mentions. As opposed to WordPress, the social bit is integrated both up- and downstream so feeds you subscribe to get pushed into your timeline and from there you can post comments upstream and interact with replies.

The OStatus protocol is open and free for anyone to use, works across domain-names and gives you control over what you share, how your data flows and especially where it is stored. You’d never give up control of your “real” social life to someone else – so why give up the digital representation of it? OStatus is an easy solution to maintaining this control.

So if one wants a true social media service, I think it is important to choose one that is not only open and free as in speech but also compatible with how humans really interact with each others. A system that not only respects the user by keeping the user in control, but also something that understands our social interactions – where conversations are a very important part.

The social web is nothing but communication anyway, so why not make sense out of it and keep its context open, transparent and clear?

An e-mail to Google about enabling Webfinger

RCPT: info@google.com
FROM: mmn@hethane.se

Hello,
I’m mailing this social web feature request to the info@ address as it should reach some authoritative person at Google. At least according to some SMTP RFC I once read.

I’m a big fan of the federated social web and would very much like to see the Webfinger discovery protocol implemented on the gmail.com domain, mainly in order to find your users’ OpenID providers in a standardized way. (i.e. /.well-known/host-meta -> xrd lookup -> user data including OpenID server).

It would definitely help boost OpenID usage as a lot of people have a Gmail address – which is much easier to remember and type than the Google account OpenID provider url. It would also enable a federated web friendly version of the various “Connect” login options that the major asocial web service companies offer.

Update:

<info@google.com>: host aspmx.l.google.com[173.194.71.26] said: 550-5.7.1 The
user or domain that you are sending to (or from) has a policy that
550-5.7.1 prohibited the mail that you sent. Please contact your domain
550-5.7.1 administrator for further details. For more information, please
visit 550 5.7.1 http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?answer=172179
ig6si37627458lab.30 (in reply to end of DATA command)

SNS: Vad innebär federering?

StatusNet Sverige är en del av ett globalt omspännande nätverk som kallas internet. Det finns ingen enskild leverantör, ingen samlad användardatabas och heller inga användaravtal. Till skillnad från centraliserade tjänster som Facebook och Twitter, slutna nätverk med användaravtal, så har internet – och även det decentraliserade StatusNet – en öppen policy ämnad för fri användning. Så vad är för- och nackdelarna med en centraliserad jämte decentraliserad modell?

Först och främst vill jag förklara begreppet “federering”, något så gott som alla internetanvändare har stött på. Med största sannolikhet har du som nätanvändare åtminstone en federerad identitet. Alltså en lagrad profil med vilken du kan verifiera dig själv med en personlig eller hemlig detalj (typ lösenord). Det bästa exemplet är e-post, något nästan alla har stött på – och kanske rentav har fler än en instans av. Med e-post kan du välja vilken leverantör du litar på (ditt företag, Gmail, Yahoo!, etc. eller vara din egen leverantör (med eget domännamn, typ mmn-o.se). Därefter finns inga begränsningar, mer än spam-filtrering, att skicka meddelanden till andra identiteter hos andra leverantörer. E-post är decentraliserad och federerad.

De “sociala” tjänster som erbjuds av ex. Facebook, Twitter och Google+ är slutna och begränsade nätverk med centraliserad kontroll. För att använda dessa sidor måste du ha ett konto hos den enskilda leverantören! Vill du diskutera en bild med dina vänner på Facebook – ja då måste dina vänner också registrera sig hos dem med allt vad det innebär! Jämför detta med e-post, där konkurrenterna Gmail och Hotmail tillåter användare att konversera även utan lokalt konto!

I en liknelse med köttvärlden kan de slutna tjänsterna jämföras med privata utrymmen vars regler dikterar vilka som får vara där och hur platsen ska användas. Tänk herrklubbar, sektmöten etc. där kvinnor och oliktänkande utesluts – förutom att i “sociala media” handlar det om 12-åringar och personer med skyddad identitet. Bland annat därför är det konstigt att offentliga organisationer använder dessa tjänster alltmer i sin verksamhet, om man egentligen ska tjäna hela samhället.

Fria och öppna sociala nätverk som StatusNet fungerar istället på slutanvändarens villkor. Precis som med e-post kan du välja leverantör utan att uteslutas från gemenskapen (communityn). Istället för att tvingas på ett ansiktslöst, privatägt amerikanskt företag som vill tjäna pengar på din privata information (Facebok, Twitter, Google etc.) så väljer användare leverantör baserat på förtroende. I ett öppet, federerat, socialt nätverk kan man som användare välja vem man ska lita på.

Federerade nätverk: Antingen gör man allt själv och har absolut kontroll över sin egen information – eller så överlåter man detta till någon man respekterar och har förtroende för.

Är du sugen på att pröva ett öppet socialt nätverk som drivs av mjukvaran StatusNet kan du registrera dig hos t.ex. den tjänst jag själv driver tillsammans med Piratpartiet – Free & Social – eller någon av huvudutvecklarens egna instanser: Status.net och Identi.ca. Vill du “skända sociala medier” kan du använda quitter.se! Oavsett vilken du väljer kan du prata fritt över gränserna! Leve Internet!

Din mobil kan avlyssnas även när du inte ringer

Jag ser det som en konsekvens av centraliseringen kring GSM-nätet, proprietär mjukvara, licensiering av hårdvara och dylikt. Hade mjukvaran varit fri och öppen samt hårdvaran konkurrensutsatt utan kostnaderna patent innebär skulle vi inte behöva oroa oss. Dock är det ett faktum att oron över avlyssnade telefoner sträcker sig bortom aktiva samtal.

Lämna telefonen utanför rummet menar vitryska regimkritiker att de behöver göra i Dagens Nyheter. Det är en del av den massiva och genuint bra rapportering Hans Rosén m.fl. gjort kring svensk export av övervakningsteknologi – eller #infovapen som jag vill kalla det.

Det är dock inte bara i diktaturen Vitryssland man är rädd för sådant, även diktaturvurmande övervakningsföretaget Ericsson och Telia Soneras hemland Sverige är förstås rädda för detta. Konstitutionsutskottet t.ex. har sedan 2010 blyfodral till sina mobiltelefoner eftersom “det går att avlyssna telefonerna även när de är avstängda” enligt Konstitutionsutskottets ordförande Peter Eriksson.

Jag trodde faktiskt att jag hade skrivit om detta tidigare, men det visade sig att jag inte hade det. Och det enda jag hittar kring det hela är TT-nyheten. Det är ungefär samma grad av ickerapportering kring en integritetsraserande nyhet som mobilen som startades av operatören för att spåra ägaren.

I vart fall är lösningen till dessa oförutsägbara och hemliga men våldsamma intrång i våra privatliv att vi börjar använda hård- och mjukvara som kan granskas av pålitliga individer. Alltså av vem som helst, inte bara en sluten grupp. Precis som att jag inte använder Facebook, iPhone eller Windows så är jag i fasen att avveckla allt samröre med GSM/3G/4G under förutsättning att protokollen och den interagerande utrustningen inte öppnas upp för granskning.

Jag uppmanar folk till att använda text- röst- och videokommunikation över fria protokoll med decentraliserade tjänster. Börja snabbt och lätt med att ladda hem en XMPP-klient och registrera ett konto på valfri server – lägg därefter till mmn@hethane.se i din vänlista och hojta! Obs, har du Google-konto redan så din gmail-adress samtidigt ett XMPP-konto!

Behöver vi en modernare konkurrenslagstiftning?

Jag kan inte säga att jag är insatt i svensk konkurrenslagstiftning så utöver vad jag ämnar ta upp som förslag inför framtida revideringar kan jag inte uttala mig särskilt. Följande är dock en analys av pågående sabotage av informationsbranschen som utförs av enskilda leverantörer och i framtiden riskerar att hämma innovation och utveckling i förmån för enskilda leverantörers marknadsposition.

Först och främst är det kanske svårt att arbeta in detta i konkurrenslagstiftningen då en del tolkningar av situationen är “hårdare” konkurrens. Att två leverantörer som Apple och Microsoft försöker låsa in sina kunder i sina respektive plattformer kan ses som knivskarp konkurrens – eftersom det inte är kartellverksamhet. Men bara för att de inte samarbetar betyder inte att det skulle vara hämmande för handelsutbyte.

Det finns idag tre stora varumärken för allsyftesmaskiner (general purpose computing) med inriktning på mobilitet: Apple, Android och Microsoft. Tyvärr är fri mjukvara en svårtillgänglig dröm än så länge och de projekten har inte fått en rättvis chans på marknaden ännu. Så låt oss fokusera på marknadens dominerande leverantörer:

  • Apple: Största enskilda leverantör på marknaden för handhållna datorer med telefonfunktionalitet. Låst plattform (både mjuk- och hårdvara).
  • Android: Enbart en mjukvaruplattform. Google ansvarar för varumärke och utveckling men publiceringen av hård- och mjukvara är öppen för alla.
  • Microsoft: Knappt märkbara på marknaden. Låst plattform (både mjuk- och hårdvara). Argumentationen nedan gäller även om man grupperar dem med Apple.

Vi kan kortfattat säga att marknaden för kraftfulla (“general purpose”) telefoner respektive surfplattor domineras av Apple- och Android-plattformer. Det är en mycket intressant situation där å ena sidan en “helhetslösning” från enhet & mjukvara till att företaget ska ha sista ordet på vad du ö.h.t. får göra med produkten. Å andra sidan finns en öppen, inbjudande miljö med en uppsjö olika hårdvarutillverkare bakom där slutanvändaren erbjuds mer personliga och konfigurerbara lösningar.

Det obskyra i situationen här är att en låst plattform kommer att kedja fast användaren med metoder såsom svårigheter att migrera eller ren och skär inkompatibilitet. Om utvecklare t.ex. inte får samma chans att göra mjukvara på Apples plattform eftersom Apple vägrar godkänna den så begränsas kraftigt möjligheten för mjukvarukonkurrens sinsemellan. Allsyftesmaskiner är gjorda just för att köra vilket program som helst – alla begränsningar utöver de fysikaliska (klockfrekvens och utrymme) är påhittade och påtvingade av leverantörer.

Så varför kan man t.ex. inte enkelt installera Android på en iPhone?
Varför förbjuder Apple deras kunder från att köra mediaspelaren VLC?
Varför tillåts Microsoft tvinga leverantörer att handikappa datorerna?
Och hur kan Sony utan bekymmer retroaktivt förstöra funktionalitet?

Jag kontaktade Konkurrensverket och frågade vad de anser om situationen och fick en ganska bra jämförelse med kopiatorer. En vanlig företeelse är att köpa kopiatormöjligheter snarare än en kopiator i sig – och i avtalet kan det stå att du endast får använda leverantörens tonerkassetter. Detta anses en rimlig överenskommelse och ger en slags säkerhet i avtalet för båda parter att kopiatorn underhålls såväl som att kunden t.ex. inte köper kinakopior som gör att leverantören saknar inkomst.

(Nu är detta förstås inte riktigt samma sak, utan en bättre liknelse till Apple hade varit att kopiatorerna var inställda på att t.ex. bara kopiera text och inte teckningar. Eller att det finns en låda för A3-papper men att det är förbjudet att fylla det med papper. Men bortsett från de fundamentala poängerna i min argumentation…)

Så min tanke är att vi behöver en modernare konkurrenslagstiftning. En hårdvaruplattform ska endast låsas å konsumenten uttryckliga vägnar och i samtliga fall ska köparen levereras all nödvändig utrustning/information för att ta bort denna begränsning. Dessa villkor ska gälla samtlig allsyfteshårdvara som säljs på öppen marknad för slutkonsumenter.

Piratpartiet bör absolut ge sig in på denna diskussion.

PS. Är vad som behövs en definition av processor (allsyftesmaskinen) och kanske en konsumenträttighet att man inte utan goda skäl fråntas rättigheter att bruka den produkt man köpt? Vilket lagrum bör man ö.h.t. fokusera på?

Google: BitTorrent is an illegal word (kind of)

Google has an instant/autocomplete service that, when you type something, gives you suggestions on what to search for. Nowadays, however, this search is crippled due to fear of modern technology.

The RIAA/MPAA MAFIAA has now persuaded Google into censoring its suggestions to remove “piracy related” words. Such as “BitTorrent” apparently. I’m not going to lay out much more on this, TorrentFreak does that well enough. However I’d like to sum up the misfires caused by this action:

  • BitTorrent Inc. is the name of the private company which originally developed the BitTorrent standard. They are entirely legal and in no way affiliated with any piracy practices of any kind. This news shows however that they are deliberately censored by Google as a result of this, just because they have developed an efficient algorithm for transferring data and released the technology to the general public.
  • Rapidshare, a company to whose site you upload files at a slow rate – allowing people to later download them at a faster rate, were recently freed in court in a case of piracy related issues. Despite that, they are deemed unfit for Google’s search terms, which of course results in a heavy discrediting.
  • Would it be ok to censor other companies like, say, “Universal”? Removing words for the global dictionary may have unexpected consequences. There’s nothing illegal in a word and thus it should not be considered harmful. Any other behaviour may have unwanted sideeffects.
  • The BitTorrent protocol is a very efficient method of distributing files and widely adopted. Thus searching for various clients for comparison is of utter importance to avoid malware or trojans. One example is the uncensored client name “BitLord” which is a heap of crap and ads compared to BitTorrent Inc’s official client “µTorrent”, which is otherwise the first hit on the search for an autocompleted “bit[...]” search term.
  • The BitTorrent protocol is used legally in distributing not only patches for legally purchased games, but also for the ever-increasing content on free culture video sites.

Noted should be, of course, that Google has not censored these search terms in its actual search engine. Only the automated suggestions when beginning to type a search term. However, as mentioned with the suggestion of BitLord instead of “BitTorrent client”, this may definitely result in a very skewed usage of Google’s search. This doesn’t affect me personally as I never use the autocomplete function and I find Google’s “instant search” incredibly annoying. The thought has crossed my mind to entirely disable Javascript, at least for google.com, permanently.

It seems however that if you know the term (and spell it correctly), you are still given the related additional terms. Such as “Rapidshare premium” or if you’ve successfully spelled “bittorrent”.

Oracle scares free software into forking. Viva la LibreOffice!

I noticed the other day that a fork had been made from OpenOffice.org, called LibreOffice. It has been launched by the newly founded The Document Foundation, TDF. Wikipedia describes it as follows:

On September 28, 2010 members of the Open Office Project formed a new group called The Document Foundation, and made available a rebranded fork of OpenOffice provisionally named “LibreOffice”. The Foundation stated that it will coordinate and oversee the development of LibreOffice.

The fork is an obvious reaction to Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems, followed by a total lack of support or understanding of free software. Oracle were invited to participate in the free development and support of LibreOffice, such as by donating the OpenOffice.org trademark to The Document Foundation.

My fears of this ordeal is that Oracle sticks to their hardcore innovation killing plans and do not support TDF. By keeping the trademark for OpenOffice.org they may keep a marketing advantage and thus cause great confusion for users around the world who seek the license/patent free desktop office suite.

A well remembered fork of free software in recent times was that of the X.org foundation breaking free from XFree86. XFree86 and X.org are both software that implement the X11 protocol, which is responsible for giving your unix/linux software a way to display graphical user interfaces. Nothing the ordinary end-user cares about how its done and thus the transition went smoothly. Wikipedia sums it up like this:

In February 2004, with version 4.4.0, The XFree86 Project adopted a license change that the Free Software Foundation considered GPL incompatible. Most Linux distributions found the potential legal issues unacceptable and moved to a fork from before the license change.

As mentioned, this was a fork that never came to affect the end-user in terms of choice, installation and distribution. People who used computers never had to consider which X11 implementation to use and, in either case, just about every developer hopped on the X.org train to ensure future compatibility and possibility to continue developing it as the free software community.

With OpenOffice.org it’s different. Much different in fact, because end-users have gotten used to the name. Users of OpenOffice.org believe that it’s the alternative to Microsoft Office and that anything new – despite sharing the same codebase – is written from scratch. What I mean is the old marketing trick of “we made this first”, despite the fact that TDF consists of OOo old-timers.

Oracle may also, which is different from the XF86 case, employ enough programmers to keep up with LibreOffice features, under a possibly (likely) proprietary future license. This will hurt LibreOffice’s ability to compete given the lack of an established name with the end-users.

On the opposite side of the table Oracle may very well stop distribution whatsoever of OpenOffice.org. This would cause headlines which may scare people into using any proprietary “future safe” office suite. It would make it easier for LibreOffice to establish itself, but would be a big slap of FUD on the entire free software community.

Because of the above reasons, supported by possibilities which free software has uniquely contributed to our world, Oracle should definitely donate the trademark of OpenOffice.org to The Document Foundation. Anything else will at least temporarily hurt the distribution and support of the most competent open source, free software, office suite.

My reasons to believe that TDF will be able to succeed in moving users to LibreOffice however is simply the list of supporters including Novell, RedHat, Canonical and Google. Being the default office suite in the most widely used GNU/Linux distributions, at least free software users won’t be led astray.

Update 2010-10-08: I noticed that StarOffice, OOo’s proprietary soulsucker, has changed its name to – wait for it – Oracle Open Office. I think it’s quite clear now what will happen to OpenOffice.org. I did not explicitly know this until now, but I guess the founders of The Document Foundation did…

The Chewbacca defense rerun

The second act of The Pirate Bay trial – Spectrial pt. 2 – The Appealhas now been initiated.

For this event, I am hilighting the video I edited hastily for the first part of the trial. Håkan Roswall happens to be the prosecutor in this case, and the scene in South Park presents a defense attorney. But they’re saying just about the same thing, so I figured that it works anyhow:

[youtube uEydw5p3BBQ]

Unfortunately the second round consists mainly of repetitions of the first act. By this I mean actual reruns of recorded hearings etc. Incredibly boring. Though it is probably for the best considering how everything – exactly as it was said in the last act – should have freed the four accused of “assisting making available copyrighted material”.

Unless, that is, Google is responsible for its search results’ contents.

Ideological choices fuel the free software movement

Slashdot reported a long time ago from no-room-at-the-ecosystem dept. something which I’d usually just entitle “brainaids”.

“Mozilla has decided to stop development of a version of its Firefox mobile Web browser for phones running Windows Mobile. The reason is that Microsoft has closed the door to native applications on smartphones running its new Windows Phone 7 Series software. More reasoning can be found in a blog post by Stuart Parmenter, director of Mobile Engineering at Mozilla.”

Unfortunately most people seem to think that battery power, ease of use and stability are irrelevant. Or they don’t actually want something mobile but rather a cool gadget. This causes people to buy unstable, unusable and/or incredibly restricted phones from these three categories:

  • Apple iPhone
  • Random Google Android mobile
  • Random Windows 7 mobile

Despite high price-tags none of these choices are good, mostly due to their respective operating systems. All of these phones market themselves to be “powerful” and probably “versatile” and maybe even “usable”. Though none of them – of course – market the restrictions implied.

Apple iPhone

A cool, sleek interface. In these days a nice piece of hardware too. Probably easy to sell, because you have the backing of an “app store” and also the “cool factor” which means everyone has it and everyone is talking about it.

The downsides are: To legally distribute software for use on the iPhone, you need Apple’s approval. This approval implies that you accept Apple as a benevolent God who – when feeling the urge – can shut down software on your phone that you legally bought. The software approval thing also means that anything anyone does better than Apple will not be accepted into the App Store. Geez.

Android phones

None of these phones are other than slow and unstable when it comes to using then. Besides this the software distribution is messy and difficult to overview. There is no immediate logic in which Android version runs what software and on which phone.

My personal reason for disliking it is purely ideological. Marketing says it’s “open”, promotes “open source” and whatever. However, the platform doesn’t appeal to open source software and everything has to be written very specifically for the Android phone. Porting software is apparently not as simple as one could’ve hoped.

Lately Oraclesince the Sun acquiry, have been yelling that Google infringe patents and copyright. This because Google has their own Java virtual machine for the Android phones. The patent issue itself isn’t troublesome, I think it’s worse that Google didn’t just run Linux straight-up on their otherwise capable platforms.

Windows 7 phones

No one buys these for themselves… They’re probably just bought through companies who offer them to suffering employees. Same thing here applies as with Apple: Both companies are evil.

Latest news are that (as mentioned above) Windows 7 mobiles won’t allow native applications. This system of signed applications opens up for a system of Apple-like dictatorial “blessed apps”. It also obviously disables development by homebrew hackers.

The sum of it all

Besides this I recently saw an article on Australia planning to ban certain iPhone apps. Something which is only possible if there is a single, signed software repository (Apple) – or just an architecture which requires signed executables (Microsoft). This mere concept of centralistic control defies how the Internet happens.

Consider your everyday tasks which are either of private concern, some sort of communication or information access. These routines are all possible to do using libre (free) software. The Free software is in no way under usage control of neither private companies, your neighbor nor any governmental censorship bureau.

With libre licensing:
You control your device and software.
No one else can interfere.

The Nokia N900, runs the GNU/Linux operating system. This reflects the “ideological choice” of this post’s subject, the choice to run Free software. What is essential is the ability to share and – especially – modify the source code. Even if you won’t do it yourself.

Free software in practice disables an external dictatorship over the software your machine runs. This comes from the fact that any developer, through international copyright, is given the legal right to modify and distribute changes. This also means that even if all the world’s developers suddenly disappeared the current version would still be shared in a fine, working condition.

This causes the direct opposite evolution compared to proprietary (closed source) software companies who offer you only one choice – the latest version. They need you to update to increase the revenue while Free software is only interested in functionality and effectiveness. This is most noticable when an already fine, working proprietary software gets a new version: the update will most certainly include bloat and/or new restrictions.

This post not only encourages your informed choice for smartphones – a major business which fuels proprietary software. It is meant to persuade you to use Free software to the greatest extent possible. You’re probably already using OpenOffice or Mozilla Firefox – which is great because every single replaced software counts. If you like those, your next step may be Ubuntu – to replace the entire operating system.

Feel free to contact a local computer nerd for guidance.