Best Breakfast place if you are in london: Roast Yum. (Also most expensive I suspect).

Daniel notes that self-delusion is a necessary component of all voluntary work.
Any human activity can be over-analysed into oblivion, especially if the terms of reference for "meaning" are impacted by a view of the real world that is overly abstract. Even paid work needs some self-delusion because no matter how much money you earn, the old maxims bite back - "you can't take it with you" and "no point earning it unless you can enjoy it".
Before I started with voluntary software work, I was heavily involved in voluntary charity work and the motivation is much the same. "The grand scheme of things" will never be sufficiently affected by any activity such as to provide the sole justification for that activity. The vast majority of people and the vast majority of actions simply are not and cannot become that important. (This is where religion is important for some people, the hope that despite all evidence to the contrary, acts of random kindness have some meaning to the person doing the act instead of just to the recipient.)
Voluntary work is generally for the benefit of others. In free software it is about writing code to solve our own issues in a way that others can use without facing the problems that we had to solve. Writing new code to solve a problem or fixing bugs in existing code to solve a new problem can only help others if the solution is shared. So the validation of that work is in helping someone else accomplish a task without having to spend the time fixing that issue, leaving them time to fix the next one.
Working on free software of all kinds is worthwhile simply because it is a way of helping others.
"When all things are considered", most people working on Debian are the lucky ones. Born into an environment where good education is available and where parents/relatives were able to indulge our fascination with electronic and computerised widgets that had no direct bearing on whether our basic human needs were met with regard to food, warmth and health. Trained at great expense and able to use that training not only to meet our personal financial needs but also to make time available for other unpaid tasks that benefit others who do not have those things. Living in a time of peace and stability, where the more esoteric and "frivolous" tasks can be undertaken without causing hardship or neglect of others. (My nephew frequently sums up this whole idea as like having won the lottery just by existing.)
There is an element of justification that can be derived from such a view - an element of responsibility and duty. After experiencing all those good things and after realising that we have such an opportunity, it can engender a feeling of obligation to do something that justifies what we have already received to balance out those who have the skills to do what we do but, for reasons of birth alone, do not have that opportunity or the means.
That is a form of secular humanism - validation of our own situation in the use of our skills and time to make things easier for those who are less fortunate.
OK, Debian isn't about providing clean water for all, or the redistribution of food and medicines to those without but the organisations that do that work can be assisted indirectly by making the systems used by such organisations work more efficiently, with greater stability and with more flexibility.
Not everyone can (or should) be on the front line of whatever acts of kindness will solve the problem of inequality but there is an obligation on those of us who have received the benefits of inequality to do what we can to make it easier to redraw the balance.
Debian is one such way and it is a truly international way of benefiting others too. It is more beneficial than the charity work that I did previously - chiefly because that was a very local service that was very labour-intensive and so could only benefit small numbers of people.
Improving Debian won't make us more important to the universe, life and everything (the answer to that is 42 as we all know), but it will help others do what they do, it will improve their lives and their ability to spend their time on what they want to do instead of having to fix problems that we have already solved.
Debian, to me, is about sharing solutions. Helping someone else do something that Debian could not do before, without requiring them to fix all the problems that I had to solve to devise the solution in the first place. Sharing not just the solution but the method of the solution and the means to extend the solution to new problems.
We, as Debian developers, have been granted the access and tools to solve these problems for the benefit of those who do not have upload privileges. Those rights come with responsibilities (as always) to use our skills and time to find the solution and without making things more difficult in the process.
In the grand scheme of what I can actually do as opposed to what might be possible if X, Y and Z were different, what I do in Debian and Emdebian is worthwhile. In fact, it is just as worthwhile as my paid non-IT employment in healthcare provision because, within healthcare, I can only help the single person in front of me. In Debian, I can help all those people who I will probably never meet but who want Debian to do something that I am able to achieve.
What is particularly nice about Emdebian is that there are people who tell us that our work is worthwhile by putting up the hard cash to fund work sessions and conferences that bring the various developers into one place. The international aspects of Debian can be a barrier in some ways and things always happen more quickly when the various members of the team can be brought from the four corners of the planet into one place for a week or so. It is these gatherings that boost the motivation and the enjoyment of making progress towards a common goal. Debian can be a solitary world where communication is limited to plain text. Probably the best way to "oil the wheels" in Debian is to get a group of Debian people together and just let them hack.
Voluntary work of all kinds requires personal motivation and working alone with only limited means of communication with others can be quite demotivating. Getting people together is a very useful antidote.

Oh, please, I don t think I ever had a favourite film: I cannot remember what I wrote here when I signed up more than two years ago. And, of course, there s something good about this form, and something (else) bad about it: The bad: this is displayed just after it has verified my email address. The good: at least it s not asking for my mother s maiden name.

Often if you see a block diagram like this, what comes to mind is a compatability layer in between a program and several operating systems. Generally something that's general-purpose like java, or a web browser, or a widget toolkit.

-------------
             
             
-------------
             
-------------
             
-------------

(Generally it's drawn up all purty, but I'm lame.) But lately I've seen and written a lot of code where the diagram is more complex:

-------------
             
   program   
             
             
-------------
  V  C  S    
-------------
     OS      
-------------

Sometimes the program code is littered with multiple switch statements, as in debcheckout, debcommit, and etckeeper.

case "$vcs" in
git)
svn)
hg)
esac

Sometimes it pushes the VCS-specific code into modules.

use IkiWiki::Rcs::$rcs;
rcs_commit();

But if it does, these modules are specific to that one program. This isn't a general-purpose library. dpkg source v3 doesn't need to use the VCS is the same way as ikiwiki, and even ikiwiki's rcs_commit is very specific to ikiwiki, in its error handling, conflict resolution, locking, etc. pristine-tar injects and extracts data directly from git, using low-level git plumbing, in a way that probably can't be done at all with other VCSes. But even as I was adding that low-level, very git-specific code into pristine-tar, I found myself writing it with future portability in mind.

if ($vcs eq 'git')  
    # git write-tree, git update-index, and other fun
 
else  
    die "unsupported vcs $vcs";
 

When Avery Pennarun talks about git being the next unix, he's talking about programs like these, that build on top of a VCS. But if git is the next unix, then so is mercurial, so is darcs, so is bzr, so too even svn (unless it's Windows?). In other words, we're back to the days when every program had to be ported to a bunch of incompatible and not-quite-compatible operating systems. Back to the unix wars. In Elija's discussion of the "limbo" VCS state he gives several great examples of how multiple VCSes that each seem on the surface to offer similar commands like "$vcs add" and "$vcs commit" can behave very differently.

echo 1 > foo
$vcs add foo
echo 2 > foo
$vcs commit

What was committed, "1" or "2"? Depends on which $vcs you use. Compare with unix where open(2) always opens a file, perhaps with different options, or different handling of large files, but portably enough that you generally don't need to worry about it. Even if you're porting to Windows, you can probably get away with a compatability layer to call whatever baroque monstrosity Windows uses to open a file, and emulate open(2) close enough to not have to worry about it most of the time. A thin compatability layer that calls "$vcs add" isn't very useful for a program that builds on top of multiple VCSes. mr is essentially such a thin compatability layer; it manages to be useful only by being an interface for humans, who can deal with different limbo implementations and other quirks. The VCSes are to some degree converging, but so far it's mostly a surface convergence, with commands that only look the same. Where will things go from here?

• Maybe there will be a standardisation effort like POSIX for VCSes. Though it seems harder; VCSes have a wider interface than just syscalls and filesystems, so there's more scope for incompatibility.
• Or will complicated compatability code like cygwin be developed, to let a program that was written for git use bzr instead, carefully hiding all the differences?
• Another option would be that one VCS wins. So far I'm seeing some consolidation, but little indication that one VCS will emerge as the choice for everyone.
• Maybe the VCSes might begin to support each other's repositories. If a program only supports git, and you use svn, that's fine, if git can transparently access the svn repo.
• Or will we go on for decades spending a lot of time on portability code?

Today I was very nerved by searching for patches for mc. Every distribution has other patches for the same thing, The best point to show this are the utf8/slang patches. There are many different approaches which have different qualtity. Furthermore are in every distribution fixes which are missing in other ones. And I was really pissed by that :S In order to find a solution I contacted several other maintainers of mc (opensuse, mandriva, mandrake, fedora, ubuntu) and get a reply from several of them. Maybe we'll start to use one repository to start to unify our patches. My goal with this is to get better patches into debian (and into the other distributions), sharing patches between distributions and unifying them to submit them to upstream. Maybe this will help to get patches from distributions faster into the upstreams CVS. We'll see what will happen. I'm looking forward to the result of this initiative

Continuing from where we left off… The lower bound for me becoming a DD was 8th Feb ‘98 when I applied; for comparison, the upper bound as best I can make out was 23rd Feb, when I would have received this mail through the debian-private list:

Resent-Date: 23 Feb 1998 18:18:57 -0000
From: Martin Schulze 
To: Debian Private 
Subject: New accepted maintainers
Hi folks,
I wish you a pleasant beginning of the week.  Here are the first good
news of the week (probably).
This is the weekly progress report about new-maintainers.  These people
have been accepted as new maintainer for Debian GNU/Linux within the
last week.
[...]
Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>
    Anthony is going to package the personal proxy from
    distributed.net - we don't have the source... He may adopt the
    transproxy package, too.
Regards,
        Joey

I never did adopt transproxy – apparently Adam Heath started fixing bugs in it a few days later anyway, and it was later taken over by Bernd Eckenfels (ifconfig upstream!) who’s maintained it ever since. Obviously I did do other things instead, which brings us back to where we left off…

---

• Crypto in main: It’s getting hard to remember the days when strong crypto software was classed as munitions and even getting a web browser to do SSL properly was a legal challenge; but for a long while that’s how it was, and as a result we had to keep all our security tools hosted separately to our main, US-based archive. The laws for that changed in early 2000, introducing a new exemption to the prohibition for software whose source code was available royalty-free (I think they called it “public source”). Unfortunately there were still drawbacks: it wouldn’t apply to some stuff in non-free, it wasn’t clear how far you had to go with the source code (is libssl’s source enough, or do you need the source for the apps that use ssl too?), and the biggest problem was you had to notify the export bureau and the NSA for everything you wanted to distribute. And all of that’s couched in the sort of confusing language you’d expect to find in, well, export regulations. So we ended up getting nowhere on merging crypto into the main archive for a long while because we couldn’t be confident of what we actually needed to do. We’d more or less already missed the opportunity to do the merge for the potato (2.2) release because it was frozen more or less exactly when the new regulations came out, and according to my mail archives Ben Collins (DPL at the time) got a team organised to review the legal issues by mid-May 2001. By July 2001, though, we still weren’t really getting anywhere; the lawyer we were talking to was looking at the ENC exception (which was for closed source stuff, and requires an active review by the BXA), instead of the TSU exception (which just requires notification). While it wasn’t terrible legal advice – following the ENC exception had a lower risk of misunderstandings on our part leading to problems later – it wasn’t useful in achieving our aims, ie, getting crypto stuff into main with a minimal level of ongoing effort, as well as a minimal level of risk. So moving onto August, we’d moved on from the lawyer we’d been using for this and other issues, to talking to a lawyer who specialised in export issues (and whose time was being covered by HP). That actually got us somewhere, with the end results being a matter of public record – we got the advice we wanted by November, we got a new incoming system so we could make sure we didn’t publish anything we hadn’t advised the NSA and BXA about, and most of all, we got cryptographic software in main for woody’s release. ssh at standard priority, apt by default checking archive signatures before downloading code to run as root, iceweasel coping with https:// urls out of the box all suddenly became possible, rather than artificially blocked due to pointless legal constraints. Yay! The way we notified BXA/NSA was somewhat interesting – we ended up notifying once for each package, when it passed through NEW: which is easy to automate, and limits the amount of software we block from review by other developers as best we can. OTOH, it also means a lot of notifications: the initial notification was a huge box of paper that got faxed off (there should be pictures somewhere on the net, but I don’t know where), and the vague hope that the ongoing reporting would not only comply with the regs, but manage to be something of a denial-of-service by compliance. As it turns out it apparently got noticed, with the following mail arriving in September 2005:

  From: Encryption 
  Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:51:02 -0400
  Subject: Addition to Debian Source Code updates
  Dear Mr. Collins,
  Your diligent reporting of updates to the Debian source code to the Bureau
  of Industry and Security has been an excellent example of perspicacity.
  However, you no longer need to do so per the following update to the EAR:
  [...]
  

  (The mails have always been sent with Ben's name attached) That mail was followed by another suggesting a phone conversation; unfortunately nobody seemed to notice the mail, at least until a year later (to the day!) when Joerg pointed out he was getting bounces form the BXA email address we'd been using... (Since then, based on the above mail, we've been recording notifications, but not passing them on; I sent a reply to the mails above indicating that, but didn't receive a response. There's been about 5000 notifications since then)
• Security and the architecture explosion: with crypto-in-main out of the way, along with lots of RC bug squashing, woody was looking good to come out in April or May, but unfortunately that all fell apart because of a lack of automation for handling security updates. Taking a step back, woody managed to introduce five new architectures compared to the previous release -- HP's pets, hppa and ia64; the IBM mainfram arch, s390, and the SGI/embedded mips and mipsel chips. That came just short of doubling our supported architectures (which had been i386, m68k, alpha, arm, sparc and powerpc), and was working really impressively well: testing was watching that they kept in sync, and the buildd network was keeping them all up to date with the latest source uploads, and the toolchain maintainers were making sure new kernels and compilers didn't cause massive breakages. It was great fun to be a part of, and I'm not sure how much is just blurry memories, but from here, it sure feels like it was a golden age on that score... Anyway, all the extra architectures freaked the security team out, given they were already having to worry about ssh'ing to half a dozen machines and manually do builds, and fix them when they broke, and to deal with that there'd been plans afoot for "rbuilder" to get rolled out, which never actually happened. All of which means it escalated from being the security team's problem, to a problem for everyone, particularly the release manager... The result of which meant knuckling down and coming up with a new security build infrastructure, which involved doing a dak install for the security archive, then building on the changes just rolled out for crypto-in-main to allow for packages to be autobuilt before actually being included in the archive, then updating official buildds for all the various architectures to target stable-security and testing-security and prioritise them and upload to the right place. But as stressful and last minute as that was, at least it worked, and woody made it out the door on July 20th 2002 -- and it's a good thing it worked, given woody ended up getting security support until June 30th 2006 -- the usual year after it's successor is released -- for four years support. (The same rule applied to sarge has resulted in two years and ten months' security support; eighteen month release cycles in general should result in two years and six months of support) Since then, with security managed by dak, there's been a few more bits I've been involved in. The most interesting of which (to my mind) was splitting the security upload queue from being completely secret and restricted to folks who are allowed to access updates prior to public announcement, into separate secret and non-secret queues. That was December 2005, and since then we've gone from having Joey Schulze basically being the sole person doing security updates to two separate teams, with ten new members. It's not without it's problems -- particularly for packages that get (mis)classified as NEW, or that get lost on their way for inclusion in the next stable point update, but it's nevertheless lightyears from where we were in April 2002, or even November 2005.
• Playing other people for suckers: with woody released, the whole "redo to release process" thing was essentially done -- it had been implemented, it had worked all the way to getting a release out, and in a fair few respects had improved things. Instead of the eight months of hand-approved uploads for the potato freeze, things had gone it automatically, albeit with gradually stricter constraints, right up until April; and even when the security problems delayed things, the manual updates only lasted a bit under three months. So at that point I was pretty happy, and looking forward to making things work a bit better and basically passing the buck to someone else. The first bit of buck passing that worked exceptionally well was jumping on Colin Watson, who'd been offering some debbugs patches on IRC, and after a delightfully brief discussion with some of the other debbugs folks, got getting him added to the group and able to make changes directly on the site. His advogato post the next day was:

  Yesterday I was invited onto the group that administers the Debian bug tracking system. I can't decide whether to be intimidated or excited. There's a great deal to do: my first couple of major projects look set to be integrating some of the existing QA interfaces to release-critical bug tracking, and developing a tool to help us edit spam out of bug histories.

  There's a lot to be said for grabbing people at the point where they're still intimidated by what they're joining; sure there's a definite risk that they'll break something you'll have to clean up, but that's pretty easy to deal with, and well worth all the extra excitement and energy that comes with a little bit of nerves. I did a talk on debbugs a few years later, at the 2005 DebConf, at which point we managed to entice Pascal Hakim and Don Armstrong into signing up, if I'm remembering right. At the same time Colin rolled out his implementation of version tracking support for debbugs (which I'd specced up a while ago, and helped design, but cannily avoided actually coding). Shortly after, Pasc put together bug subscriptions, and these days Don's pretty much the primary maintainer of debbugs. How cool is that? Passing on release managership was a bit less fortuitous though; it's a big job, and it's not something that you can offer "patches" for, generally. So after a bit of cogitating on just how to do it, I went with an open recruitment call in March 2003, and then a bunch of practical assignments to get the volunteers used to what RM work actually entailed and to see whether they actually like it. The recruitment call was mostly focussed on all the negatives, half to avoid people volunteering to be RM for the power (to decide which release policy wins, to tell maintainers what to do, to drop packages, or to just decide what name/number the next release gets) instead of wanting to actually do the work to get the next release out and keep developers happy; and the other half was the theory that if you make a job look hard, technical, but not terribly risky, it starts looking interesting to the right kind of people. The assignments generally were two parters -- first to introduce some stuff about release management that they mightn't be familiar with, and the second a bunch of problems that needed resolving that'd use those skills. The first set was RC bug fixing, followed by working out why packages aren't getting into testing, followed by dealing with packages with mutual dependencies and removing packages. At some point that evolved into the testing scripts accepting "hints" from the release team as to what packages to try in combination, or which packages to force out of testing. That turned out pretty successful, with Steve Langasek, Colin Watson and Joey Hess becoming official release assistants in August, and Colin and Steve replacing me as RM in mid-2004. It was also pretty satisfying to see Andi Barth do some more release assistant recruiting in 2005 following much the same model, and indeed using much of my mail verbatim. You can't really ask for better than that, I figure.

Geez, this was meant to be briefer...

OK, this is just one of those things that just shouldn't happen but always seem to happen anyway.
In testing an installation method for Emdebian, creating certain system config files for the target device ended up with a test script putting the Emdebian config file onto the main system. Yes, permissions would have stopped this but the other part of the test routine is udev and ensuring the device has a working console, hence the script needs to run under sudo to unpack the device nodes.
Just goes to show, developing scripts that work under sudo is a minefield of bugs. The law of unintended consequences means strange things can happen on the development box.
What did I do?
Oh, just replaced /etc/group with a installer copy.
Not much broke - except that 'ls' listed the group as 1000 instead of 'neil' and I stopped getting email.
I didn't twig initially - but then I realised that exim could not find the exim group because the Emdebian rootfs doesn't have exim or any MTA. All my email had arrived but it was frozen in the exim queue because exim couldn't work out how to proceed without an exim group.
Ah well. Good to know that I had a backup of /etc/group.

Suddenly, sudo runq dropped several hundred emails onto dovecot. Hey ho.
If only I could get USB to serial working on this HP laptop, I could play with these things on a box that is less important to my overall day to day work.
Still, nice to know exim did the right thing. Thanks, exim.

Rubygems is one of the worst inventions the world has ever seen. If you are writing ruby software / libraries: do not use rubygems to “hand out a package”. It is NOT your job to do packaging. Write the software (thanks for that), but leave packaging to those that understand it, the distributions. Rubygems are worse than tarballs. A “packaging” tool going totally around the normal packaging procedures your system normally uses. How idiotic. So fucking great. I have rake 0.8.something installed, yet this braindead rubygem complains that it needs rake >= 0.7.2. Idiots. </rant>

Many of you have seen the net classic If Operating Systems Were Airlines. Today, let's consider what the world might be like if version control systems were airlines...

Before anyone gets mad, this is all in fun, OK?

RCS Airlines: One of the first airlines, from way back when this whole aviation thing was new and exciting. Each RCS flight carries exactly one passenger, which RCS believes is a superior way to fly. Although most RCS airplanes are rusty and battered today, RCS Airlines still retains its historic dedication to security. Each airplane is kept locked as much as possible for safety. Occasionally flights will be delayed for hours because the pilot can't open the locked plane. When this happens, the pilot will frantically try to get the cell phone number of whoever it is that has locked the plane. When the plane finally gets unlocked, you may be tempted to ask why it was locked for so long. Veteran RCS users have learned that the answer is usually disgusting, and never ask anymore. Main competitor: CP/M airlines.

CVS Airlines: Founded on the belief that they could be more efficient than RCS by carrying multiple passengers per flight. They still carry each passenger in a separate RCS-built airplane, but the airplanes fly in a goose-like ",V" formation. Watch out for layovers, though. It can take hours to merge new passengers into the formation properly, and it might take several attempts to take off afterwards.

CVS flights often feature fights over who gets to fly. CVS piloting fights are legendary; rumor has it that OpenBSD got started after CVS airlines refused to allow a passenger to board on the grounds that he had in the past refused to stow his tray table in the upright and locked position.

CVS airlines mostly counts as customers the "over-50" crowd who grew up using CVS and don't like change. Its in-flight magazine features advertisements for balding-reversal treatments and uuencode tools.

Main competitor: AIX airlines.

Subversion Airlines: Started by some grey-haired CVS executives with long, wispy beards, Subversion airlines got started by trying to be "CVS, but better". Subversion airlines was the first major airline to use planes that seat more than one passenger. Unlike CVS airlines, all passengers on a Subversion flight travel in the same plane.

Subversion airlines is famous for its Soviet-like centralized control. All operations must be approved by the Kremlin, and you are allowed, by the grace of the Party Leader, to gaze at the massive airplanes. Those that have served the Party and Airline well for many years are allowed to enter the Great Shrine of the First-Class Comitter, and actually make changes to the airplanes themselves. Plainclothes Subversion Airlines security agents lurk on every flight, and you should not be surprised to be thrown out an airplane window if you make a joke in bad taste about the pilot's flying skills.

Subversion airlines thrives on the concept that "photocopying is cheap". You are encouraged to make photocopies of your ticket, or to photocopy your photo ID, and give copies of each to as many people as you can. At checkin time at the gate, if more than one person arrives with a copy of the same ticket, they are ushered into the "merging room" and each person is given a brick. The door is closed, something magical occurs, and the one person that emerges still able to walk is allowed to board the plane.

Main competitor: Windows airlines with no Administrators allowed.

tla airlines: Founded by one of those eccentric British noblemen, Lord Tom's airline is the utopian philosopher's airline. Chafed by the heavy-handed control of Subversion Airlines, tla airlines wants every passenger to be created equal. As you approach the gate area in the terminal, you will find many philosophers occupying the gate area, extolling the virtues of tla airlines. They compare tla airlines to reaching out and touching the heavens, leaving behind the bonds of a ground-based life, actually merging with the stars. Oh, the gorgeous beauty of it all! The things we will see!

As you see people arriving from another flight, you observe that some of them have burn marks. One of them comments that "merging with the stars doesn't work." Immediately, a dozen philosophers get in a fight with him, claiming that he simply doesn't understand what it means to merge with the stars, and that if he gets his inner being in the proper state first, he'll have a much better experience.

As you board the tla airplane, you obvserve that the jetway is a mile long. The airplane itself reminds you of something of a cross between a gothic cathedral and a level of Doom. There are spectacular archways everywhere, sometimes where they don't really belong. Each archway is supported by ornate curly braces which you don't normally see on airplanes, and frankly, you'd rather not, because they look all pointy and confuse the kids.

As you arrive as your destination terminal, you see it too is full of philosophers, most of them dining.

Main competitor: VMS airlines.

Darcs Airlines: Unlike every other airline, this one uses physicists instead of engineers to design its airplanes. One brilliant Darcs physicist has finally come up with The Theory of Everything, and as such, Darcs knows where you want to go before even you do. Darcs airlines prides itself on customer service, and asks your preference for even the tiniest details about your trip.

Each seat pocket features a copy of the Theory of Everything for your reading enjoyment, but nobody actually understands it.

Occasionally, you will find that Darcs pilots get into angry conflicts with the control tower in mid-flight. This results in the control tower revoking your permission to land. Legend has it that one Darcs pilot of a plane with exceptionally large fuel tanks actually resolved his conflict with the tower and landed two weeks after taking off. Experienced Darcs users board with several parachutes: one for themselves, and a few more for the newbies.

The Darcs physicists claim that the Theory of Everything predicted the pilots would act this way, and that all pilots eventually act this way throughout the entire universe. They toil day and night finding a way to adjust the gravitational constant of the universe, thereby reducing the anger factor of the pilots.

Main competitor: OS/2 airlines.

bzr airlines: Founded by a South African who had been injured by a curly brace on tla airlines, bzr airlines aims to be "tla done right". They have shortened the jetway, gotten rid of the curly braces, chased out the philosophers, and no longer have a vision of merging with the stars. Many that were injured on tla airlines fly bzr airlines, and out of respect for tla airlines, bzr airlines will still honor tla tickets.

bzr passengers consider themselves part of an exclusive club because each flight takes off from a launchpad. They often can be seen standing in the terminal passing out bzr literature, trying to get passengers of other airlines to fly bzr, and can't understand how other airlines continue to exist while people keep walking past their airplanes.

Main competitor: BeOS Airlines.

Bitkeeper Airlines: One of the world's faster airlines, Bitkeeper airlines occupied that obscure gate for rich people at the end of the terminal for many years. Tickets on Bitkeeper Airlines were rumored to cost thousands of dollars, and were rare and jealously guarded. Then for awhile, Bitkeeper Airlines started giving away tickets for free, though they also kept around the expensive tickets for those with discriminating tastes. Free tickets were made widely available, but the 3-point type on the back of tickets said that you were never allowed to think about another airline before, after, or during your flight, and some people claimed they actually saw the small print morphing right before their eyes.

Bitkeeper flights often featured arguments over whether people were harboring secret thoughts of other airlines. If you were caught thinking about another airline, you were expected to scream vigorously while being thrown out the escape hatch without a parachute. All of this commotion tarnished the rarified air that the rich people paid to experience, so one day it was decided that there would be a Great Purge, because obviously all free ticket holders had harbored lustful thoughts of other airlines, so they were all thrown off the airplanes simultaneously. Today, people aren't exactly sure where the Bitkeeper gate is, but everyone suspects it still lurks somewhere.

Main competitor: SCO Airlines.

Mercurial Airlines: The "there's one right way to do it" airline, Mercurial is a sterile, agile, and shiny airline. Every Mercurial airplane looks identical to every other one, shiny and clean. You could swear that all the passengers look alike too, and as you approach the gate, it seems like you too look like everyone else. Mercurial passengers tend to be a happy bunch, who can't comprehend anybody that flies Git Airlines. Specks of dirt and dust confuse the pilots, so it is best to make sure you have showered before boarding. It is rumored that, through bolting on more engines, some Mercurial airlines can fly to as many places as Git airlines can, but most Mercurial passengers are content to not worry about that.

Main competitor: Python Airlines.

Git Airlines: The "there's more than one way to do it" airline, Git flies the world's largest and fastest airplanes. Git Airlines was founded by some priests who were flying for free on Bitkeeper Airlines and survived the fall after the Great Purge. Git airplanes start as spartan, empty cabins, with no carpeting, chairs, or piloting controls. At the departure gate, each passenger is handed a bag containing 173 standard airplane components, accompanied by a 4x5" sheet of information on the theory of flight, written in 1950. Once onboard, the passengers use these components to finish out the airplane for flight: installing chairs, rudder controls, etc. Every flight results in a plane assembled in a different way, and passengers on each flight believe they are flying the world's best airplane. Arguments in the terminal after a flight are common, as passengers from different flights debate the merits of their particular design.

Despite all this, Git planes turn out to be safe, and Git passengers believe they get to their destinations in half the time it takes any other passengers, though sometimes they secretly wonder if the Mercurial flight got there faster. Occasionally, passengers on Git airlines build an airplane that appears to go into a tailspin. When that happens, they simply assemble a tool that lets them go back in time and change history so that it doesn't crash, although it is rumored that if you are a member of the public watching this happen from the ground, it will lead to seizures.

Git airlines takes special pride in the one piece that passengers don't have to assemble: the plumbing. Every Git lavatory is equipped with state-of-the-art never-fail plumbing, and the best porcelain washroom fixtures money can buy. None of these cheap plastic toilets like you get on every other airline. Here, we have fine porcelain fixtures.

During a flight, after passengers use the lavatory, they frequently get into arguments with each other about which style of porcelain toilet is the best. These arguments are only resolved by the Zen-like Git Priests, who insist that only inferior passengers need to use a toilet while in the air.

Main competition: Perl Airlines.

So, we ve finally came up with another personal project we ve been working on in the last couple of months: Historias de Nueva York. This is my formal introduction. This (yet another) Spanish spoken blog tells those unheard stories of us, Latinos (and others) immigrants, are experiencing on the Big Apple. Little, funny stories about just everything we see and hear, life experiences and anecdotes waiting to be told, from New York, NY. I hope you enjoy it :)

Madduck complains about the lack of attractive data plans for mobile phone providers in Switzerland. Madduck: As always, you will have to remember there are many people confronted with a much worse situation than yours.
Up to a month ago, I never envisioned using my phone for anything besides... Well, talking. But yes, since I got my new gadget, I keep playing with GPS or using it for simple things that require Web access and do not require much interactivity (the suckiness of a 12-key keyboard is berhuge!) - Provided, of course, that I am near a WiFi hotspot, of course. My mobile service provider, Telcel, just publicly launched its 3G network - this means, of course, prices are well over the roof:
The cheapest plan starts at MX$59 (around US$5.5) a month, and gives you a whooping 1MB of allowed transfer - Anything you do over 1MB will cost you MX$0.06 per kilobyte. Yes, Telcel offers a 1.5Mbps connection, so it'd theoretically take only 6 seconds to exceed the monthly plan. After the joyful first seconds of network access, each second of full-fledged data transfer will cost you 9 pesos - Around US$0.85. How nice!
Now, there are plans for 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100 and 1000MB. Their price increases at a slow pace up to MX$459, which is still somewhat expensive if you even thought on using your cell phone as a gateway (say, over Bluetooth) for your regular computer's connectivity. Of course, if I buy 1GB of data transfer, I'd expect a much lower price for each additional Kb. Well, no, it only goes down to MX$0.03. Per Kilobyte, yes, you read right. Those little things your Vic20 was full of.
There is even an unlimited plan. Well, yes, unlimited but limited - For MX$579 (~US$55) you get a nice deal, right? After all, I pay MX$350 for my 1024/128 DSL connection - it is on the right range. Well, no - If you get over 3GB in one month, your data rate will drop to 128Kbps for the rest of the month. Nice. No good as a gateway either.
So, I'm not hiring a 3G plan at all. But that's also a danger - If I open a net-using program at the wrong moment, I'll be billed at MX$0.14 per Kilobyte.
Bah.
[update] There is another similar service in Mexico, IUSAcell's BAM. Pricing is equivalent, though.

As some people may know, I'm a member of the Debian testing security team. As well as tracking all CVE IDs with which packages they affect, we also keep a list of known embedded code copies. Embedded code copies are a bad thing, as they cause no end of problems for the security teams.

One of the problems we've had to find a solution for is: How do we know what statically compiles against a library, or even worse, ships it's own copy?
So, we're looking for something that looks a particular set of bytes in arbitary executeables; a signature of the library if you will. And we do have a rather good tool that can be used to scanning for binary signatures: clamav :)

Step 1Create a clamav signature Clamav have a nice guide on how to create signatures on their site. The method I use is fairly simple: find a unique binary string and pass it to sigtool --hex-dump and place it in a nbd file. Step 2Scan the archive

for I in  find /mirror/debian/pool/ -name *all.deb ; do 
	clamscan -i -d smarty.ndb --deb --tempdir=/home/maulkin --no-summary \
	--max-space=1024m --stdout $I >> /home/maulkin/smarty.log; 
done;

Step 3??? Step 4PROFIT!!!

While I'm talking about testing security, we're all rather busy at the moment in the team, so we could do with some help! If you fancy helping, have a quick read of the intro and come onto #debian-security on irc.debian.org and say hi!

1. Bzr Exactly 2 years ago I started using bzr. I wanted to start using one of the new distributed VCS for my small projects, and I chose bzr. Not having the time/energy to do an exhaustive comparison among them and try them all to see which one I liked most, I read some articles about them, and decided that bzr would be the most appropriate for me, and that I’d stick to it if I was satisfied enough. (JFTR, at that time it was very important for me the ability to serve branches over plain HTTP, and bzr was the only one in which HTTP was a first-class citizen.) I’ve found bzr easy to use and to learn, powerful enough, customizable enough via plugins, and in general, not requiring a whole lot of attention to get things done. Also, not slow enough as to abandon it. 2. Git Yesterday somebody posted in #bzr a link to this post by Elijah Newren, where one comment said:

There’s one thing I keep telling people though: Learning git is like learning vi — it’s different from the VCS/text editors you know on a fundamental level. But once you’ve overcome that problem, you’ll not want to go back. Ever.

Which pretty much matched the idea I had of git. In the summer after my first year at Uni, I told myself: “OK, let’s learn vim.” And I think it’s one of the decisions that has paid off the most. Like learning to touch type. Reading the above quoted paragraph made more urgent the doubts I had been sporadically having during the past year: maybe I would have been better served by choosing Git instead of Bzr in the first place. What would be my life like if I had stayed with joe? 3. More about Git So yesterday I decided to spend a couple hours (or three) getting the feel of it, trying to find cool stuff. Until now, whenever I had had the need to use git, I just sticked to the bare minimum, without diving into it. I’m going to mention only two examples of the cool stuff I found. And I’ll confirm that, in my opinion, the comparison to vi really holds.

1. commands have lots of options. Tons. And some are incredibly cool, for example git log -S. It allows you to show entries whose diff contains the given string (or pattern, with --pickaxe-regex). I was missing bzr’s log --message, but it was obviously there, as log --grep.
2. Elijah has another entry that talks about what he dubs the “libmo”, and how it’s different between git and the rest, because of the “index is not automatic” schema. In particular, that entry opened my eyes about one very useful use of the index: putting there parts of an upcoming commit that are known to be correct, and that need no further inspection. Doing that with git add -p makes those parts no longer appear in your git diff, which is... whoa. I like to review before committing a lot. However, with other VCSen I always find myself reviewing/glancing at the same parts over and over. So having a way to review what’s pending or WIP is something to die for. And I know even before getting addicted to it!

4. More about Bzr I’m not sure I want to completely switch from bzr to git, not yet anyway. However, I think I’ll try it for some new projects, or migrate some minor ones. Before I can migrate everything I’ll need a bzr frontend for git-fast-import. One of the bzr authors, Ian Clatworthy, has written bzr-fastimport, and he tells me a simple exporter would not be very hard to write, and that he may even put some work into it. Also, I’m (still?) not very sold with some of the git standard practice of throwing away parts of your history regularly. We’ll see about that. Finally, one feature of bzr I would love to see in git is indented formatting for non-mainline revisions in log output (for git, in --topo-order mode only). This is most needed when you’re not rewriting your history for submission to mainline, I’ll reckon. Compare —date-order to —topo-sort to —topo-sort with —indent. Update: For this —indent thing, one could use tig, which after pressing g offers a sort of tree view in a curses-based interfaces. Somebody had mentioned this on IRC, and Peter Baumann kindly mentioned again over e-mail after reading this entry.

Advocating and using mpeg videos reminded me a lot of .doc documents... Just say no. Very interesting read, I'm really looking forward to even more substancial news! Good things come to those who wait :-)

BTW, if you used oggconvert successfully to create Dirac files, I'd like to hear about it. It didn't work for me with the DV files from FOSDEM. I've tried with latest schroedinger in sid and hit [5 #468766]. And unfortunatly I know I won't have time to followup to it soon... I only started to blog to share the very first link of this post (which you should really read if you're interested in video and linux) and then got carried away :-)

Update: Thinking of it, the question should be: if you successfully played a Dirac file on Debian, I'd like to hear about it :-) Encoding wasn't the problem... I think I'll STF later for some Dirac files and try to play them.

It’s here! In contrary to the estimated delivery time of about ten weeks, my Brompton arrived at Velofix at Saturday the 16th of February after only three weeks. The orange color is much nicer than the apple green I initially favourited from what I saw in the catalouge and the axle dynamo also proved to be a good idea, so I’m really happy about my choice. I used the Brompton to go to work everyday the last two weeks, even when it’s snowing like today: Although I’m starting slowly and taking the bus (hey, it’s a folding bike! :-) for the steepest parts (either from Am B rtli to Waidbadstrasse or Gsteigstrasse)… I even managed to fold the bike although I saw the bus already coming around the corner when I still was in the saddle. That was the day I was at work in less then 10 minutes — Perfect timing. :-) Since the local H ngg bus (route 38) only makes it’s round every 30 minutes, with the bike I’m now much more flexible and don’t have to hurry in the morning to catch the bus. (OTOH I had to notice that “being more flexible” doesn’t mean “having more time”… :-) I also use it on the campus for visits in other buildings. Although there are mostly stairs between the different levels of the campus, it’s no problem with the Brompton since it’s easy to carry, even if not folded. It’s much more comfortable than daduke’s little kickboard scooter whose hard wheels don’t feel healthy for bones and especially knees on ETH H nggerberg’s paths made out of washed-out concrete. Air tyres and rear suspension are much better… :-) Regarding the choice of gears: The MountainDrive would surely be helpful in hilly Z rich, especially since my fitness isn’t the best one at the moment, but 6 ears are ok, too, and will be even more ok as soon as my fitness gets better. The slower transmission wasn’t a bad choice either, although a wider transmission range would have been better.