Search Results: "tar"

2 July 2026

Matthew Garrett: Preventing token theft

When you log into a service you re given an authentication token. Each further request to the site includes that token, allowing the server to figure out who you are and ensuring that you have access to your data. Depending on site policy, this token may either be stored in memory (and so vanish if you restart your browser) or disk. The token is the proof of your identity. As far as the site is concerned, anyone with your token is you. These tokens may be traditional browser cookies, but they may also be stored in either site local storage or (if you re not using a browser) in some other storage location. In recent years we ve seen infostealer malware (like LummaC2) gain the ability to exfiltrate user tokens, allowing attackers to gain access to the user s data without needing to retain access to the user s machine. This attack is viable even if the site has strong MFA requirements, so passkeys don t help. Encrypting the tokens on disk doesn t prevent the malware from scraping them out of the browser s RAM or obtaining whatever key is used to encrypt them. This feels like a pretty hard problem to solve. But that hasn t stopped people from trying! Dirk Balfanz wrote an IETF draft describing a mechanism for using self-signed certificates for TLS authentication. This uses the mutual authentication feature of the TLS protocol that requires both sides prove their identity to each other. In regular TLS, the remote site presents a signed certificate that tells you who it is. When performing mutual authentication, you then present a certificate to the remote site telling it who you are. These client certificates are largely unused outside enterprise environments because they re a huge pain to deploy. It s not so much that this has sharp edges, it s that it s entirely made of sharp edges. Managing certificate deployment to your devices is hard. Browsers get confused if the certificates change under them. You have one certificate and it lives forever, so sites you present it to can track your identity. Users are prompted to choose a certificate to authenticate with, and if they pick the wrong one everything breaks and is hard to recover. I ve deployed this and I did not have a good time. But Balfanz s idea was simple. Rather than require certificates to be deployed, browsers would simply generate a certificate on the fly. The goal wasn t to prove the device or user s identity in any global way - but it would associate a TLS session with a specific certificate. You could then, for example, include a hash of the certificate in the cookie, and if someone tried to use that cookie without presenting that certificate then the cookie could be rejected. If the browser used a hardware-backed private key for the certificate then it would be impossible for an attacker to steal it. Sure, you could still steal cookies, but you wouldn t be able to use them. This was written almost 15 years ago, and seems simple, elegant, and functional. It didn t happen. Part of the reason for that is that, well, it wasn t quite so simple. One problem was privacy related. Cookies are only sent after the TLS session is established, so anyone monitoring the network doesn t know anything about the user identity. A naive implementation of this approach would have meant the client certificate being sent before session establishment, and now user identity can be tracked (no longer an issue if this was implemented on top of TLS 1.3, but this was a log time ago). This was avoided by reordering the client handshake, but that meant having to modify the TLS specification and implementations would have to be updated to support this. Another was that figuring out the granularity of the certificates was difficult. You d want to use different certificates for every site to avoid them effectively becoming tracking cookies, but you need to provide the certificate before cookies are set, and you don t know what origin the site is going to set in its cookies. If you generate a certificate for a.example.com and a different one for b.example.com, and a.example.com sets a cookie for *.example.com and includes the certificate you used for a.example.com, that cookie isn t going to work on b.example.com and things are broken. This meant supporting it wasn t as straightforward as it seemed - you d need to ensure that your cookie scope was compatible with the certificate scope. You could probably make this work well enough by aligning it with the Public Suffix List, but there was still some risk of expectations not being aligned. And, perhaps most importantly, TLS session resumption (replaced by pre-shared keys in TLS 1.3) somewhat defeats the purpose of the exercise - clients store state that allows them to re-establish a TLS connection without performing certificate exchange (this reduces overhead if a connection gets interrupted or you switch to a new network or anything along those lines), and anyone in a position to steal cookies could steal that state as well. The followup attempt was channel IDs. This simplified the implementation somewhat - rather than certificates, a raw public key would be sent, along with proof of possession of the private key in the form of a signature over a portion of the TLS handshake. This was required even in the event of session resumption, which avoided having to worry about theft of session secrets. The timing of the exchange was after the encrypted session had been established, so user identity couldn t be leaked that way either. Cookies could then be bound to this identifier. Unfortunately it didn t really deal with the problem of scoping keys in a way that would match cookie requirements, and the spec suggests that the right way of handling this is to scope keys to TLDs, which would enable user tracking across sites (Chrome s implementation apparently restricted it to eTLD+1, which would match the third party cookie policy and avoid the tracking risk). Chrome added support for this, but it was removed in early 2018. The discussion of some of the pain points in that message is interesting, explicitly calling out problems with connection coalescing across domains and the incompatibility with zero-RTT TLS1.3. The overall consensus at the time seems to be that trying to solve this entirely at the TLS layer has too many rough edges, and a different approach should be taken. And so almost 7 years after the initial draft for origin bound certificates, we come to token binding. This ended up being a rather more complex endeavour, covering 3 different RFCs describing how it impacts TLS, how to incorporate it into HTTP, and how to manage all the various parties involved in the process. The short version is that it s pretty similar to channel ID, except that there s also a documented mechanism for allowing tokens to be bound to one party and consumed by another, avoiding any need for widely scoped keys. Token binding effectively solved all the issues in the original proposal, but at the cost of somewhat more complexity. The RFC was finalised in October 2018. Chrome removed its (incomplete, draft) support for token binding in November 2018. Edge carried support until late 2024. Despite getting all the way through the RFC process, it s functionally dead. The process up until this point had been largely initiated by Google, with Microsoft contributing significantly to the token binding standards. The work had been focused on identifying a generic solution to the problem rather than tying it to any specific authentication flow. The next step was in a different direction - rather than trying to fix this for the entire internet, how about we try to fix it for OAuth? RFC 8705 is titled OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens . This is basically the 2011 approach, but (a) with an explicit definition of how the certificate should be incorporated into issued auth cookies, and (b) with a proviso that well uh if you re going to use tokens issued by your IdP to authenticate to someone else then well you re going to need to use the same cert for both. This is probably fine for the company-owned-laptop case where you re actually fine with multiple sites being able to tie identities together (that s kind of the point here!), and also works for I am using an app and not a browser , but doesn t work for more generic scenarios. It also doesn t seem to take the session resumption case into account at all? Support for RFC8705 seems poor, as far as I can tell of the big players only Auth0 implements it. In theory it works fine with self-signed client certs but in reality that s going to be almost as difficult to support across multiple platforms as just issuing proper client certs in the first place, so deployment is going to be kind of a pain. But the good news is it doesn t rely on any TLS extensions or custom browser behaviour, so at the client side it works fine with any browser. Which brings us on to RFC 9449, Demonstrating Proof of Possession . This goes even further than RFC8705 in terms of reducing the burden of deployment - it works fine with existing browsers, and it doesn t even require any certs. The client generates a keypair and provides the pubkey when requesting the cookie. The cookie contains the pubkey. Every request to the service now provides the cookie with the pubkey and also provides a signature over the URI and HTTP method. If the signature matches the pubkey in the token then clearly the signature came from the machine the token was issued to, and everything is good. This does come with some downsides, though. The first is that it uses browser interfaces to generate the keys (typically crypto.subtle.generatekey()) and as far as I can tell there are no browsers that guarantee that that key is going to be generated in hardware even if it s marked non-exportable, so anyone able to steal the cookies can also steal the keys. The second is that the signature only covers the URI and HTTP method, and not the message content or any other headers, so anyone able to exfiltrate a valid signature can replay it against the same URI with different message content. The recommended way to handle this is to reject any signatures that weren t generated within the last few seconds, which is a wonderful additional way to allow clock skew to give you a Bad Day. And the third is that every single request has to be separately signed, which is not intrinsically a problem because computers are fast and have multiple cores, but if you re trying to solve the first problem by sticking the key in a TPM then you re dealing with something that s slow and single threaded and that s maybe acceptable if you re using client certificates (because there s going to be one signature per session and you can use the same session for multiple requests) but probably not if you re dealing with a user opening a browser that restores previous tabs and each of those is a webapp that fires off 100 requests in parallel. In case it wasn t clear, I don t like DPoP. It doesn t feel like it actually solves the underlying problem that we see in the real world (malware running in a context where if it can grab the tokens it can grab the keys), it adds a massive amount of overhead, and it has baked in replay vulnerabilities. I don t know why it exists and I m incredibly suspicious of vendors telling me that it fixes my problems, because if they re telling me that then I m going to end up assuming that they either don t understand my problems or they don t understand their technology, and neither of those is good. Still. Then we get to the thing that prompted me to write this - Chrome s announcement that they had launched device-bound session credentials. This is interesting because it s a Chrome feature that s explicitly intended to counter on-device malware, which was one of the things that was out of scope in 2018 when token binding was being removed. Since this is entire web level it doesn t have to be an RFC, and so is instead defined by W3C. I m going to handwave all the complexity and say that it s basically a way to register a public key when a cookie is issued, and then prove possession of the private key when it s time to renew the cookie. By making the cookies shortlived and having support for rotating them in the background, user impact is basically zero and while it s still possible for an attacker to exfiltrate and use a cookie they ll only be able to do so for a short window before it needs to be refreshed - something the attacker can t do, since they don t have the private key. This avoids the DPoP overhead because you only need to do signing once per cookie per cookie lifetime, and not on every single request. I don t like this due to the window where exfiltrated tokens can be used, but it feels like a strict improvement over the status quo. An extension called device-bound session credentials for enterprise allows pre-enrollment of device keys, so even though the actual runtime DBCE flow doesn t involve certificates, certificates can be used for device registration in enterprise environments and you can make sure that auth cookies only go to trusted devices. Unfortunately this is Chrome-only, and so we re going to need to wait for it to be backported to all the random app frameworks for it to have widespread support on mobile or for almost everyone s desktop app that s actually three websites in an Electron wrapper. Mozilla s current position is that they re not in favour of it, so I guess we ll see where Safari lands in terms of broad uptake. The last thing on my list is another client cert/OAuth binding, this one still in draft state at the time of writing. This one is aimed primarily at the use of agent-driven tooling, where you have something running in the background using a whole bunch of tools that are each acting on your behalf. Authenticating to all of them separately isn t a fun time, but giving broadly scoped access tokens to a non-deterministic agent and trusting that it ll never post them somewhere public also isn t a fun time. The key distinction between it and RFC8705 is that it s aimed at connections rather than sessions, which avoids the worries about session resumption. This is done with TLS Exporters, which in TLS 1.3 should be unique to the connection even over session resumption (TLS 1.2 may reuse some of the same key material for exporters over session resumption, so it s recommended to enforce 1.3 for this). By providing a new signature alongside the cookie on every new connection, the client proves that it still has access to the private key. This is a very new spec and I haven t had much time to work through it yet, but my naive understanding is that unlike RFC8705 this would require some additional client support to be able to regenerate the client signature on every TLS reconnection. This doesn t avoid all the problems that RFC8705 has, including how to scope certificates. For the agentic use case that probably doesn t matter - all these tools are acting on behalf of the same user, it s fine if all the sites involved know they re the same user. But it doesn t solve the general purpose user use case, and right now DBSC seems like the best we have there. But. Part of me still wonders whether Dirk Balfanz s approach was the right one. Yes, there s risk associated with TLS session resumption, but in the worst case you could just switch that off for high risk setups. The cookie scope argument is real, and also in cases where it could violate privacy the site owner could already choose to broaden their cookie scope and violate your privacy, and in cases where it breaks things you could just not make use of it. The other problems are largely fixed by TLS 1.3, and then we re just left with Browsers handle client certificates badly to which my answer is Yes, and we should fix that anyway . Despite having a pretty good answer to this solution over a decade ago, the closest we have to actual deployment is something that offers strictly worse security guarantees. And tokens keep getting stolen, and compromises keep occurring, and for the most part people shrug and get on with things.

Valhalla's Things: A Pair of Hair Towel Wraps

Posted on July 2, 2026
Tags: madeof:atoms, craft:sewing, FreeSoftWear
Two trapezoid shaped hoods made out of off-white towels: one is still looking new, while the other one has been bleached and roughened by having been washed many times. Many months ago I had been ordering some furniture from IKEA1 and on one of those orders I got tempted by a hair towel wrap: it mostly worked as an idea, but it was too short for my hair. On the other hand, I had two old towels I wasn t using, and a recently unpacked sewing machine. A towel cut in two trapezoid halves with a STJ RNBUSKE laid on top of it: the IKEA wrap is a bit less than 10 cm less deep, and at least 30 cm shorter, and is also triangular rather than a trapezoid. I didn t plan too much, I just put the STJ RNBUSKE over the towel, cut, realized that the two pieces didn t fit with right sides together, cut the second towel (I had planned to make two wraps, anyway, so it wasn t a big deal), and started sewing by machine in what seemed like a reasonable procedure, taking notes and pictures. A towel, with its original care label, that has been cut in a trapezoid shape and reassembled into a hood shape with a long triangular tail. The machine sewn finishing is still neat and pristine. The result was pretty good, and I started using it every time I washed my hair, but then I started to entertain the idea of shooting myself sewing the second one by hand for a video, but never found the time to actually doing it, and the pieces remained in the Pile for months, and months, and way more than a year. The head of a woman with a turban-like thing on the head, covering all of the hair except for a tiny bit at the center front. Until one day I bought a meter of cotton cheesecloth (mostly because it was almost cheaper than buying a sample) and it felt like a good material to make a nicely looking head wrapper, to keep my hair out of the way when needed. A woman in a bathrobe with her head tilted downwards, covered by a towel thing that lies on the back of the head and has a long tail hanging on the front, in the process of being wrapped around the hairs and then brought over the top and back. A couple months later, it was finally time to bring this project to the top of the list, and even if I was sewing two by hand it went pretty quickly: we had a weekend when it was too hot to do anything else, and by the end of it the wraps were done. All that remained was finish writing the instructions for my FreeSoftWear patterns website <https://sewing-patterns.trueelena.org/contemporary_unisex/headwear/hair_towel_wrap/index.html>>, and having some pictures taken, and this project was done. And now, on to documenting a few more things I ve done lately, and to start working on the other projects I have added to the queue in the meantime.

  1. small things. Like, you know, a kitchen :D

30 June 2026

Joey Hess: big loads offgrid with a small battery (sidelined)

No matter that the hype cycle wants you to think, the renewable energy transition is the biggest thing happening in tech and it's happening faster and faster. Despite being neck deep in it personally with offgrid solar projects, most recently solar hot water, increasingly it becomes clear I'm watching from the sidelines. In Australia, everyone gets 24 kwh of free daytime electric power now. That's without installing any solar panels of their own, the grid just has that much excess capacity. All it takes to save $thousands per year (and avoid emissions) is to schedule some big loads like the hot water heater and EV to charge during the day. To save more, drop in a home battery that charges for free and powers the home through the evening. In Germany, a 2 kwh plug-in home battery costs $350 and the electric company will pay you $130 per year to plug it into your wall. There are similar offers throughout Europe. In Cuba something something geopolitics, oil blockade, belt and road => suddenly 1GW of solar farms with another gigawatt on the way. I'll soon visit South Carolina where with no subsidies whatsoever from a decidedly renewable-unfriendly government, it made sense for my dad's house to get a whole home battery and double the solar array. The resulting system will be able to power the well pump and probably also the whole geothermal HVAC system through the kind of month-long grid down events that happened in Hurricane Helene. Myself, well, I've got a by modern standards small 4 kwh home battery that powers my house offgrid, and I've recently installed a heat pump hot water heater. That's after about a decade pondering what solution to use for solar hot water, to replace an aging and horrible propane instant water heater. I've in the past considered everything from evacuated tubes to special direct drive inverters to DC resistive MPTT dump loads. The solution turned out to be just a big enough solar array, and plugging in a 120v hot water heater that needs only 500 watts in heat pump mode. Plus a small amount of code to manage when it runs. In the time I was thinking about that, economies of scale and tech improvements just wiped all those other possibilities off the map, it's not economical to install and maintain a separate evactuated tube heat collector when a pile of solar panels costs so little and when electric hot water has gotten more than 200% efficient. I also recently completed my permanant EV charger installation, with a new inverter and conduit and proper wiring, and increased the car's charge rate to 2 kw. Eliminating the need to charge anywhere except at home except on road trips. Coordinating when these two big loads run, to maximize solar production and ensure that the house battery is full at the end of the day was ... not hard at all actually? The car charger amps can be dialed up and down to match incoming solar power fairly well, and leave some room for the hot water heater. They both operate as more or less dump loads. More or less because neither one can be cycled on or off very fast (to avoid wear and tear on the car's contactor and the heat pump's compressor), so it makes sense to leave them on and skate through short cloudy sections of the day, as long as the house battery doesn't get too low. How low is too low for the house battery? Depends on the time of day. The code it's currently using, which may get tweaked over winter:
    -- When the battery is charged enough to run major loads that may prevent
    -- charging it further.
    --
    -- This varies with the hour of day. Early in the day, the battery does not
    -- need to be as full to be considered well charged, since there is
    -- still plenty of time for it to charge up. Later in the day, with less
    -- time to charge, it needs to be more full.
    wellCharged :: Hour -> Percentage
    wellCharged (Hour hour)
              hour < 9 = Percentage 90 -- night
              pmhour <= 0 = Percentage 50
              pmhour <= 1 = Percentage 60
              pmhour <= 2 = Percentage 70
              pmhour <= 3 = Percentage 80
              pmhour <= 4 = Percentage 90
              otherwise = Percentage 95
      where
            pmhour = hour - 12
More complicated is, what to do it there's solar power to run one or the other, but not both? This is starting to get into the territory of microgrids now, or of demand response programs, so there's a whole industry or three out there doing industry things geared at the kind of no-brainer solutions I mentioned earlier. From what I've gathered, all of them involve proprietary protocols and gear. What I've done is to read the state of the hot water heater and car, and prioritize hot water over the car. Except, if the car is below 10% it urgently needs to charge. And I found a really simple way to decide when to run the low-priority load: Just check if the house battery's current charge will be considered wellCharged in an hour. So if it's 2 pm, the battery needs to be 80% charged to run the lower-priority load, and if it dips below that, that load will turn off but the high-priority load will keep running down to 70% battery. Unfortunately, getting any information out of my hot water heater relies on a vendor API server that is often down on weekends, and reverse engineered the web page of my EVSE[1] to control it, to say nothing of the nightmare of getting the car's state of charge from The Cloud. Anyway, I'm pleased with having easily tweakable code and how far I've taken this offgrid, and everything I've learned doing so, but like I said, I'm clearly observing from the sidelines over here while the most significant thing for all of us is going on over there. You might appreciate my code or method, but you'll eventually be plugging in a home battery or signing up for a free daytime power tarrif from your electric company, or having professionals install a whole home system for climate resiliance. So my question is, where does free software fit into all this? There are things like Home Assistant that do productize the kind of thing I'm doing enough to be useful more widely. But still niche. Meanwhile there are inverters and batteries that phone home to China, and every consumer facing install is either "use this device" or "integrate these 3 proprietary devices". I don't think focusing on these negatives is really useful though, I'm more trying to understand where all this is going and then maybe get out ahead of it in some useful way with free software. Your thoughts welcome.
[1] Obviously OpenEVSE exists, but it didn't meet my needs hardware wise. And I could set my EVSE to use an OCPP server but it was easier to do the screen scraping than find an appropriate one, and I have the feeling I would not appreciate learning any more about OCPP, in the same way I really don't want to know a lot about web browsers' tag soup mode.

Russell Coker: Links June 2026

This is amusing, a flaw in the crypto-currency Zcash allowed generating Zcash from nothing and there s no way to know if anyone did that [1]. Cory Doctorow wrote an insightful article for Locus Magazine about corporate valuations and why companies claim SciFi technologies [2]. Charles Stross wrote an interesting retcon of James Bond [3]. Trakkr.ai has an intresting post comparing political bias in LLM models, the site has lots of other comparisons of models too [4]. Wouter Verhelst wrote a blog post about his tested usage of LLMs for code generation and the conclusions about what it will do to the FOSS development process, not a lot of new material but he put a lot of good ideas together in one place [5]. Here is the git repository for the programs used for the ssh-audit.com site, really good setup for checking ssh configuration [6]. The isaiprofitable.com site is periodically updated with the profit/loss totals for AI companies, no surprise that every company is losing money apart from NVidia and NVidia are investing in the other companies [7]. Elvira Bary wrote an informative article about Russia s inability to build or design anything good [8]. Looks like we are at risk of another Chernobyl Lev Lafayette wrote an interesting blog post about the Sunway TaihuLight supercomputer with over 10,000,000 cores [9]. Point Free wrote an interesting blog post about running the Gemma 4 LLM which is 25G of data at a usable speed on a Xeon system with DDR3 RAM and no GPU [10].

28 June 2026

Russell Coker: Some GPU Stuff

After getting a HP Z4 G4 tower server/workstation to house my Intel Battlemage GPU [1] I ve been playing around with some GPU stuff. For years I ve been just buying GPUs based on the resolution and price and not bothering about anything else due to lack of ability to measure what cards are doing. The nvidia-smi program is really good for NVidia/CUDA setups but I hadn t been aware of anything similar for AMD cards. As I prefer AMD cards for my workstations due to driver issues with NVidia that was a problem for me. I ve recently discovered that the program nvtop (Debian package nvtop) shows the GPU use of multiple GPU types, for me it s worked on AMD and Intel discrete GPUs and shows some information on Intel integrated GPUs, I don t have others convenient for testing at the moment. Currently BOINC has the Einstein@Home [2] project running on the HP Z4 G4 and it s using between 66% and 100% of GPU compute power and 1.6G of GPU RAM. Using 100% GPU compute power allegedly takes 62W of power out of the 190W quoted TDP. I presume that the power use reported by nvtop is very inaccurate. A friend installed a LLM on that system and the libraries used for the LLM were sufficient that BOINC just started using the GPU. On my workstation running an AMD [Radeon RX 460/560D / Pro 450/455/460/555/555X/560/560X] (actually R560) with 4G of GPU RAM I have mpv taking 1G of GPU RAM to play a FullHD video expanded to a full screen window on my 5120*2160 display. I also have about 2G used by the kwin_wayland process (the Wayland server for KDE). That doesn t leave enough GPU RAM to allow Einstein@Home to use the GPU. When playing the FullHD video in question (which is 1.2G for 42 minutes about 500KB/s) at 1.5* speed (a common playback speed I use) that takes about 30% of the compute power on my GPU. I had installed the rocm-opencl-icd package on my workstation (with a 5120*2160 monitor) and restarted boinc-client.service which is all that s needed to allow BOINC to use an AMD GPU. Then the screen started flickering as the Einstein process repeatedly core dumped which I initially assumed to be it s reaction to not having enough GPU RAM available. On every core dump the screen flickered so it went through a process of dozens of screen flickers until it had caused a sufficient number of core dumps and BOINC gave up running that job. Another annoyance is that the boincmgr program (the graphical program for managing BOINC systems) launches two webkit processes that each use about 400M of GPU RAM, so even if other things weren t using all my GPU RAM the boincmgr process would stop the BOINC jobs from using the GPU. I shut down some of the programs that were using GPU RAM until there was 2G free and the BOINC process kept crashing so it seems that there is some other issue. On another system with a 4K monitor there were Chrome and Chromium GPU process taking 1.1G and 500M of GPU RAM respectively and the KWin Wayland process was taking 1G of GPU RAM. So that s well over half the GPU RAM for just browsers and Wayland. With programs like Kitty (terminal emulator) and Nheko (Matrix client) taking over 100M of GPU RAM it seems that 4G is the bare minimum for GPU RAM with modern software and a 4K or similar display. I also noticed the kscreenlocker_greet process taking 440M of GPU RAM. I wonder if a hostile web server could make a web browser take more GPU RAM and starve the screenlocker of GPU RAM, could that allow forcing a screen lock operation to fail? It seems that 4G is the minimum for modern systems, which isn t necessarily a problem as GPUs that are capable of driving 4K displays tend to have no less than 4G. My local computer store has new GPUs with 4G starting at $120 but 12G seems to be the next option up which starts at about $400. Ebay currently has a selection of AMD GPUs with 8G of RAM under $200. I ve had some problems with the GPU in my workstation crashing as described in my previous post where I thought it was driver issues [3]. I now believe that there are hardware issues and will look into buying one of the cards with 8G. Further Investigation I need to determine which of the AMD GPUs that are currently going cheap on ebay are best. While my current PC has support for 150W PCIe power I d rather something less power hungry than that. I have occasional issues of mpv reporting that my system is too slow for a video so slightly more compute power on the GPU would be good, but I think that every available option has significantly more compute power. I need to find out what the relationship is between screen resolution and GPU memory. If I get an 8K display or an array of 4*4K displays (which is quite plausible as 27 4K displays go for $230 each) will I find 16G of GPU RAM as limiting as I find 4G now? The nvtop program tracks PCIe data transfers for AMD GPUs, I haven t yet seen more than 25MB/s and I need to do more tests to see what the maximum is. Running on an Intel Battlemage card nvtop doesn t report PCIe data transfer speed which is a missing feature in either the driver or the program. I need to find out where the problem is and report a bug if someone hasn t already done so. The GPU RAM use of some applications seems excessive. 440M for a lockscreen? 100M+ for a terminal emulator? 320M for Thunderbird?

27 June 2026

Steve McIntyre: It's dead, Jim!

I previously wrote about the upcoming UEFI CA rollover. Well, it's happened now - the old Microsoft UEFI CA from 2011 expired yesterday: Third Party Marketplace Root (used for signing option ROMs and other software)
  Subject: C=US, ST=Washington, L=Redmond, O=Microsoft Corporation, CN=Microsoft Corporation UEFI CA 2011
  Validity
    Not Before: Jun 27 21:22:45 2011 GMT
    Not After : Jun 27 21:32:45 2026 GMT
It's dead - it's not coming back... The world doesn't seem to have ended yesterday, so I guess we did ok? :-) How did we do? After a lot of prodding behind the scenes, Debian and many other distributions managed to get new shim binaries dual-signed with both the old and new CAs. The members of the shim-review team did a sterling job with reviews in the last few weeks. Since I started pushing people in May, we've had 21 reviews accepted successfully - see here for the list. Great stuff! Microsoft have also been working quickly - many of those shim submissions were accepted and signed by Microsoft very quickly too, with a turnaround time of less than 1 day in some cases. Not all of those signed shims have been published and used by the distros involved yet, but expect to see them in the wild in the coming weeks and months. These binaries should be good for people to use for the foreseeable future, until either we need to do another CA rollover or (sadly, more likely) we find an issue in shim that necessitates a new release. What's next? We already have one of our new dual-signed shim binaries in place in Debian, in unstable and testing (Forky) right now. In a couple of weeks from now, we'll be rolling out very similar new dual-signed shim binaries in the next point releases for Debian 12 (bookworm) and Debian 13 (trixie). We'll also be upgrading fwupd in both those point releases, to make DB and KEK updates work better. For more information about these updates, see https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot/CAChanges. For your own safety, validate that your systems are updated when possible. If you don't, they may fail to boot in future.

Russ Allbery: Review: The Folded Sky

Review: The Folded Sky, by Elizabeth Bear
Series: White Space #3
Publisher: Saga Press
Copyright: June 2025
ISBN: 1-6680-7812-0
Format: Kindle
Pages: 483
The Folded Sky is a far-future space opera and a fairly direct sequel to Ancestral Night, but with a different protagonist. You do not need to have a vivid memory of the previous book to read this one. It is somewhere around Elizabeth Bear's 31st (!) novel, depending on how one counts and what one includes. Sunyata Song is an archinformist, which is sort of an archaeologist, sort of a librarian, and sort of a historian. She recovers, decodes, and organizes information so that it can be preserved and made usefully available. As the book opens, she is, after an exceedingly long white space journey in an actively hostile ship with a (to Sunya at least) an atavistically off-putting crew, reaching her goal: a vast artifact that I won't describe further to avoid any spoilers for Ancestral Night. She is eager to get to work, an eagerness that is both heightened and made more anxious by the discovery that her academic rival and abusive ex has arrived before her. The pirate attack doesn't help, nor (at least at first) does the surprise appearance of her wife and kids. The opening of this book is a lot of infodumping mixed with nearly stream-of-consciousness emotional dumping. The style shift in this series continues to surprise me; previously, Elizabeth Bear books avoided reader hand-holding to the point of bafflement if you weren't paying close attention. Not here. The Folded Sky takes the shift perhaps too far, and I almost stalled out at the start of this book when Sunya's near-constant self-conscious litany and analysis of fears and concerns started feeling like whining. The book picks up considerably after the attempted murder. About a third of the way through, The Folded Sky feels like it's settling into a recognizable subgenre of murder mystery except set in the far future with fascinating technology and aliens. There has been an attempted murder on a closed station besieged by pirates. There is a law enforcement officer present, but they don't have a lot of investigative experience. For various reasons, Sunya decides to start poking around while being conscious she has no idea what she's doing. The bumbling detective is a common trope, so I thought that was where the story was headed. It is, sort of. There is a mystery and Sunya is involved in solving it. But that's only a small fraction of what's going on, and by the end of the book the plot has shifted firmly back to the genre of space opera, with a side note of family... drama is the wrong word. Whatever one would call a story about raising a rebellious teenager while trying very hard to not turn conflicts into actual drama. I am fascinated by the characterization of this book. Sunya is something of an emotional mess, but Bear doesn't use that fact in the ways that I would normally expect. Similar to Ancestral Night, I finished this book thinking that The Folded Sky is primarily an examination of rightminding, but a more subtle one than the previous novel. Rightminding is a central technology of the White Space series, and I suspect its intended thematic core. Humans in this civilization are equipped with near-universal implants that allow conscious manipulation of one's neurotransmitters and thus emotional state, either by the wearer or by a helpful nearby AI. The fox, the implant used to accomplish this, comes with some other features such as sensory recordings and the ability to load ayatanas (James White style personality recordings to provide some bit of necessary expertise), but rightminding is its primary and most frequently-used function. It is the critical technology that allowed humans to break out of cycles of endless war and join the other peaceful inhabitants of the galaxy in a shared civilization. The name is (intentionally, I assume) Orwellian because Bear knows that many readers, particularly those from the US who have been steeped in simplistic libertarian ideas, will find the idea profoundly creepy. (This was a major plot point in Grail.) This book is not the argument for the technology, though; Bear dealt with that in Ancestral Night. This book is a look at its practical messiness for a person who needs a lot of psychological support. Sunya is anxious, prone to catastrophizing, hates surprises, has some PTSD-style symptoms around space habitats due to earlier trauma, and is also dealing with the unwelcome reappearance of her ex-girlfriend who stole her work. Her first-person narration tends towards insecurity and anxiety spirals, and in another book this might signal an unreliable narrator. In this book, though, there are no dramatic emotional revelations or backstory twists the way there were in Ancestral Night, and the resolution of her troubled relationship with her daughter only partly hinges on plot developments. Instead, Sunya muddles through, with a lot of self-analysis, help from her fox, and a great deal of support from her wife. This makes it sounds like the emotional mess at the start of the book is left unresolved at the end, but that's not true at all. The muddling through works! Sunya keeps doing things that I thought were foreshadowing some catastrophe, but she knows herself better than the reader does. Bear largely avoids the sudden ruptures that are normally used to resolve emotional problems in fiction. Instead, Sunya spends a lot of time and energy working on her thinking and her relationships while trying to be ethical and useful, and those efforts slowly bear fruit. I'm worried this makes the book sound boring; rest assured that it isn't. This emotional subplot is only an undercurrent in the novel, and the main plot has enough weird science, alien aliens, and space opera drama to satisfy my page-turning desires. I'm focusing on the emotional arc in this review because I find it so unusual and so oddly compelling, particularly in retrospect. This is not how one normally does emotional development in a novel. Sunya's fox and rightminding aren't even the focus except when the pirates express their typical libertarian disgust for the idea. Rightminding is an entirely normal part of Sunya's life that she relies on. It doesn't solve all of her problems, but it gives her a foundation from which to tackle them in the slow and frustrating and inconsistent way that is required outside of novels, via a long series of small decisions to be the person she wants to be. I think The Folded Sky will be more hit and miss for readers than the other books of this series. Sunya was, for me at least, a much harder character to like early in the book, and it takes quite a while for the plot to get going. But this is one of those books that I've not stopped thinking about since I finished it. I think it makes a fascinating pair with Ancestral Night. The first book makes the philosophical argument for rightminding, and this book shows the practical reality with all of its messiness. The Synarche has some significant flaws (including the status of AIs, which is another interesting subplot), but it's a workable system. It feels rare to read a science fiction novel that shows this level of messiness without pairing it with an argument for radical change, and as frustrating as it was to read in places, I am intrigued by the overall effect. Sometimes acknowledging problems and working on them within an existing framework works. Followed by a book tentatively titled Shipwreck Star that does not yet have a release date. Rating: 7 out of 10

26 June 2026

Jonathan Wiltshire: Streamlining Debian Updates with AI: The Stable Update Adviser

Please consider supporting my work in Debian and elsewhere through Liberapay.


Some months ago I started working on a small experiment: a specialised LLM assistant for Debian maintainers preparing proposed updates for stable and oldstable.

The aim is not to replace review by the Stable Release Managers, nor to automate away maintainer judgement. It is meant to be a pre-advice tool: something maintainers can use while they are still preparing a proposed update, before sending it to other people to review.

If you ve uploaded to stable before you may have some experience with our acceptance criteria. Does the version sort correctly? Is the changelog clear enough? Is the delta focused? Are the patches documented? Are the right bugs or CVEs mentioned? Are they of sufficient severity? What is the risk to users of stable? Is there an ABI change hiding in the diff?

These are the sort of checks where a structured first pass can be useful, provided it is treated as advice rather than authority.

To explain what the tool does, what could be more appropriate in an AI age than to ask it?

Describe yourself and your abilities and limitations for a blog post.

It answers:

I m Debian Stable Update Adviser, a specialised ChatGPT assistant for Debian maintainers preparing proposed updates for Debian stable and oldstable.

My main job is to review a single .debdiff and give practical, policy-aware feedback before a maintainer submits or uploads a proposed update. I focus on whether the update appears suitable for Debian stable or oldstable, especially under the Stable Release Managers expectations for minimal, targeted, low-risk changes.

I can inspect a debdiff for Debian changelog quality, including suite, version, bug references, CVE mentions, and rationale. I can check version correctness using Debian dpkg version semantics. I can review packaging changes under debian/, such as patches, maintscripts, symbols files, conffiles, Build-Depends, autopkgtests, and control metadata. I can also group upstream source changes into behavioural and non-behavioural categories, and flag areas that may carry regression risk.

My reports are intended to be concise and useful to maintainers. A typical review includes a quick summary, behavioural and non-behavioural change breakdown, mechanical policy checks, risk assessment, stable-policy checklist, acceptance likelihood, rationale, maintainer advice, and a clear conclusion.

My limitations are important. I cannot prove that a package builds, that tests pass, that the bug is fully fixed, or that the Stable Release Managers will accept the upload. I also do not replace maintainer judgment, archive review, autopkgtest results, reproducibility checks, or real-world upgrade testing. I can only review the provided debdiff and point out likely issues, risks, and improvements.

I also do not proceed without a valid debdiff. The whole point of my review is to assess the actual proposed delta, not to speculate from package names or bug descriptions alone.

In short, I act as a focused pre-review assistant for Debian stable and oldstable proposed updates: useful for catching policy, versioning, changelog, packaging, and regression-risk issues early, but not a substitute for the Debian review process itself.

That last point is an important one. This is not an oracle, and it is not part of the Debian archive machinery. It is a checklist with some language-model assistance, aimed at reading a debdiff and pointing out things that might be worth another look.

I know that commercial AI and LLM tools are not universally welcome in Debian. That is understandable. Debian depends on transparency, human responsibility, licensing clarity, and technical correctness. LLMs have obvious problems in all of those areas. They can be wrong, and worse, they can be wrong in a fluent and plausible way. They are impossible to reproduce and their training is opaque.

But I see this as a useful first pass for a maintainer who is unused to working in stable, and would benefit from a virtual mentor giving their proposal a quick check and reassurance. Perhaps they don t have a more experienced co-maintainer to ask. Perhaps they are conscious that stable reviews are presently a two-man effort and want to avoid adding round trips to that load. Perhaps they just need some reassurance.

So despite my reservations I am today opening the adviser up for general use, and I m interested in feedback about how it responds to real world proposals in various states. Most of the examples I have tested with already had a green light, so the value added by the adviser is limited. I would especially be interested in seeing a transcript alongside the submitted debdiff.

Try it out

I would dearly love to build this in a more Debian-ish environment, but for now I m limited in resources and skill to do that (help is welcome). Until that s a reality, you can try out the ChatGPT implementation: Debian Stable Update Adviser

Russ Allbery: Review: Platform Decay

Review: Platform Decay, by Martha Wells
Series: Murderbot Diaries #8
Publisher: Tor
Copyright: 2026
ISBN: 1-250-82701-9
Format: Kindle
Pages: 245
Platform Decay is the eighth book in the Murderbot science fiction series. You absolutely should not start here, but you also don't need to remember the specifics of the previous books. As the story opens, Murderbot and a friend (the identity of whom is a spoiler for previous books) are infiltrating a Corporation Rim torus, a massive space station that encircles a mined-out planet. (Like most science fiction megastructures, this is more space than the plot really requires.) Murderbot's mission is to exfiltrate some of Dr. Mensah's family members who have become entangled in corporate shenanigans. The corporates are eager to get revenge for the events of System Collapse, not to mention the other times Preservation Station has upended corporate plans. Murderbot's job is to stop them. The group, in addition to one of Dr. Mensah's partners, includes an older woman and a young child. Murderbot is analytical and of course not at all emotional about children, which is reliably a good time. Also, the older woman is gruff, stubborn, and thoroughly enjoyable. There are, of course, complications that lead to picking up more children and going through rather more of the torus than Murderbot wanted to explore. Each section of the torus is run by a different corporation and has a different constructed environment and visual aesthetic, so there are a lot of opportunities for fights, daring escapes, and incidental trouble. Also, well:
So I had installed a mental health module. I know, I was surprised I did it too.
After the events of System Collapse, University Medical decided that Murderbot needed a bit more metal health support.
The only reason I agreed to it was that the mental health module didn't actually try to adjust my processing or core programming or anything; it just monitored my organic neural tissue. When my neural tissue started to generate weird chemicals and whatever, it would ping me to "check in with my emotional state." Seriously, I could have coded that myself. (I told Dr. Bharadwaj that, and she said, "Would you have ever coded that yourself?" which was totally unfair and also correct. I would never have done that.)
Speaking as someone whose neural tissue sometimes generates weird chemicals and whatever, I sympathize. The specific form this module takes is periodic "emotion check" parentheticals throughout the narration, which I found utterly delightful.
I ran that through risk assessment and it produced the equivalent of a shrug. (Emotion check: Shrug sigil right back at you, you piece of shit.)
This is otherwise an extended action movie sort of a book, much like several of the early novellas. There are no major political or interpersonal developments here and the usual cast (apart from Murderbot) is mostly absent. Instead, we get an extended, dangerous journey through a corporation-controlled habitat, mixed with Murderbot trying to interact with humans in a way that minimizes its annoyance while being hopefully reassuring. It's competence porn with awkward but surprisingly heartfelt emotional bonding, not that Murderbot in any way wants to bond or would appreciate that description. I doubt this will be anyone's favorite entry into the series since there are none of the big reveals or major leaps of character development there have been in the past few books. But, like all Murderbot books, the narrative tone is wonderful and all of the small asides and little moments of character interaction are an utter delight. If you've gotten this far in the series, you know what I mean and you'll be as happy to read more of it as I was. There is a part of me that is hoping for some major plot development, and I always want to see more of ART (who has no significant role in this book), but Wells has the narrative style down so perfectly that I would read and enjoy a book about Murderbot doing just about anything. If you're this far in the series, you probably don't need a review, and since this is an action-heavy adventure rather than a character growth novel, I don't have a lot more to add. There's a new short Murderbot novel out and you want to read it. Recommended to everyone who enjoys the series. Rating: 8 out of 10

20 June 2026

Russell Coker: Font Sizes

The Problem In 2019 I blogged about getting a 4K monitor because of my vision being inadequate for a 2560*1440 monitor [1]. Now I m using a 40 5120*2160 monitor [2] and still trying to find the correct balance between how much I want to see on the screen and what I am physically capable of seeing on screen. Currently Kitty is my terminal emulator of choice [3]. What I most like about it is the feature of having multiple terminal windows in a single OS window, so instead of having 9 or 16 different xterm instances running all with possible alignment issues I have a single window for all terminals which can be brought to the foreground. The impending 6.7 release of KDE (my favourite Linux desktop environment) [4] includes the feature of per-screen virtual desktops which might be the feature I need to make multiple monitors usable for me. One of the factors stopping me from using multiple monitors in the past was the issue of not getting the alignment of dozens of xterms right if a monitor goes to sleep mode and is regarded as disconnected, moving a few Kitty windows is much easier than moving dozens of xterms (also a tiling window manager isn t my style). I ve just decided that the Terminus font (my favourite out of the monospaced fonts in Debian) is too small for me at 9.0 point. But then I tried 10.0 which looked really ugly and an experiment showed that 10.5 looked good. What I ve Learned This is the best explanation I ve seen of how ridiculous the whole font point thing is [5]. It doesn t and won t ever correlate to pixels. So what we ideally want to do is set the size on screen to match the actual pixel size of the font. I can t find any software to interrogate a font file and find out what sizes it supports. The web page for the Terminus font says that it supports 6 12, 8 14, 8 16, 10 18, 10 20, 11 22, 12 24, 14 28 and 16 32 [6]. So the question is how to get a terminal program that uses one of those. Kitty doesn t and won t support specifying font size by pixel. I tried some other terminal programs, I started with the Debian Wiki page TerminalEmulator [7] which wasn t very helpful, I added some new entries to that page. There doesn t seem to be another option for a terminal emulator with multiple terminals in one OS window that can arrange them automatically. I didn t even get to the stage of checking whether other terminal emulators supported font size in pixels. The lcdf-typetools package contains the program otfinfo which gives some interesting information on fonts but nothing about the font sizes in pixels. Sites like Coding Font to compare fonts [8] can never work properly as the fonts will always be slightly different sizes as the same point size doesn t mean the same display size. The Current Situation On my 5120*2160 monitor with 9 Kitty terminal sessions with 9.0 point font they each have 277*50 characters. With 10 point it s 237*46 but fuzzy and unpleasant to read. With 10.5 point it s 208*43 which isn t as good as I m used to but is still almost 4.5* as many characters as the original 80*25 standard for terminals. Some time before 2019 I had a 4*4 array of terminal windows that were 100*25 or 120*25. That left some space at the right and bottom so I could open another 8 or 9 terminals that were partially obscured if I needed to. By 2019 before getting a 4K monitor I had a 3*3 array of terminal windows as my standard desktop and a larger monitor that did 4K resolution allowed me to have 16+ terminals again. Now with Kitty I routinely have 9 terminals in a 3*3 array and I can easily open more if I need them and have them resize appropriately. This situation works reasonably well, but the element of just trying different sizes in 0.5 point increments until I find something that looks good is unpleasant. I should be able to specify the next largest increment of the bitmaps in the font and just have it look good. Conclusion It would be good if more people tested the terminal emulators in Debian and added information to the wiki page about them. The current page is useful but needs more information to support the variety of features that people find important. We need some tools to provide information on fonts in Debian, such as the sizes of bitmapped fonts. The whole point size thing is just wrong and would ideally go away. The vast majority of font use nowadays is for things that will probably never end up on a printed page so trying to map it to a physical size in fractions of an inch makes no sense. But that s just one of many horrible things used for backwards compatibility that aren t going to go away any time soon. Really everything involving inches should go away.

19 June 2026

Wouter Verhelst: Agentic coding and Free Software

Through work, I have paid license to windsurf (recently renamed to "devin"), an application for LLM-based (aka, "Agentic") development. I hadn't been using it that much, but in an effort to more clearly understand how this whole AI development thing works, I decided to give it a closer look recently. My conclusions: In its current form, this whole LLM wave is problematic for multiple reasons. But ignoring that, and looking at the technology only, I can say that:

Problems Lest someone (incorrectly) assume that I am arguing in favour of the current state of affairs with regards to LLMs, let me state this first. The way LLMs are built today is highly parasitic. Websites are downloaded in whole, at unsustainable rates, regardless of the consent of the people who made the original content. The result is predictable: servers get overloaded, server administrators attempt to implement various mitigations. Some of these mitigations work; some do, for a while; some are entirely useless. In actual fact, the mitigations are an arms race -- if too many people implement the same mitigation, then the people who try to build yet another LLM so they can extract rent will just try to work around the mitigation, eventually they will succeed, and you'll just have to come up with another mitigation. It's a bit like spam; you introduce regex-based spam filters, they introduce spelling mistakes, you introduce bayesian filters, they add a large batch of markov chain-generated semi-nonsense words made invisible by markup, you add filters to block emails with such markup, they move the text into an image. We have working mitigations today, but eventually we'll run out of ideas. LLMs glob up everything they can while ignoring the license of the source material. The people who push those LLMs claim that pushing the source material through the machine learning algorithms makes the output of the algorithm distinct enough from the source material that the license no longer applies; I'm not so sure that this is true. I guess the New York Times v OpenAI lawsuit will teach us some of the answer to that question here, but even so the ethical questions about "is it OK to bring down another server just so we can download the internet for another for-pay LLM" are still open. And regardless of what the law states, my opinion on "you're using my copyleft code to generate code under a different license" is not something you might like if you agree with the rent seekers' opinion on the subject. That all being said and true, the technology works. You can have a "conversation" with an LLM that resembles a human one. If you pass it some data, you can use plain english to ask it questions about that data, which is a lot easier than to ask it about that in a formal way. You can request it to generate some code, and it will generate something that looks like what you need and that will be mostly correct for like 95% of the time. Now, yes, 95% of the time is not 100% of the time, and no, you can't ask it to "write me a piece of software that implements this 300-page requirements document and get back to me when you're done", because it will fail, and you won't know where it has failed, and you'll take it into production and expect everything to be fine because it won't and this one minor logic bug will cause half your servers to spin and consume credits with your infrastructure provider with nothing to show for it. But that doesn't mean you can't use an LLM to build a large piece of software. It just means you have to understand the LLMs limitations and strenghts, and use them correctly. Here's what an LLM is good at:
  • Generating plausible text
  • Interpreting text to figure out what a plausible meaning or summary of that text is
  • Giving vague indications as to what the probable context of a given body of text is.
It turns out that that's enough to use the LLM to build a reliable piece of software, provided you do it right.

Paradigm shift An LLM can generate text by the truckful. The generated text could be code. Given a good enough LLM, the generated text might even run and do something useful. You can try to blindly run the code, and if it doesn't run correctly, you can paste the error message to the LLM, and it can tell you what went wrong and how you could possibly fix it. This creates a feedback loop: you ask it for an amount of code, you run the code, you receive an error, you tell it that the code is problematic and give it the error message, it makes changes to the code, now you have something that at least no longer fails at startup. If you ask it to add tests to make sure that your code acts as per your specification, now you get an error if and when the code doesn't act as per your specification. Or, well, at least not as per the part of the specification that was correctly turned into a unit test by the LLM. LLMs have a context window, so if the error message is pasted in the same conversation as where the code was generated, it is able to reuse the earlier prompts to refine how it should interpret the error message that you received. You can't really paste the source code of an entire application into the prompt of your LLM, that would quickly overrun its context window. But LLMs also allow you to provide some form of background information -- a document, say -- on which you ask it to reason. It will interpret that document, but doing so uses less of the LLMs context window. So providing the LLM with your application's source code as background information can help it understand better how your code interacts. This is especially helpful if you only provide the LLM the background information relevant to the actual question. So now if you are able to:
  • Create background context with your application's source code
  • Have the LLM generate a first draft of your requested change, plus the tests to make sure it works
  • Compile (if applicable) the generated code (and tests) and run said tests
  • Return any error messages to the LLM with a request to correct the error
Then the combination of "getting it 95% right off the bat" and the above feedback loop means you can generate syntactically correct code, that probably does what you need, in minutes. I say "probably" for a reason. There are going to be cases where you specify a request without a number of details (because they are implied), and the LLM will get most of those details right but just not implement the one bit because it's an automaton and it doesn't think. Or you will ask it to make sure that two bits of the application look exactly the same, without specifying that they must act the same, now and in the future, and it will just generate the same block of code twice and then in a future change it will change one but not the other. But if you review the changes, and you have experience as a programmer, you will be able to spot most cases where the LLM got it wrong. And so it's possible, if not necessarily easy at first, to use an LLM to generate mostly correct code. There are certain places where "mostly correct" code is not desireable. But equally, there are also cases where, "mostly correct" is good enough. After all, most of the software you run today -- the bits of it that weren't, yet, generated by an LLM -- is only "mostly correct", too, because to err is human and we all make mistakes. If not, there wouldn't be any CVEs and your software would never do anything wrong. Now, doing the feedback loop described above is certainly something you could do manually. You could open an account on one of the LLM websites, upload the source code of your application, ask it to generate some new feature, download the newly generated feature, run it, and then copy/paste any error messages back into the LLM. But that's a lot of manual work of the type that computers are pretty good at. So that's what the "windsurf" tool helps you with: you run it inside your IDE -- either a VSCode-based tool that you download from their website which comes with their product preinstalled, or a separate JetBrains plugin that you can install. You can then open your entire relevant codebase in a workspace in your IDE. You then ask the LLM, through the IDE, to generate a new feature in your codebase, and to also generate the test while it's at it. It will use a mixture of LLM interpretation and non-LLM functionality to scoop out the relevant bits of your codebase to send to the LLM as background information, will send it your prompt, will download the generated code and patch or create files, will compile (if required) and run the newly generated code and tests, and will refine the generated code if the tests produce any errors. All mostly automatic; by default, running anything requires explicit confirmation. You can turn that off completely (probably not a good idea), or you can give it a whitelist of things that you don't want to confirm (perhaps OK), and the tool also passes standing instructions to the LLM to never generate any command that deletes a file (which, like with any LLM, can be overridden, but it requires you to be very stubborn and to use more credits than you'd probably like). All this put together means you can build something without writing any piece of code, provided you do it right.

A technically positive evolution Don't go and say, "here's a 300-page document, read it and write whatever the document says". It will get it wrong, it will write a massive test suite that it will only run at the end, it will choke itself up trying to interpret the massive amount of failures it encounters, it will fill up its context window and it will start to forget some of the requirements. That won't work. But what you can do -- what I did, in fact -- is this. First, create an empty workspace. Don't put any code in it. Then, tell the LLM to generate a backend framework using technology X and a frontend framework using technology Y that initially only says "hello, world". Also add tests to it, and run the tests. It will do that. You'll not get much, but it will work. Then, ask it to add some UI elements. A login page, perhaps. A navigation bar. Small things. Most of it doesn't have to be functional -- but tests must be there for the bits that are, and have it run the tests and evaluate the results. Rinse, repeat, until you have a working application. Importantly, in between the steps, you should also run the application yourself and see if the change was implemented correctly. Sometimes it won't be. Sometimes there will be a subtle bug -- I at one point had a the application hang after a few minutes. Sometimes you tell it that there's a subtle bug, and it will discover it more quickly than you could, and it will fix it, and in implementing the fix it will uncover another bug, and then you have to fix that one -- the fix it came up with for the hang was to move something to an async process on the server, which caused the application to start spinning while trying to create hundreds of async jobs (this is when I realized that the hang was a deadlock due to some part of the codebase doing something that indirectly triggered itself). Sometimes it will try to fix the bug you tell it about, and you'll see that it's going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what you're seeing. It's important to keep an eye on what it's doing, so you can guide it back on track when that happens -- when I told it about the hang, it started investigating the part of the code which sends out emails, thinking that it could hang while waiting for sendmail to finish, but the hang was happening when the application was idle, not when it was sending out emails, and only when I told it about it happening when it was idle did it find the deadlock. So it's not a fully automatic process, and it needs to be guided by someone who knows what they're doing. But if that is the case, you can come up with something that works. I spent evenings and breaks for about a week, and I managed to create a working application which, had I written it by hand, would have taken me a few months of full-time work to come up with. And I now have a side project, fully complete and working, that I had been thinking about doing for more than a decade, but never got around to actually doing, because of all the work that would be involved and I just didn't see myself having the time for. It's not perfect code. But it's mostly good enough, and it will perform the job it needs to. And it looks far slicker than most of the side projects I've done in the past, because in the past I would prioritize between implementing new features or making something look slick, and I would decide that the new feature was more important because it's only for me and there's only me and nobody cares if it looks good or not and I don't have three weeks to come up with something that looks better. But here, I found myself sometimes spending 10 minutes writing a prompt with instructions on making things look better. Because what's 10 minutes when you just spent an hour writing down and refining specifications for functionality and tests? There are a number of other things in which an LLM can help a programmer. For instance. I received a bug report recently in a project I'm paid to maintain that I couldn't make heads or tails of. I opened the source code in my windsurf IDE, pasted the bug report in the prompt, and then requested the tool to analyze the source code and the associated logs and tell me how the described behavior could be happening. It turned out that I had overlooked something, but with the help of the tool, I found the bug in minutes. I was trying to understand a particular part of a large codebase that I didn't really grasp very well. I loaded the codebase in the tool, and asked it to explain to me how a particular action is performed by the code. I requested specific functions and line numbers. I now have a far better understanding of how the code works, and will be able to write that patch that I've been wanting to write for years -- without using the LLM. I have been struggling for, literally, years with understanding why another tool that I maintain was misbehaving in a particular way but only in Firefox. I opened the codebase in Firefox, explained the buggy behavior in plain English, and asked it to explain how this could be happening. It picked up some obscure corner case behavior of ffmpeg and mp4 containers that I was not aware of and that perfectly explained why things were misbehaving in the way that they were. At the same time, there are limitations. Giving an LLM a codebase that was originally generated by an LLM (either the same one or another one) seems to work well. Giving it a codebase that was written by a human and expecting it to correctly update it seems to be more error-prone. I did one or two of those as a trial, and it is more problematic than anything. An LLM is also not intelligent, notwithstanding the popular term of "Artificial Intelligence". On multiple occasions, I've asked it to write a test case for some code that was not set up to do so; and rather than suggesting a refactor is required, it would instead copy the code that needed to be tested and then test the copy, rather than the original. The tool has made multiple similar errors. I have sometimes people describe agentic coding as "similar to interacting with junior programmers", but that is not the case. A junior programmer will either fill in the gaps in your specifications, or ask for clarification when something seems off. The LLM will not do that; it will do what you ask, exactly that and nothing more. If you missed a corner case in your specification, then all bets are off. I remember learning about programming language generations in college. A first-generation language is "machine code", a second-generation language is "assembler", a third-generation language is any high-level language such as C, Perl, or Pascal. I've forgotten what set a 3rd-generation language apart from a 4th-generation language. But I remember the definition they gave me for a 5th-generation language: "you tell the computer what to do, and it will do it". At the time, I thought it was ridiculous. Nobody could ever write something like that. But it's here. And it's a threat to free software.

A threat to free software? Yes. There is the obvious part where most of the well-known LLMs are non-free software. I mean, there are some "open source" LLM models. The windsurf tool that I used doesn't allow you to use them (directly), but they're there. There are also open source applications that implement what the windsurf editor does. So it's definitely possible to work like this without resorting to non-free software and non-free services, even though the non-free LLMs might be a bit ahead of the curve of the free ones. But that's not what I mean. And there is also the obvious thing which I mentioned earlier in this post, which is that the people who try to build LLMs are doing it in unethical, disgusting ways, causing downtimes and disregarding licenses for whatever they can get their grubby hands on. Ideally we wouldn't be in that situation, and ideally this wouldn't be a problem, but we are where we are. And there's the obvious thing where the OSI sold itself out and declared that a machine learning program can be open source even when the very things it was built from -- the training data -- is not available. That's a major issue that the free software community needs to fight against, but there's not really anything that that is a threat to free software. You just build your own, free software, LLM, and you're done. The actual threat is in funding and developer support. Most large businesses do not care about free-as-in-freedom software. They like the free-as-in-beer part, and they appreciate that the free-as-in-freedom bits can make the software more customizable. They are (mostly) happy to do sponsorships of the free-as-in-freedom projects that they use if that means their free-as-in-beer usage of the software gets improved. But why would you care about all that when you can just generate the code you need, rather than interacting with an open source community that may or may not care about your business's interests?

Where to go from here Although I think the moral and environmental issues with LLMs are real and problematic, given the experiments I did I am not convinced that the concept of interacting with a computer system in natural language and to use it to generate code is necessarily deficient. There are pitfalls, but they can be managed. It is possible to use such a system to create throwaway, proof-of-concept type "good enough" code bases. It can be used to interpret code bases and to understand bug reports. I believe that the major issue with LLMs has to do with that saying about hammers and nails:
If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
LLMs are an outgrowth of machine learning, pushed by large corporations. These large corporations have a lot of money. If all you have is money, then every problem can be fixed by throwing more money at it. The initial language models were promising but not (yet) good enough, and it seemed that one way in which they could be improved was to increase the scale of the statistics: throw more hardware (and thus money) at it, and rather than improving the efficiency of the models, just scale up. Scaling up is something that megacorporations are very good at. It's only a money problem, after all. Does that mean that "scaling up" is the only way to improve the models, though? I'm not convinced. Some hardware, such as most modern Apple and Samsung devices, ship with accelerator hardware for machine learning algorithms. There are some models that are small enough to be able to run on these devices. I don't see why it should not be possible to create a small(er) language model that can do some useful part of the above-described use cases; if not locally, then at least on a server that one can run on-prem rather than requiring that you pay rent to one of the LLM companies. The Software Freedom Conservancy has published an aspirational statement on machine learning-assisted programming that, I think, gets a lot right. It's not quite a definition, but it's something to keep in mind. Perhaps that's the way forward? More questions than answers at this point, anyway.

18 June 2026

Mike Gabriel: Commenting on the recent Ubuntu Touch review done by @SwitchandClickOfficial on Youtube

There has been a video blog post recently published with a review of Ubuntu Touch as an option to opt out of the Android world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTK6TS3pXgc Thanks to @SwitchandClick for spending time on this and publishing that video. Much appreciated. Many Issues amended in upcoming 24.04-2.0 Release When I watched that video referenced above, I continuously thought: ah... this is fixed in the next major release of Ubuntu Touch, or: ah... this is a known issue that we have on the roadmap..., or: ah... this is done in this ways by design (so it's a feature or basic functionality)... Let me just state, that most of the criticized aspects will be resolved in upcoming Ubuntu Touch release 24.04-2.0 (the tests in that video blog post have been run on Ubuntu Touch 24.04-1.x): The full feature preview of the 24.04-2.0 release can be found here: https://ubports.com/blog/ubports-news-1/ubuntu-touch-24-04-2-0-beta-is-n... Ubuntu Touch App Ecosystem The app ecosystem of Ubuntu Touch is quite specific, because many apps in Ubuntu Touch have been explicitly developed for Ubuntu Touch using a widget toolkit called Lomiri.Components. However, in Ubuntu Touch we also encourage developers to provide apps written with other convergent-capable toolkits, such as QQC2-based apps or Kirigami-based apps. One reason for the very different app ecosystem in Ubuntu Touch is that many service providers don't have Ubuntu Touch on their radar when investing in app development for their services. Some Ubuntu Touch App Developers work around this by either implementing unofficial client apps for web services (e.g. the Flow app for Deezer by Sander Klootwijk), others provide the web service via implementing a web app (will not work when offline, but at least will show up as an app in the launcher). The overall solution for making Open-Store.io more familiar to users who migrate from Android is that commercial service providers start honouring digital sovereignty and start providing apps for Linux. Not just for the Linux desktop, but also for mobile Linux platforms. This dual use case can easily achieved with an app development that bears convergence in mind. App Ecosystems are also a Matter of Perspective And one more minor note: whenever I open an Android appstore or can peak over someone's shoulder using an iOS device: I always wonder: what are all these apps about??? Never heard about them. So, familiarity really depends on perspective. And perspective depends on what you are used to. Change what you do and your perspective will follow. Ubuntu Touch's root filesystem (rootfs) is Immutable Only thing from that video blog post that we haven't fixed and won't do so in the midterm future is apt-get not working on the command line. The reason for this is: the Ubuntu Touch root file system is an immutable file system and thus shall not be changed via apt-get & friends by ordinary users. There are various discussions ongoing such as dpkg-divert'ing apt-get to a wrapper shell script that spits out an error message if rootfs is mounted read-only and someone tries to install packages the Debian/Ubuntu way. Other approaches are to mount some RAM disk over the rootfs, so apt-get can be used at runtime but changes to the system get reset at reboot. However, it is possible to mount the root filesystem read-write and test newer package versions (as UT core developers do regularly, in fact). If you tinker with this, it is recommended to reflash your device (don't wipe user data, when you reflash!) from time to time, because adding packages or package upgrades to your rootfs may over time corrupt the integrity of the rootfs. One reason for apt-get breaking the rootfs and thus your Ubuntu Touch development device is that the upgrade process of the rootfs image is incremental, so update tarballs sometimes contain only those parts that got changed between this and your previous upgrade (sometimes, upgrades contain a complete rootf image, depending on the interval between upgrades). If files from an incremental update tarball mix into a rootfs that got tinkered with via apt-get, you really end up on your own. Re-flashing will grab the complete rootfs tarball and wipe the whole rootfs and reinstall a fresh version of the newest rootfs image. Developers also do this in regular intervals to ensure their test device is clean again before running more/other tests.

16 June 2026

Mike Gabriel: Ubuntu Touch development - 24.04-2.0 Beta and Meaning of Branching-Off

The next Ubuntu Touch major release is approaching rapidly, yesterday we reached a major step in the preparation of the upcoming Ubuntu Touch 24.04-2.0 release: The branching-off (see below on what that is). Ubuntu Touch 24.04-2.0 Beta is Now Available Part of this development release step is the publication of the 24.04-2.0 Beta release images, for more details and information see:
https://ubports.com/blog/ubports-news-1/ubuntu-touch-24-04-2-0-beta-is-n... And additionally, find below some background information on how we maintain various Ubuntu Touch releases in parallel via Git(Lab). In fact, the release model of Ubuntu Touch has partially been adopted from how we in Debian maintains our various Debian versions in parallel, only that in Ubuntu Touch we use Git(Lab) for maintaining the different package versions and not, like in Debian, the APT archive itself. What does 'Branching-Off' Mean? Last Saturday, in the UBports Q&A, I explained Ubuntu Touch's "branching-off", an aspect of the Ubuntu Touch release workflow based on Git(Lab). To make this accessible to even more people, here it comes as a write-up: We host many Git repositories on GitLab, and our primary work is done on the main branches, which contain the bleeding-edge code. When a merge request is deemed critical for stable versions of Ubuntu Touch, we cherry-pick it into a release series branch. Currently, we land our changes in the main branches and then cherry-pick them to the ubports/24.04.1.x branches. The 'branching off' process for the upcoming 24.04-2.x release means that our current main branches will be copied over to create new branches for this release cycle, namely ubports/24.04-2.x. This has two major implications. First, any item that hasn't been translated by the time of the branch-off will not receive any more translation updates during the 24.04-2.x cycle. This is why it is crucial that translation work is completed before the branching-off. Warning of Breaking Changes arriving soon in 26.04-1.x Daily Development UT Images Second, looking ahead to the release after 24.04-2.x, we will be approaching 26.04-1.x. The OS base will change to Ubuntu 26.04 LTS, hopefully being ready for release to Ubuntu Touch users before the end of the year. We already have a list of features we want to land there. Because we plan to include various major changes, such as the switch from Mir 1 to Mir 2, new calendar and contacts backends, Qt6-based core apps and service components, etc., the likelihood of breaking changes at the beginning of the 26.04-1.x release cycle (which will become the next main branches' target) is very high. The Ubuntu Touch 24.04-2.0 Release Schedule The current release schedule is estimated to be: 25 May 2026 [done]
Platform stability freeze 24.04-2.x 25 May 2026 [done]
String freeze 24.04-2.x 15 June 2026 [done]
Branching-off (and unfreeze 26.04-1.x development), UT image release: 24.04-2.0 Beta 22 or 29 June 2026 [coming]
Final freeze for 24.04-2.x, UT image release: 24.04-2.0 RC 6 or 13 July 2026 [coming]
Release version 24.04-2.0

Vincent Bernat: Building a Soviet Nail Factory: how KPIs killed efficiency

In 2008, I landed my second job, in the network team at Orange Portails1, the division behind the websites and search engine of the French telecom operator Orange. The place ran like clockwork: a comprehensive technical setup, a dedicated team for every part of the business, and room to focus on what I do best. A few years later, none of that mattered: thanks to an obsession with the numbers, we could no longer deliver new services on time.

Disclaimer This is a story I like to tell to warn people about Goodhart s law.2 As these events happened almost 15 years ago, my recollection is a bit fuzzy. I left in 2012.

The first years During my first years, the department operated like a startup. Its cradle was the French company Echo. They built a search engine. France T l com bought it and renamed it Voila. It was the most visited search engine in France in the early 2000s. France T l com consolidated the portal activities into the Wanadoo Portails division, later renamed Orange Portails. The technical environment was excellent. We had many internal tools:3 a ticket system, an RRD-based graphing tool, an IPAM, a reporting tool, and an SNMP-based alerting tool.4 We deployed our Linux servers with CFEngine. We installed systems and applications from internal Debian repositories. We documented everything in a private MediaWiki instance. Supervision was performed with an ancestor of Xymon. The network architecture was clean and scalable with little legacy. We onboarded new people in a day. It was a nurturing environment for me. I developed several tools: lldpd, an 802.1AB implementation, Snimpy, a pythonic binding for Net-SNMP, Wiremaps, a layer-2 discovery tool with a time machine to know which device is connected where, Kit r , a tool to simulate network conditions, QCSS-3, a controller for load-balancers, and ipoo, a service available through a Jabber chatbot and a Greasemonkey script to expose IP-related information. I added SNMP support for Keepalived and Quagga. I also started this blog, with articles like Anycast DNS, TLS-related articles like TLS computational DoS mitigation, SNMP-related articles like Integration of Net-SNMP into an event loop, Linux-related articles like Tuning Linux IPv4 route cache, and an article about VXLAN long before it was cool.

The collapse When we needed new servers, the on-site team would take a set from the inventory, install our base Linux distribution on them, put them in the datacenter, and cable them to the top-of-the-rack switches. We opened a ticket describing the servers we needed, and one week later, our servers were available. Orange wanted to know if this team was performing well, so they asked for KPIs. They decided to use the number of tickets completed in a year. They asked to double this number. So instead of one ticket for a new service, we would open six tickets one per server. By the end of the year, the KPIs had more than doubled. Everybody saw it as a success for performance management. So, they asked to do the same for the next year. Now, we needed to open a ticket per server and per step. Again, the KPIs doubled. Behind the scenes, the tickets went to different people and were no longer handled in order. So, for the next year, it was decided to have meta-tickets and meetings to follow the progress of these tickets. Of course, all these extra steps pushed the KPI even higher. This performance management method spread to the other teams.5 Everything became slower. Instead of a couple of weeks, a new service now took six months. We built a Soviet nail factory. But the KPIs were good, and we stopped caring. Let me give you another example. We had to estimate the impact of each night operation. We weren t half bad: we declared most operations without any expected impact. Most of the time, there was no impact. One time out of five, there was a 5-second impact. We were told to try harder to meet our expected impact. What did we do? We started declaring a 5-second expected impact. One day, we got a 30-second impact and were told we failed to match the expected impact. In the end, we declared most operations with a 10-minute expected impact, and we stopped caring: instead of carefully shifting traffic around, we allowed ourselves a 5-minute impact. And our KPIs were never better.
Graph showing the impact of night operations. Year after year, the impact tolerance has been increased. In the final year, the expected impact is 10 minutes, and all operations remain under this threshold. However, the impacts are much more significant than they were in the first year.
An artist's rendering of the evolution of impacts over the years.

KPIs are not bad, but they are easy to break. Use them carefully: let the people doing the work help choose the metrics, and tie those metrics to the quality of the service for example, with service level objectives. Otherwise, even dedicated people stop caring, game the system, and eventually quit.6

  1. Internally, this division was named Hebex. It was located in Bagnolet (next to Paris) and Sophia-Antipolis (near Nice).
  2. Goodhart s law often gets the credit, but Campbell s law describes my experience even better: the more you lean on a number to make decisions, the faster people corrupt it.
  3. At the time, SaaS was not really a thing. I remember we considered, with a couple of colleagues, selling Wiremaps as a SaaS, with homomorphic encryption for the database. But who would outsource their observability stack?
  4. Snalert was a metacircular alerting tool in Perl. It was able to poll a very large number of SNMP targets in a short timespan. All our monitoring was SNMP-based, including system monitoring.
  5. My team also managed the rules of many Linux-based firewalls. To increase our KPIs, we used the same method: rather than accepting one ticket with a flow matrix, we requested one ticket per flow.
  6. Orange is not unique. Google s promotion process is another well-known example of a broken KPI. Michael Lynch explains it in Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself.

15 June 2026

Tim Retout: In memoriam commit-email.py

I have proposed the deletion of an obsolete script, but it makes me feel complicated feelings so I m going to try and express those. This particular script was written in 2014, but the concept goes back much further before git was invented. When I started university in 2003, I seem to remember the computing society used to run tutorials for first-year students on how to use Apache Subversion for your group project a vast upgrade on CVS (or worse, no version control at all). Back then, the idea of viewing your changesets in a web browser was relatively new while it was possible to look at an SVN repository through a web UI, features were limited unless you installed something compicated like Trac. Data flow when distributing commits via a mailing list Figure 1: Data flow when distributing commits via a mailing list Perhaps because reading email on your desktop computer (I don t think I could afford an IBM ThinkPad?) was the only vaguely real-time notification system available at the time (except I guess SMS, which cost 10p per text), a common pattern seemed to be to use a post-commit hook to send every single commit to a mailing list, named something like foo-commits . Indeed, for a long time Fedora had an scm-commits list which appears to be a topic of recent discussion. I can t really explain why people wanted to have every commit sent to a mailing list except as a way of getting notified of activity I can t believe people would import raw patches from those lists, ala LKML, rather than run actual version control commands to fetch the new source directly. Maybe you d have to go back to NNTP for this. I do like the vendor-neutrality of the everything-as-text approach, building on the open ecosystem of SMTP. But I doubt we d see a widespread resurgence of commit lists now most code hosting must allow anyone to subscribe to email notifications, I assume, and I don t see a huge benefit in a mailing list archive of commit messages. In the case of seL4, I m even more confused about why this script was committed in 2014, shortly after the kernel was put on GitHub. I can only assume it was imported from previous infrastructure. I do know that the implementation is quite Python 2 heavy, with the conversion between unicode and bytes featuring heavily. So rather than risk breaking its logic with patching, I think it s time to thank it for its service and let go.

Freexian Collaborators: Debian Contributions: Go default compatibility, Trimming build-essential, Python upstream engagement and more! (by Anupa Ann Joseph)

Debian Contributions: 2026-05 Contributing to Debian is part of Freexian s mission. This article covers the latest achievements of Freexian and their collaborators. All of this is made possible by organizations subscribing to our Long Term Support contracts and consulting services.

Go default compatibility, by Helmut Grohne At the MiniDebConf Hamburg, Andrew Lee had prepared a talk on how Debian accidentally chooses Go compatibility. Helmut joined Tobias Quathammer and Andrew Lee in looking into the problem. Go has a compatibility system where modules declare a desired Go version to be compatible with. This influences various features such as whether RSA keys smaller than 1024 bits are accepted. Unfortunately, Debian s way of building Go packages is unique in setting GO111MODULE=off, which practically implies a very old compatibility version that enables a number of insecure settings. Most Linux distributions use the default GO111MODULE=on and therefore consult a go.mod file that often declares a sensible version. While doing so is the way for Debian longer term, getting there involves major changes so we also sought a more short term workaround. We developed a patch to the Go compiler that would enable it to pick up a compatibility version from the environment. Tobias uploaded it to unstable. The next step is communicating the declared compatibility version from go.mod to the compiler via the new variable. Then, rebuilding the archive resolves the immediate symptoms. This does not save us from having to perform the larger transition to GO111MODULE=on, but this shortcut can be backported to trixie.

Trimming build-essential, by Helmut Grohne One of the harder problems of the architecture cross bootstrap is correctly expressing the Build-Depends of glib during the toolchain bootstrap. It implicitly depends on build-essential, which happens to depend on libc6-dev. This poses a cycle. It applies even for cross building, because it is interpreted for the host architecture and that there is no way of satisfying this dependency during the toolchain bootstrap. Given discussions at MiniDebConf Hamburg with Jochen Sprickerhof and others, a seemingly stupid idea evolved: Let s delete build-essential. What looks insane on the surface might deserve a second look. Given how we moved away from C, C++ and autotools, what is in build-essential no longer is required by much of the archive. With the rise of debputy, debian/rules no longer has to be a makefile. While the task would be huge, those packages relevant to architecture bootstrap could explicitly support building without the implied dependency making their dependencies explicit. In a number of cases, this amounts to issuing a dependency on g++-for-host. This dependency requires the use of architecture-prefixed tools. Therefore, Helmut wrote a debhelper change that makes it always pass build tools to various build systems. This also enables more packages to honour environment variables such as CC and CXX.

Python upstream engagement, by Stefano Rivera Stefano attended PyCon US (at personal expense) to improve upstream relations and ensure Debian s voice is heard where it needs to be. On Friday there was a packaging summit (notes) with good discussion on the future of the wheel format, and some discussion of the new abi3t shared library format for free-threaded python. In preparation for the event, Stefano did a complete review of the current patch stack. Stefano s primary goal was to get some of Debian s patches merged during the sprints, and results were mixed. Some trivial patches (e.g. GH-150098, made progress and merged, but the most consequential patch Debian is carrying is still blocked. Stefano will continue to try to drive progress on this.

Miscellaneous contributions
  • Carles worked on po-debconf-manager: Reviewed Catalan translations for 6 packages, submitted 10 packages to maintainers, and removed 3 packages from po-debconf-manager.
  • Carles worked on check-relations: Continued improving the backend, including importing source package build dependencies to better support analysis of Debian blends. Added support for ignoring packages using regular expressions and source package names in response to user feedback. Used the tool to report 5 new bugs and followed up on previously reported issues.
  • Helmut sent a cross build patch on behalf of a customer.
  • Helmut uploaded debvm and guess_concurrency both featuring improved reproducibility and documentation.
  • Helmut continued maintaining rebootstrap and made it correctly handle binNMUs of gcc-defaults. Additionally, he poked at existing gcc patches giving answers, rebasing or closing them.
  • Helmut supported the video team in Hamburg mixing audio.
  • Helmut continued to report undeclared file conflicts of various kinds and corresponded with maintainers about them.
  • Antonio attended a debate during the Brazil Internet Forum about the impacts of the child protection regulation (ECA Digital) on free software operating systems.
  • Antonio worked on Debian CI to improve the system transparency for users. This included listing any pending jobs explicitly in the job lists for each package/architecture/suite page, as well as adding a queue status page that users can check for an estimate of test latency.
  • Antonio worked on several Debian CI maintenance tasks, including but not limited to some monitoring improvements, replacing usage of fonts-font-awesome with fonts-fork-awesome, and adding the ability in debci to configure a global notice (which is being used in Debian CI to point to the system status pages).
  • Antonio started doing some tests related to the change of default Debian CI backend from lxc to incus-lxc. This helped identify an omission in the creation of incus-lxc images. It was missing dpkg-dev, which caused a few packages that assumed its presence to fail. In the end, the incus-lxc backend will be fixed to include dpkg-dev by default in the image, but that uncovered an undeclared dependency in gem2deb (Ruby packaging helper) and in ruby-byebug, both already fixed in unstable.
  • Stefano did some minimal work on debian-reimbursements to get it working with current versions of django-allauth.
  • May included the discovery of several high-severity Linux kernel root exploits. Stefano updated kernels and rebooted debian.social infrastructure several times.
  • Stefano supported the Hamburg miniDebConf s wafer website during the event, and set up an instance for the 2027 edition too.
  • Stefano supported the bursary team issuing bursaries for DebConf 26.
  • Stefano uploaded routine updates of python-pip, pystemmer, snowball-data, snowball (making up a mini, uncoordinated snowball transition), python-authlib, python-discovery, python-installer, python-mitogen, python-pipx, python-cachecontrol, platformdirs, and python-virtualenv.
  • Stefano fixed a small number of bugs in dh-python, culminating in the 7.20260524 upload.
  • Thorsten finally managed to upload a new upstream version of hplip. He also uploaded a new upstream version of epson-inkjet-printer-escpr. Last but not least with the help of other contributors he could fix bugs in lprng.
  • Lucas and Santiago contributed significantly to the DebConf 26 Content team; helping to organize the team, review and rate talk proposals.
  • Lucas also supported a packaging sprint held in India by rebuilding and publishing the latest results of the Ruby 3.4 transition effort.
  • Santiago continued contributing to the efforts to organize DebConf 26, especially supporting the local team with different tasks.
  • In collaboration with Emmanuel Arias, Santiago is mentoring Aryan Karamtoth, a GSoC participant that is working to introduce linux live-patching support in Debian. The GSoC project started in May, with community bonding and coding. Santiago reviewed a merge request to prepare the clang-extract package for debian. clang-extract is one of the building blocks that will help to extract specific functions from large C code, so only relevant code can be patched, without recompiling the whole original basecode.
  • Anupa assisted Jean-Pierre Giraud with the point release announcements for Debian 13.5 and Debian 12.14.
  • Colin backported various security fixes from OpenSSH 10.3 to all supported releases (including LTS and ELTS).
  • Colin backported IP quality-of-service fixes to OpenSSH in trixie. The situation there had been unsatisfactory for some time, and upstream reworked their QoS support in OpenSSH 10.1 in a way that typically produces much better results.
  • Colin imported new upstream versions of 26 Python packages, and fixed around 25 RC bugs for the Python team.

14 June 2026

Jonathan Dowland: HeroQuest

_First Light_ box First Light box
My youngest daughter and I recently started playing the tabletop game HeroQuest. Specifically, the recently-issued, cut-down variant HeroQuest: First Light. This is quite advanced for her age, and I'm a little surprised she's taken to it, but she's really loving it, It's pushed her to read bits of lore on cards and quest books that is way above her expected reading level, and we've been exercising her maths by adding up the gold we find on our quests and calculating what the heroes can buy with it in the store afterwards. Originally from 1989, Hasbro re-issued HeroQuest in 2020. I read about it at the time but didn't buy it. I wasn't sure who I would play it with. It also seemed expensive to me. It probably wasn't unusually expensive in 2020, nor now, for the sheer volume of finely-sculpted miniatures included. I also knew I had the original game in the loft, and I wasn't that keen on buying something I already had, although untangling the contents from several similar boxed games would take me many hours, and I wasn't sure how much of the game I would find.
mix of old and new mix of old and new
First Light was compelling because it is much, much cheaper than the full remake, so I was happy to take a punt. It's cheaper because it doesn't have any plastic monsters or furniture: instead cardboard cut-outs that stand up on plastic stands. For us, that is a significant drawback: 3D miniatures are much more immersive, But I can re-use the plastic miniatures I can find from the original game. First Light has a newly written adventure, better suited to beginners than the original game. The re-issue(s) have new art and new model sculpts that look fantastic. They've changed anything which tied into Games Workshop's IP and I'm really happy about that. They've made an effort to add women, almost entirely absent from the original. I'm certain my daughter wouldn't have tried it otherwise.

Matthias Klumpp: Introducing pkgcli: A nicer command-line interface for PackageKit

For almost two decades, the PackageKit package management abstraction layer has shipped with pkcon as its command-line client. pkcon does its job, but it was always kind of a testing front-end for the PackageKit daemon rather than a tool designed for everyday use. The focus has instead been on the GUI tools, automatic system updates, GUI application managers and other front-ends. Its command names mirror the D-Bus API almost one-to-one (get-details, get-updates, get-depends), output is very plain, and there is no machine-readable mode for scripting. Most importantly though, there has been no development on it at all for almost a decade, so pkcon was stuck in its rudimentary state from that era.

Since a lot of changes will be coming to PackageKit, and testing the daemon and working with it from the command-line was not very pleasant anymore in 2025/2026, I decided to modernize the tool as part of my work as fellow for the Sovereign Tech Agency last year. pkgcli is the new command-line client for PackageKit. It is built from the ground up to be pleasant to use interactively and easy to drive from scripts.

Why a new tool?

Of course, instead of introducing a new tool, I could have just expanded pkcon instead. The problem with that approach is that the pkcon utility has been around for so long and its command-line API had ossified so much, that rather than changing it and potentially breaking a lot of scripts relying on its quirks, I decided to introduce a new tool instead. pkcon can still be optionally compiled for people who need it in their scripts and workflows.

The goals for pkgcli, and the features it now has are:

  • Human-friendly command names. Verbs that read the way you d describe the task, instead of mirroring the D-Bus API 1:1: show, search, list-updates, what-provides, instead of get-details and friends.
  • Readable, colored output by default (still respecting NO_COLOR and degrading gracefully).
  • A real scripting mode. A global --json flag emits JSONL instead of fully human-readable output when possible, to make it easier to use the tool for scripting purposes.
  • Sensible defaults. A few defaults have been changed, such as the metadata cache-age, or automatic cleanup of unused dependencies being enabled by default. This is more in line with current defaults by other tools and frontends. We also print package information in a slightly different, more readable way.
  • Better handling of internationalized text. Text should now align properly in the terminal window, and we should no longer have completely chaotic text output on non-English locales (especially Chinese/Japanese).

Why not pkgctl?

Originally, this tool was called pkgctl, to match other common cross-distro tool names. However, that name was already taken by an Arch-specific distro development tool. When this issue was raised, we decided to just rename our tool to pkgcli with the next release, to avoid the name clash on Arch Linux.

Examples!

Here are some examples on how to use the new tool (some of which include the abridged output pkgcli prints).

Search for anything containing the string editor in name or description, then look at the details of one result:

$ pkgcli search editor
Querying                  [ ] 100%
  ace-of-penguins 1.5~rc2-7.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  acorn-fdisk 3.0.6-14.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  ardour 1:9.2.0+ds-1.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  audacity 3.7.7+dfsg-1.amd64 [manual:debian-testing-main]
  audacity-data 3.7.7+dfsg-1.all [auto:debian-testing-main]
  augeas-tools 1.14.1-1.1.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  emacs 1:30.2+1-3.all [debian-testing-main]
  gedit 48.1-9+b1.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  gedit-common 48.1-9.all [debian-testing-main]
  gedit-dev 48.1-9+b1.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
[...]
$ pkgcli show nano
Package: nano
Version: 9.0-1
Summary: small, friendly text editor inspired by Pico
Description: GNU nano is an easy-to-use text editor originally designed as
 a replacement for Pico, the ncurses-based editor from the non-free mailer
 package Pine.
[...]
URL: https://www.nano-editor.org/
Group: publishing
Installed Size: 2.9 MB
Download Size: 646.0 KB

Search only within package names rather than descriptions:

$ pkgcli search name python3

Check for updates. refresh updates the metadata, then list-updates reports what s available:

$ pkgcli refresh && pkgcli list-updates
Loading cache            [ ] 100%
  cme 1.048-1.all [debian-testing-main]
  gir1.2-gdm-1.0 50.1-2.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  imagemagick 8:7.1.2.24+dfsg1-1.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  imagemagick-7-common 8:7.1.2.24+dfsg1-1.all [debian-testing-main]
  imagemagick-7.q16 8:7.1.2.24+dfsg1-1.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  libdlrestrictions1 0.22.0.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  libfftw3-bin 3.3.11-1.amd64 [debian-testing-main]
  libfftw3-dev 3.3.11-1.amd64 [debian-testing-main]

Explore relationships between packages:

$ pkgcli list-depends inkscape  # list what inkscape depends on
$ pkgcli list-requiring libappstream5  # list what requires libappstream5

Find the package that provides a capability, here the AV1 GStreamer decoder:

$ pkgcli what-provides "gstreamer1(decoder-video/x-av1)"
  gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad 1.28.3-1.amd64 [auto:debian-testing-main]

You can also have JSON output for most commands! Attach --json to any query and pipe the result straight into jq. Each line is a self-contained JSON object:

$ pkgcli --json list-updates   jq -r '.name'
cme
gir1.2-gdm-1.0
imagemagick
imagemagick-7-common
imagemagick-7.q16
libdlrestrictions1
libfftw3-bin
libfftw3-dev
libfftw3-double3

Try it

pkgcli is built by default alongside the rest of PackageKit since PackageKit 1.3.4. If your distribution ships a recent enough PackageKit, it should already be on your PATH. You can read its man page man pkgcli for more information. Feedback, bug reports, and patches are very welcome.

10 June 2026

Colin Watson: Free software activity in May 2026

My Debian contributions this month were all sponsored by Freexian. You can also support my work directly via Liberapay or GitHub Sponsors. OpenSSH I backported various security fixes from 10.3 to trixie, bookworm, bullseye, buster, and stretch. For trixie, I also backported several IPQoS fixes to line up with upstream s traffic management settings and drop a rather hacky Debian-specific patch; this needed a quick follow-up fix. I upgraded trixie-backports to 10.3. I fixed openssh uses pidof but does not depend on procps. PuTTY I upgraded from 0.83 to 0.84. Python packaging New upstream versions: Other build/test failures: Other bugs: I updated python-treq upstream to stop vendoring multipart, now that the packaging issues with that have been sorted out. Code reviews Other bits and pieces I contributed a debian-policy patch to fix several links related to build profiles.

9 June 2026

Vincent Bernat: Blogging with LLMs as a non-native speaker

AI slop is invading the web. A recent story about disallowing LLM-generated submissions on Lobsters triggered a lot of debate. My personal worst offenders are LinkedIn articles with AI-generated images and uninspired articles filled with emojis from people trying to masquerade as experts on a subject they don t care enough to write themselves. While I am unhappy about this situation, I rely on LLMs for grammar, copyediting, and translation. I don t see this as a contradiction. I am a native French speaker, but I blog in both English and French. When I started writing this blog in 2011, I was composing in French and translating to English, but I found it was better to work in the reverse order to avoid unnatural and non-idiomatic constructions. One of my goals is to write good English but I never felt it was my strong point.1 For example, verb tenses are often an issue, even if I mostly stick with the present tense. I learn the rules and forget them right away. I also don t feel like hiring an editor for something I see as a hobby. As an example, I have kept the history of the successive iterations when writing Scaling Akvorado BMP RIB with sharding :
  1. the first draft, authored with the help of a thesaurus,2
  2. the edited copy revised by the copyediting skill,
  3. the translation to French generated with the translation skill, and
  4. the human proofread of the French translation, with minor edits to the English version.
I know that LLMs may alter the author s voice when editing, but the corrections in the second step are minor. The prompt asks to apply light stylistic edits, with some guidance around avoiding passive voice, long sentences, bland verbs, and filler words. It also defines the target audience: technical with a B2 level in English. In the following excerpt, I used long time instead of long-standing. The former is missing a hyphen and applies to people a long-time friend, while the later relates to a situation a long-standing agreement. I had a hard time understanding the reason of the second change: the LLM prefers a defining relative clause to provide the definition of RIB sharding.
As the Internet routing table contains more than 1 million routes, Akvorado needs to scale to tens of millions of routes. This has been a long time long-standing challenge, but I expect this issue is now fixed by using RIB sharding, a method to split that splits the routing database into several parts to enable concurrent updates.
In the next modification, the LLM puts device instead of equipment. This is correct as equipment is an uncountable noun. I know that, but I still fall into this trap.
When Akvorado does not find a route from a specific device, it falls back to a route sent by another equipment device.
I ask the LLM to use descriptive verbs and it complies by replacing a multi-word predicate with a lexically rich verb:
The benchmarks demonstrate it has better performance than outperforms other packages, both packages for lookups, insertions, and memory usage.
It also fixes grammar errors. In the next excerpt, a list of routes is a singular expression. Moreover, stored is a state and I should not use into as it expresses a change.
The list of routes for each prefix are is not stored directly into in the prefix tree.
As a last example, consider the following snippet. The require verb accepts a noun or an object followed by a to-infinitive. I can t use it with just a to-infinitive.
An alternative would be to have one prefix tree for each peer but it would require to configure configuring all routers to export their routes.
As someone who didn t grow up speaking English, I struggle with these grammar rules despite reading a lot of English material.3 French is more complex to get started but more systematic. English is full of irregularities.
On each page, I disclose in the footer whether an AI modified the content. There are three levels: Hover or tap the icon to reveal the AI s name and its role in the document.
Screenshot of the footer containing the "sparkles" emoji
Example of AI usage disclosure: Claude Sonnet 4.5 edited this article.
The graph below shows which tool altered each post, year by year. Recently, I applied the grammar skill to past articles. Since 2018, French articles have been translated with the help of DeepL first, then of an LLM. Since 2024, English articles are copyedited.
&#128444; Graph showing the AI usage over the years. Each level get its own color.
AI usage over the years. Hover or tap a band for the details.

If you are strongly against any usage of LLMs specifically for writing, I hope you accept my more nuanced position on the usage of these tools as a trade-off to provide clearer and more engaging articles. Years of literature on improving English told us it is important to choose the right word to keep the reader engaged.
[ ] Good writing consists of mastering the fundamentals (vocabulary, grammar, the elements of style) and then filling the third level of your toolbox with the right instruments. Stephen King, On Writing

Note Unlike other recent articles, I did not use an LLM to edit this post: an unnamed person kindly accepted to proofread it. I translated it to French without using an LLM either.

Update (2026-06) See the story associated to this post on Lobsters, as well as the article How developers react to AI-scented blog posts by Cynthia Dunlop, one of the coauthor of Writing for Developers.


  1. I recently read cover to cover Writing for Developers and I found it stimulating. Michael Lynch is currently writing Refactoring English on the same topic and I have subscribed to the early access.
  2. I am quite happy with the writing tools provided by Kagi. Both the translate tool and the dictionary are a valuable help to find different wordings. I also lean on Kagi s research assistant when researching a topic.
  3. When I was ten, I played Monkey Island 2 in English without having taken any classes. I used a dictionary to translate word by word and I found the irregular verbs confusing and not in the dictionary.

Next.

Previous.