It's my birthday, so a week ago I bought myself a present: The office is 4.5 miles from the BART station, so up until now I've been taking a bus. Unfortunately the timings aren't that frequent (every 45-60 minutes). Plus I haven't been doing any exercise since I moved out here. Now it seems to be getting drier I figured it was time to sort out a bike. I wanted something flexible, and have heard nothing but good things from the Brompton owners I know, so that's what I ended up with. I'm very happy with it; despite my lack of recent exercise it's pretty easy to ride. I've actually found it doesn't take any longer than taking the bus, and is sometimes quicker, because I avoid having all of the waiting around for it. I bought it from Warm Planet Bikes, who were incredibly helpful. They had a selection in store that they let me try (and quite a few other models of folding bikes too) and when I made my decision it turned out they could do the customizations I wanted in shop. So rather than me having to order it and wait a month I was able to cycle away that same evening! Full marks to Matt for staying late to sort me out (plus he's a Brompton owner too).

I've been out here for 6 months now. At the point in time I was coming out I was pointed at Andrew Pollock's On bootstrapping oneself in the US. I figure some extra data may be useful for anyone considering the same. I moved from the UK rather than Australia. Banking I sorted out my US banking long before I ever moved here; in fact I kicked the process off shortly after I accepted the move offer. Matthew had recommended the HSBC approach, so I did that. This meant when I arrived I had a credit card, debit card and check book. They also allow me to do really easy online transfers between my US and UK accounts. Mobile phone My mobile phone was something else that was dealt with before the move. I bought a Simple Mobile SIM off eBay. I thought I'd end up moving to a contract once I had a credit record here, but actually the $60/month unlimited tariff seems to be fairly reasonable. Their customer service leaves a lot to be desired, but I've sadly come to expect that from phone companies. I've got a Google Voice account which is the number I've been giving out, so it's easily for me to switch providers (or redirect things to a VOIP setup for when I'm back in the UK, but I've got a writeup to do for that at a later point in time). Finding somewhere to live One of my concerns was that it would be hard to find somewhere to live at short notice without any credit history or SSN. This turned out to be ill founded. Both of the managed apartment complexes I looked at were ok with the fact I'd just moved to the country and seemed used to such a setup. The place I went with is privately leased and was a bit more wary, but after a conversation with my US manager (who'd managed me even when I was in the UK) it was fine. Social Security Number AKA existing as an entity as far as the US is concern. I was told to wait at least 10 working days after entry before even applying for this, or I wouldn't be in the system and it could cause delays. I did so and the card turned up within about a week (I had been told up to 2 weeks). Which was good, because work were having problems figuring out how to pay me without one. You do seem to need the SSN for everything. The only times I can remember needing my National Insurance number in the UK is for new jobs and my E111 application. Driving licence I haven't ended up buying a car here; I pretty much don't need one most of the time and I've signed up to ZipCar for easy short term rentals - they're happy to take a UK licence for sign up. However I figured getting a licence here was a good idea in case I did decide to get a car, and even just for ID (I kept having to point people at the DOB on my UK licence - everywhere here seems to card). Applying for a licence ideally relies an SSN, so I did so a few days after I'd got that. I did the car + motorbike written tests and got my learner's permit. I applied for the car theory test the same day, but the first available slot was about 6 weeks later. During this period I did the CMSP basic RiderCourse, which meant that when I passed the car test I was also fully entitled to ride a motorbike here. Other useful notes As I live in the Bay Area I got myself a ClipperCard - it's like Oyster except without the clever discounts. Works on more agencies though and helps avoid having to sort out change. For broadband I went with Sonic.net - I'm in their ADSL2 coverage area so I'm getting a reasonable 17Mb/s connection. The other options were AT&T ADSL (slower) or Comcast cable (evil). I've had zero problems with Sonic; It Just Works. Also I sort of ended up with a trial run thanks to DebConf10 being in New York. Due to the way timings worked out this took place only a few weeks before my move to SF was scheduled. My banking and phone were already in place by this point, so it allowed me to check both were working ok. They were, and I didn't really expect them not to be, but it was a nice safety net to have for the move proper. Overall the main issue I had was that a lot of things were dependant on other things; get the SSN, get a learner's permit, apply for the practical test, wait for the licence to actually turn up etc. It probably took over 3 months for everything to actually happen and come through in the post. I can tell when I actually started to exist in the system because Capital One being junk mailing me about whether I want a credit card with them...

I did my first upgrade of a lenny box to squeeze today; a test server in work. All went pretty smoothly but I had a handful of things I had to frob manually that I thought I'd write up here:

• collectd SNMP plugin needs MIBs or it won't start: installed snmp-mibs-downloader from non-free
• autofs starts before nis (#470573): added ypbind to the Required-Start: line in /etc/init.d/autofs and re-ran insserv
• NFS automounts now using NFSv4 instead of v3 and user/group mapping setting everything to nobody: Set NEED_IDMAPD=yes in /etc/default/nfs-common and ensure Domain in /etc/idmapd.conf is set to the correct domain name (look in /var/log/daemon.log for lines from rpc.idmapd saying "does not map into domain" to find out what this should be if you don't know).

I think that's pretty smooth overall; kudos to all those involved. I've a few more boxes to upgrade, but they're all more likely to have people complaining at me if there are hiccups so they'll have to wait until I have a suitable block of time set aside.

(This is part of a series of posts on Why Linux?) I think of myself as reasonably pragmatic in my approach to Free/Open Source software. I don't get worked up over which set of language people want to use. I use devices that require binary firmware to be downloaded to them (because just because I can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist). I have non-free in my sources.list. And yet, talking to other Linux users these days, I realize I'm much more of a Freedom nut job than average. I want the source, be it for a driver, a minor widget, or a full app. I don't buy nVidia. I will sacrifice a degree of functionality in order to get Free. And while I think WINE is an excellent piece of software, I think the best end result is that it's no longer necessary, not that it's a perfect implementation of the ABI. How does any of this help justify my use of Linux in the work place? As previously mentioned, I'm a developer. Most developers don't operate in a vacuum; they have to inter-operate with other ecosystems. And usually somewhere along the line there's a failure to document exactly how something is handled, or an ambiguity about what exact choice might be taken. If I have access to the source then I can check that out for myself. If I don't, I have to guess. As an example, a long time ago I was involved in writing a serial console driver for QNX. There came a point where the behaviour wasn't quite as we'd expect. Although the organisation had a license for the source, I wasn't allowed to look at it. Instead I had to come up with a series of suitable questions that someone who could look at the source could answer without violating any NDAs. If I'd been able to look at the source directly we'd have all saved a lot of time. And that's an example where someone could look at the source, rather than having to make a bunch of guesses and instrument tests to see which was right. Access to the Linux source has helped me in other commercial contexts too. At Black Cat we were able to take advantage of patches like grsecurity in order to tighten up shell account boxes. I wrote the IPv6 support for l2tpns, because we had access to the source and could. I've been able to look at the source to understand exactly what SCSI responses are sent in certain circumstances too (or understand exactly what the error that a user land test program was getting back meant). Also I'm a big believe in Linus' Law. I do think that good Free software is much better than proprietary software (there's some really bad Free software out there though, I'm not disputing that). The fact that smart people can look at it and scratch whatever their itch is means that we get a gradual process of improvement that can't be ignored. Equally as long as someone has an interest in the software, end users can't be left high and dry by organisations abandoning still users applications. I think that should be a powerful driver to business to look towards Free software. (Before my more astute readers point it out; yes, I am employed writing non-free software. See the first sentence. One day I'll find a job working on Free software that ticks enough of the other boxes to be viable.)

I love revision control. I love the ability to track changes over time, whether that be to see why I changed something in the past, or to see why a particular thing has stopped working, or to see if a particular thing is fixed in a more recent version than the one I'm using. However I have a few opinions about the use of revision control that are obviously not shared by other people. Here are a few of them:

• One change per changeset. The only argument I can see against this is laziness. Changesets are cheap. Checking in multiple things in a single go makes it hard to work out exactly which piece of code fixes which problem. I'm fine with a big initial drops of code if logically it all needs to go together, but changesets that bundle up half a dozen different fixes piss me off.
• Descriptive changeset comments. Don't make me guess what you changed. Tell me. Bug numbers are not sufficient (though including them is really helpful).
• Comments in the changeset, not per file. I've only seen this with BitKeeper; you can have per file comments and then an overall changeset comment. At first I thought this was quite neat, because you can explain each part of a change. Now it just annoys me, because I want the relevant detail in one place rather than having to drill down to a per file level to figure out what's going on.
• The tree should always compile. There are people I respect who are all for checking in all the time throughout development no matter what the status. I have to disagree, at least for anything that's available to other people. The tree should always compile. This avoids pissing off your coworkers (especially if they're in a different timezone) and means you can do things like git bisect more easily. Plus it shows you've at least done minimal testing.
• Don't hide your tree. I like centralised locations for master trees. It means I can make an educated guess about where to look first for information about changes. Trees that live in obscure network shares or, worse, someone's home directory aren't helpful. While I may not always agree with the choice of VCS for the centralised service as long as it's actually fit for purpose I think it makes much more sense to use it than go off on a separate path that's less obvious for others to find.

(This is part of a series of posts on Why Linux?) I find Linux more flexible. Maybe that's the familiarity showing, maybe it's about the package management, but it's a powerful reason for me to use it. For example, a couple of years ago I wanted to try out some iSCSI stuff against a SAN. Of course I have test boxes available I can do this on, but this was just to try out a few bits and pieces rather than anything more concrete. So I installed open-iscsi on my desktop and was able to merrily do the tests I wanted with very little additional work. Or I wanted to try out some BitKeeper to git conversion work recently. I wasn't sure how much resource it would take on a build server, and didn't want to tie things up there. So I ran it on my desktop overnight, where I could easily setup the appropriate environment and wouldn't impact on anyone else's resources. Problems talking to dodgy hardware? Linux is much better about giving you some idea what's going on, without needing to install extra software. I had a workmate grappling with an old USB music player recently; hooking it up to her Windows laptop wasn't providing a lot of joy so I attached it to my Linux box and was able to see that it did identify ok, but was disconnecting randomly at times too. Want to script querying an AD server for the current employee list and displaying who's joined and who's left since the last time you did so? I found that easy enough with the common Linux LDAP tools. I'm sure it's doable under Windows too, but I'm not sure it would be quite so simple. For bonus points add graphviz into the mix for automatic organisation charts (modulo accuracy of the AD data). This flexibility is something that helps me do my job. Sure, as I mentioned above I do have access to test boxes that I can use for this, but being able to do it on my desktop can be useful - for example if I'm offline, or on a slow network connection, or just geographically distant from my test machines so network latency is higher than I'd like. (Also, it's something that makes a Linux box a really great test box. I'm lucky in that I have a mix of OSes available to me for testing, but the one that I use most often is the Debian box. Much easier to get and install decent diagnosis tools for it that can give me packet level dumps, or do really odd stuff that turns out to be really useful.)

A couple of months ago, Debian project membership voted, after extensive discussion, to implement a fundamental change in the Debian community: to welcome as members people who make a valuable contribution to the project, even if they are contributing something other than source code. This was a tremendous milestone for Debian, and one which made me feel proud to have been a part of the project. Historically, only developers had been eligible for membership, including voting and other formal privileges. Although other kinds of contributions were welcome, this disparity gave the impression that they were less valued than code contributions. It seemed to me at the time that Debian s mission was to package all of the free software in the world, and if one s efforts didn t go directly to improving packages, they just weren t as important. I don t remember when I first installed Debian, but I made my first contributions to the project in 1999, and officially joined as a developer in 2000. After several fun and rewarding years of packaging and development, I started a very demanding day job, and spent more and more of my energy into that, and less and less coding for Debian as a volunteer. However, my job with Canonical involved working with Debian, and that was a primary reason why it was interesting to me. It was an opportunity to introduce a whole new population of people to the things I loved about Debian. The reality, of course, was more complicated. Following the launch in 2004, Ubuntu grew quickly in popularity and scope, diverged from Debian in significant ways, and relations between Debian and Ubuntu became strained. Canonical grew quickly as well, and the combination of a growing community, a growing company and growing user adoption was a challenge for everyone concerned. As a Canonical manager and a Debian developer, I felt the strain as much as anyone. Meanwhile, and I felt more and more alienated from Debian. Debian developers who had been friendly in the past became suspicious of Ubuntu and me and I quickly became an outsider. My code contributions to Debian continued to decline, and I was no longer maintaining any packages. In Debian at the time, that meant that I didn t exist. I saw it as an important part of my job to work with my counterparts in Debian, in a coordinating role, but found this increasingly impractical. In 2007, I received an inquiry from the Debian Account Manager, who had noticed I wasn t actively involved in packaging, and wished to disable my account for security reasons if I wasn t using it. Although I wanted to remain active in the Debian community, I had to agree that it wasn t good security practice for me to hold onto my developer privileges. I relinquished my upload rights, with the option to come back if I resumed my development work, and officially became a nobody: I lost the right to vote, my email address and mailing list subscriptions, and all other official ties with Debian, except for the record of my GPG key in a special emeritus keyring for informational purposes. Last month, Enrico Zini announced instructions for contributors to apply for membership under the new guidelines, which recognize many kinds of contributions, not only code. Today, after a three year hiatus, I am proud to be the first Debian member to be accepted through this new process. I expect to continue to submit the occasional patch, but my primary interest is in healing the rift which still exists between Debian and Ubuntu by contributing in a more personal way. Please feel free to contact me if you d like to work together on this. You can reach me as mdz at either debian.org or ubuntu.com, or on IRC. I would like to thank Stefano Zacchiroli, for proposing the General Resolution which enabled Debian to make this transition, and for all of his other work as Debian Project Leader to help Debian grow and improve. I also appreciate Enrico Zini, Jonathan McDowell and Martin Zobel-Helas for expediently processing me and working through the technical changes needed to implement the resolution correctly. It s good to be back.

(This is part of a series of posts on Why Linux?) I've run a number of distros in my time. I ended up on Debian near the end of 1999, and part of the drive for that was the number of packages available in one centralised location. Decent package management is a definite strength of Linux (or FreeBSD) over proprietary operating systems. It derives from the freedom aspect, but means you can end up with one source for all (or most) of your software, that's compiled against the same set of libraries, with one way to track what owns what. This may not seem like a big thing, especially if you're a hobbyist or are coming from a Windows background. Reinstalling is often seen as a necessary regular requirement. Personally I've got better things to do with my time. If I want to try out a piece of software I want to be able to install it safe in the knowledge I know exactly what files it owns and where there are. And I want it to be able to tell me what other common components it needs that I might not already have. Then if I decide it's not for me I can cleanly remove it and anything else it pulled in that I no longer need. Don't underestimate this. This is useful on all of my machines. I can query the version number of everything installed. I can check for updates with one command (no need for every piece of installed software to have its own updater implementation). Software can share libraries correctly rather than stashing their own private copies, meaning I get bug fixes and security updates. (Yes, sometimes authors bundle even in the Linux world. Stop it.) I'm a developer. I tend to interact with a lot of different systems, of different types. It's really handy to have access to a wide range of tools to help me with that, know that there's legally no problem with me installing them, be able to do so with a single command and, should they turn out to be unsuitable, know I can cleanly remove them with another single command. This is a definite win in the work context. Equally I've been a sysadmin for multiple machines at once. Being able to login to each of them and check that everything is up to date is damn handy. Being able to easily install software for customers tends to make you popular too. And being able to rebuild boxes (or build additional boxes to share load) with the same setup is a lot easier with a decent package manager too. And, to pre-empt any responses about how a lot of this is possible under, say, Windows, yes, it is. I've spent some time in the past building packages for commercial deployment using Novadigm's Radia tool. I'm aware that Windows integral package management has also got better over time. I still think dpkg/apt (or rpm/yum) is far more powerful. And, for the end user, mostly easier as well - distros are building pre-prepared packages for you, rather than you having to do it yourself like with Radia.

Russell complains about locked down phones and horrible telcos, in particular about not getting a discount on your monthly contract if you don't get a phone with it. This hasn't been my experience, either in the UK or since I moved to the US. In the UK I ended up on an O2 Simplicity (month-by-month) plan which provided more minutes, SMSes and data allowance that I needed for 20/month (note that I only use the data for the phone, I didn't tether it to my laptop). Originally I chose this because I wasn't sure about coverage where I lived (that's why I was changing provider), but it turned out to be a pretty good deal, saving me at least 10/month over a contract that I'd have been tied into. When the G1 was launched I wasn't interested in moving to T-Mobile, who I knew had no 3G coverage outside of Belfast, so I ended up with one off eBay (received as a gift) and kept my O2 contract. When I moved to the US I signed up to Simple Mobile mainly because I could get a SIM from eBay before I left the UK, and it was PAYG (so the fact I'd no credit record didn't matter) but still included unlimited voice/SMS/data. Significantly more expensive at $60/month than I was used to paying in the UK, but seemed to be the going rate even for a contract. Then the G2 launched back in October. I resisted for 2 or 3 weeks, then decided it had to be mine. The G1's battery was even worse than it had been (to be fair it had lasted 2 years), and although Cyanogen provided Android 2.2 the hardware isn't really up to it. I decided to go with T-Mobile; Simple Mobile use their network, so I knew the coverage would be fine, and I figured a contract was probably a good way to help get a credit record here. Except, the pricing was a bit weird. $200 for the phone with a 2 year $80/month contract or $500 for the phone with an identical contract but no tie in and $60/month. Er, what? I pay up front and I save $180 and I can walk away whenever I want? Ok. As it turned out this was the smart choice. Firstly $60/month means $60/month plus taxes[0], so I was paying more than I paid Simple Mobile. I figured I could bear that for a few months to get the credit history, plus the free network unlock after 3 months. Except then it became clear that international SMS wasn't included in the unlimited SMS (it is with Simple). Most of my SMS is international. Now, T-Mobile have a $5/month bolt on to cover that, but not if you're on their flexpay scheme because they found themselves unable to verify your SSN. So I cancelled the contract after the first month and moved back to Simple. I didn't even need to unlock the phone due to the fact it's the same network (though I have now in preparation for my trip back to the UK over Christmas). Surprisingly T-Mobile didn't try and keep me by sorting out the international SMS bolt on. I guess US mobile customers are used to being screwed over (certainly the pricing suggests that). Er, sorry, that turned into a bit of a T-Mobile rant. My original point was that all of my recent mobile contracts have been month by month, not involved a subsidised phone, and saved me money over being tied in. And even if they hadn't my experiences with the flexibility offered by not being tied in (worries about coverage, discovering the deal isn't as good as you thought) mean that I'm pretty much convinced that contract-free is the way to go anyway. [0] Dear America, for all your complaints about VAT it's not really a lot different from sales tax and at least the prices in shops/online actually include it. Also it's the same everywhere in the country.

(This is part of a series of posts on Why Linux?) Linux, to me as an end user, is cheap. Even taking into account the fact most PCs come with a Windows licence included it's still cheaper for me to run Linux. I paid Steve minimal amounts for my first set of Debian install CDs. These days I can burn my own netinst CDs and pull the rest over the internet. I legally have access to a tremendous range of excellent software, for nothing. All the apps I need are available without having to shell out more. How is that not awesome? I get free updates, both for bugs and also for major features. I'm not left with the option of paying lots of money for the latest and greatest, or dealing with an unsupported old release with known bugs. The counter argument from my Windows using friends is often about how they didn't pay for their Windows updates nor their copy of Office. I'm unimpressed with anyone who tells me Windows is a better option, but is unprepared to pay for it. If you have to illegally obtain it in order for it to compete with Linux then you're not really comparing on equal terms, are you? Also don't tell me that Free software takes away jobs from software engineers and then pirate software, eh? Cost isn't just about the money though. I've put many hours into being involved in Debian. I've provided project resources when I was in a position to do so. I've contributed to the Linux kernel. Not quite the same as paying for it, but I think does indicate that I'm trying to give back a little too. I also accept that at an organisational level the basic cost of the software licences is often negligible compared to things like hardware, training and support. I still think cost is a compelling argument for the home user, and for decisions at an organisational level. As mentioned I realise there are issues with training and support, but I don't believe these costs are any higher than for alternative OSes. Linux also makes it remarkably easy to remotely administer machines, and perform common actions across an entire installed estate, without needing extra bolt ons from 3rd parties. Cost doesn't provide sufficient justification for an individual desktop in an organisation that has site licences for an alternative however (and in fact running Linux requires extra work on my part to do the install and maintenance compared to allowing central IT to manage my machine). So that's not a good enough reason.

(This is part of a series of posts on Why Linux?) My first PC was an Amstrad PPC640D; an 8088 with twin 720k 3.5" disk drives. It never ran Windows (3.0 was current at that point in time and I don't think it would manage to run off a single floppy), so ran DOS. I moved on to an 8086 desktop machine, complete with 10M full height 5.25" HDD and CGA graphics. It still runs DOS. From there I moved to an 80386DX-40 desktop, with 4M RAM and SVGA graphics. A massive leap forward, and something actually capable of running more than DOS. Except I didn't. I had a Windows for Workgroups 3.11 install, but mostly I still did what I needed to from DOS. The machine was never networked; it had a modem attached but that was used to connect to Fidonet which was well serviced by DOS tools. I put Linux on the box at one point but it was C and TCP/IP and I was Pascal and Fido in those days, so I didn't really know what to make of it. Fast forward a few years and I'm still mostly using DOS, but I'm on a 486 and am running a separate machine as a BBS. It's using RemoteAccess under DOS and it feels like with 486 hardware I should be able to do some of this multitasking lark. I try OS/2 and Windows 95, but both end up dropping modem data when doing other things (I've moved on to ISDN at this point). Maybe I just needed to tweak things more, but I deem multitasking with BBS software a failure and go back to DOS and 2 machines. When I went to university one of my new course mates had brought a machine running Linux, and various of the older students are already running it. There was a wealth of information and interest available to me. So I try again. I've learnt C and TCP/IP networking since last time, and suddenly it all makes more sense and I'm able to do more with it (I'm sure a summer using HP/UX on my desktop at Nortel helped). And, as I finally get to the point, it's efficient. It makes use of the extra memory in the machine that DOS can only touch with kludges. It allows me to multitask in a usable fashion. I don't feel the need for a GUI so I don't have to run one, which no doubt helps, but everything that's running is easily visible and tunable. I start running it as my desktop at university and convert the BBS over to it at some point soon after. It doesn't drop modem data. I rejoice, and don't look back. In those days I was running hardware that was probably at the low end of what the popular multitasking OSes wanted (I remember seeing Win95 on a 4M machine when it first came out, and it crawled). These days my main machines are (I would hope) more than capable of running Windows well. The efficiency angle is still an appeal of Linux though; for example in the server space I don't understand why you'd want to run something with the overhead of an always on GUI (people who leave Linux servers running GDM confuse me). I want to be able to do everything I need on a server remotely, be that via SSH or, in a pinch, a serial console. I don't want to sit at the box and use a GUI. Linux lets me run only what I actually need on the machine.

A few weeks ago it became apparent to me that I may end up having to run Windows on my work PC. We're getting new machines soon with Vista images preloaded. There's a Linux image option (of unknown base, but possibly Ubuntu), but I've kinda been assuming that I could continue in my current approach - I run Debian, and accept that IT won't give me any support in doing so other than caring about the hardware. Seems like a reasonable deal to me. Except it requires an infrastructure that's platform agnostic, and that's the problem. There's a danger our new bug tracking system is much, much happier in IE than anything else. That's kinda a problem if I can't access it. The event last week was around a web streamed meeting, which is annoying but not as critical. I was unhappy at this realization. Very unhappy. And yet I had trouble finding the words to explain why. I don't do Linux advocacy these days (I'm not sure I ever really did). I probably gave up at the point my parents' bought a replacement machine for my mother while I was living in England and went for a Windows box (she'd been running Debian) because "they had knowledge of that in the house given I wasn't around". And then promptly rang me after it arrived to ask how to configure networking. Anyway. If I can't come up with some decent reasons about why I run Linux over Windows then I can't justifiably complain if I end up with a Windows desktop. So I think I need to collect together some thoughts about it. I'll try to break them up into a bunch of separate posts rather than one huge dump that no one will read. Let's start with the obvious: Familiarity This was the first question a coworker asked; is it because you're used to Linux? And it would be untruthful to say that doesn't play a part. I've been running Linux on the desktop for the past 12 years or so (well, I had few years running FreeBSD on my primary desktop too, but close enough). The only time I've ended up with a Windows desktop was when I worked for Aviva. I don't currently have a working Windows install anywhere. I have little experience of working with Windows these days. I mean, I can do it, but I don't find it comfortable (to the extent that I managed about 3 hours when I ended up with a Windows desktop back in August before installing Debian on it). That's the argument often used to stay with Windows (as per my parents, above). And it's not accurate. Why did I try Linux in the first place, and stick with it long enough to get to this point?

I blogged back in August about my frustration in finding a new laptop that had everything I was looking for. I'd figured I would eventually end up with the Toshiba R700, given my positive experiences with the R200. The lack of stock proved a problem, and the differing specs between the US and UK models also annoying. I started trying to source the Sony and finally found the HD model in stock from Vizik, but the helpful people there talked themselves out of a sale by saying the Full HD was too much for 13" (they also failed to have a 3G Full HD model).

I'd only brought the EEE 901 to the US with me, so after a month of that as my only machine at home I was starting to get a bit fed up; the keyboard is too small for constant use and it crawls when subjected to my normal usage patterns rather than just used as a lightweight network terminal. So it became obvious I was going to have to compromise on what I wanted. And if I was doing that I wanted something a lot cheaper, as I thought I may potentially want to upgrade sooner than usual.

In the end I've gone with an Acer Aspire TimelineX 1830T. It cost about a third of what the more fully featured laptops I was looking at were going for, which was a considerable bonus. The 2 things I ended up compromising on were the SSD and 3G support. And the name; I wasn't entire sure about what the build quality would be like.

As it turned out I needn't have worried; it appears to be perfectly well constructed - no noticeable flex while typing, solid enough, yet still fairly light. The keyboard is pleasant to use (admittedly I'm coming from the EEE, but it's a good size and responsive enough for me). I'm a bit uncertain about the touchpad, which has no physical separation from the rest of the case, but it's been ok so far. I miss the multitouch of the EEE, but it looks like there are some patches for Synaptics multitouch flying around that might eventually lead to useful support. I've ended up with a Core i5 470UM at 1.33GHz - what I ordered was the i5-430UM at 1.2GHz (and that's what the box/label on the laptop said), but I'm not complaining at the slight speed bump. It's fine for my needs. The 1366x768 screen is lovely, even in 11.6". Bright, if sometimes a little too shiny..

Installing was of course fun; it reminded me of when I got the R200 - neither the wifi nor wired interfaces were supported by the Debian installer, even from testing. I found a patch to get the (Atheros) LAN working (and have filed #599771 about potentially getting the support into squeeze's kernel) and that got me up and going. The wifi is a Broadcom BCM43225; too new for the old Free driver and the recently released Broadcom Free code causes the machine to instantly crash (I understand it has some SMP issues). So I'm stuck with the binary blob wl driver from broadcom-sta for now. I have hopes the Broadcom driver will improve though; it seems to be getting active love in the staging tree. The graphics are Intel, so well supported. And I'm getting at least 4 hours of battery life out of it, which I think could be improved with some tweaking.

So, er, yeah. Not what I set out looking for, but considerably cheaper and actually seems to meet my needs pretty well - it had its first weekend away trip this weekend and performed admirably; not too heavy in my hand luggage, decent battery life and no worries about it being too flimsy to survive. I'm still surprised it's an Acer...

I got pulled up on my password policy yesterday; I don't tell other people my passwords. The context was arranging that a friend could use my laptop while I was away at work - instead of telling her my login details so she could use that I created a new account. This provoked a "Don't you trust me?" response. I couldn't quite manage to successfully articulate the fact that I did trust her, I was aware that unsupervised physical access meant that it was easy enough to gain access anyway but that I just wouldn't hand over my password. It's not like there's anything confidential or that isn't backed up on there. The password is for that machine only. My GPG key doesn't live on it, so the biggest effort if it was attacked would be rolling the SSH key (that has a passphrase, of course) for that machine. And yet I couldn't bring myself to do it. This is nothing unique to this instance; I spent 13 years with Katherine and she never knew my passwords nor had root access to any of my machines. I can imagine situations where I'd share root, but even then I wouldn't share my personal password.

Do I come across as untrusting, or is anyone else like this too?

(In the interest of full disclosure I have actually handed over my password [more accurately, changed it temporarily to something else] to someone in a work context, but it was really, really hard for me to bite my tongue and not respond with a curt "Shouldn't you be able to gain the appropriate access as you are part of IT anyway?".)

I've been talking about replacing my laptop since November. Now I've somewhat forced the issue by giving away my R200, leaving myself with just the EEE 901. I'm not planning to bring a desktop with me to California (well, I might ship bits for a media box, but probably not even a complete machine), so I've been looking more seriously at what my options are.

I like smaller laptops; the R200 is 12", I had a Compaq N200 previous which was 10". There seem to be a number of 13" options that are light, so I'm prepared to look at those.

This is going to be my main machine, so I need something with some grunt. A decent amount of RAM with a reasonable processor. I'm probably prepared to take the price hit in order to get SSD. Also a decent resolution screen along with built in wifi (does anything not have this these days?) + 3G would be nice too.

Of course, it turns out I can't have all of this. In particular the US market seems pretty dire for 3G support (no, something locked or that can't take a GSM SIM doesn't count. I expect to travel.) The UK market is a bit better, but there are still no perfect answers.

Lenovo X201s

(It's really hard for me to think of this as a Lenovo rather than an IBM Thinkpad.)

This comes in a 1440x900 resolution variant, which is nice for 12". I can have a touchpad too. What I can't have is 3G; with the 1440x900 screen there's apparently no space for the 3G antenna. Doh! Also Thinkpads are *ugly*.

Sony Vaio VPCZ12Z9E/X

I want this. Core i7, 1920x1080 screen, SSD, 3G (Gobi), sub 1.5Kg.

But. Sony. Ridiculously expensive. If it was half the price and made by Lenovo or Toshiba I'd have bought one by now. As it is there's no way I can reasonably expect it to last 3 years (and really I'd want 5 given the cost).

Toshiba R700-155

I've been extremely happy with my R200 and spent a long time eying the R500/R600. The -155 is a Core i7, 1366x768 screen, 13", 3G, sub 1.5Kg.

2 problems. One, I'd like a better resolution if I'm going to 13" - both the Lenovo and the Sony manage that. Secondly, and more of an issue, nowhere seems to have them in stock.

HP Elitebook 2540p

This has potential. Seems to be a little heavier than the other options, and it's only a 1280x800 screen (but in 12"). Available with Core i7, SSD & 3G. Oh, except once again stock is a problem.

Have I missed anything else out there? I can probably buy from the UK or US with equal ease.

In a week I'll be in California. I'm not packed, though I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure how exactly what I need to take, what I want to take, and what I really shouldn't take.

One item I've been uncertain about are keyboards. When Simon went to France for a year he took a UK keyboard with him, but then they have AZERTY which is substantially different. There are a number of US keyboards lying around the office so a few weeks ago I switched to one for work to see how it went. I think I'm bringing a stash of UK keyboards with me. Annoyances with the US keyboard:

• Enter is too small. I have this problem on my EEE 901 as well. Usually this manifests as me typing lots of half written lines on IRC.
• The " moving location is actually much more irritating than I expected. Likewise ~
• And, the decider, PERSON RAISING BOTH HANDS IN CELEBRATION simply doesn't flow as easily. On a UK keyboard it's left, middle, right. On a US keyboard it's right, left, right.

On Thursday 19th August I will be leaving Northern Ireland and relocating to California. I'm keeping my current job with 3PAR (who I should point out are actively hiring in Belfast), just moving west by a few thousand miles. I'll be working in the Fremont office, but based on advice from most people I've talked to I plan to live in San Francisco.

I've got a few trips over to England planned between now and then which will give me an opportunity to see people before I go. Also I'll be at DebConf, where I hope to try and meet a least a few other Debian people from the Bay Area and pick their brains for advice about where to live & things to do.

This is something that's taken a lot longer to come together than I originally expected. I'm very glad it finally has, but obviously there's a degree of trepidation about the whole process. If I seem somewhat disconnected from reality for the next few months rest assured I'm sure I'll be back to normal soon enough once I've moved and found somewhere to live.

As SPI secretary I announced that nominations for the SPI board were open at the start of the month. The nomination period closes this Tuesday (13th July) with voting opening up on Thursday 15th. This year over half the board is up for election - 5 seats (currently held by Luk Claes, Joshua D. Drake, Bdale Garbee, Joerg Jaspert & Martin Zobel-Helas). So far I've received only 2 nominations, though I'm aware these things are often left to the last minute, so hopefully more will appear in the next few days. All anyone who wants to stand needs to do is drop secretary@spi-inc.org a (preferably PGP signed) email nominating yourself and providing a position statement (which will all be published once the nomination period is over).

Oh, and if you're a contributing SPI member please do remember to vote once voting is open!

I decided last night to upgrade the firmware on my G1. I've been fairly happy with my lightly hacked Android 1.6 (basically the stock T-Mobile image rooted and with a couple of apps added) but I'm interested in whether Froyo will bring performance improvements and the office is now full of Desire users so I figured I'd install 2.1 to see if it was any good, and prepare for 2.2. I went for CyanogenMod as it seems to be fairly sane ROM put together by someone with some clue.

Of course I decided to ignore some of the instructions; particularly the bit about doing a factory reset first. Most of my data is easily backed up, either to Google or locally, but I wanted to keep my SMS+MMS history. There's nothing really that interesting there, and the SMS stuff is backed up automatically via SMS Backup, but still. It was a challenge. What I ended up finding was that if I didn't do the data deletion then Contacts wouldn't work, but I'd keep the SMS/MMS. And if I did the data deletion everything worked fine but I didn't have the SMS/MMS history.

I fired up adb to have a look around the filesystem, to see if there was something obvious. And there was! I found /data/data/com.android.providers.telephony/databases/mmssms.db, which is actually an SQLite database of received messages. So I booted up with the old data present, logged in, tarred up all of /data, copied it across to my desktop, reset the phone and deleted all data, waited for it to boot, extracted mmssms.db from the tarball and put it back on the phone. Result! My message threads reappeared. Turns out that wasn't enough for MMS, but that was solved by copying the contents of /data/data/com.android.providers.telephony/app_parts/ across as well.

Yes, I accept this is kludgey and most end users aren't going to do it, but a couple of points:

• I'm flashing an unsupported ROM. I expect things to potentially break and not be able to complain to anyone about it. I'm very happy that it's an option, having had issues in the past where an operator wouldn't release an updated Nokia ROM for months after its release even when it fixed major issues.
• This is something I wouldn't have been able to do under WinMo or Symbian. I've had a world of pain in the past moving between phones, even when using Nokia's PC Suite to try and copy stuff from the old one to the new one. Being able to get a full shell on the phone is hugely useful for dealing with this stuff when it goes wrong or you want to do something slightly different.

While the above is Android specific I'm fairly sure WebOS on the Pre or Maemo on the N900 would offer me the same level of power and control. I think I've just convinced myself that alternative smartphone OSes are no longer viable options.

We appear to have a government again, which is always helpful. Let's see how they do. While all the deliberation was going on Dad and I had a ponder about exactly what your chances of voting for a winner were. The Guardian helpfully have the results dataset available, so I nabbed that. They may have updated it since I did; it certainly seemed to be a bit off compared with the BBC. Anyway.

29,577,337 - total votes cast.
13,982,219 - total votes cast for winning MPs.
7,279,220 - total votes cast for winning MPs in the new government (ie Conservative or LibDem).

So there was a 47.27% chance of a vote being for a winning MP, but only 24.61% chance that a vote was not only for a winning MP but also one that ended up being part of the coalition.

Another interesting number; 220 seats were won with 50% or more of the vote, 540 with more than 40%. That's higher than I expected.