Search Results: "tar"

16 November 2006

Michael Janssen: Quickie Hack: Online X-mas list

It's getting around that time of year when kids start singing little annoying songs and thinking of the toys that they will be getting in slightly more than a month. In my family, when everyone gathered for thanksgiving, the younguns were expected to have a list which could be disseminated throughout the family with everything they wanted. This avoided some of the more clich gifts such as sweaters and socks. But who's to say that grownups can't have a little fun as well? It's rather easy to use del.icio.us as a holder for your whole Christmas list. If you find something you want, just add it to your del.icio.us bookmarks with a special tag - I'm using “xmaslist2006”. Using del.icio.us gives you a few advantages over the traditional list: Things on the list need not be completely techie - if you're just looking for a nice sweater, you can add a general page or a representative item with a comment on it. Perhaps include your sizes as well, especially for items which come in a large number of sizes like pants. With any luck, you'll get just what you want this year.

Adrian von Bidder: A replacement for screen

ITP: retty says:
retty is a tiny tool that lets you attach processes running on other terminals. So you were running that mutt outside of screen at your home machine and now wanna check your mail? Attach it with retty, do whatever you want, detach it again and everything is as it was before. You don't have to run them all in screen just in case.
Daniel Jacobowitz analyzed the tool a bit:
What it seems to be doing is injecting code onto the stack which causes the target process to open your terminal and dup2 it onto stdout, stderr, et cetera. Interesting.
Interesting isn't really the word I'd use here. More like Eek! Incredibly ugly, but incredibly useful if it works reliably.

Evan Prodromou: 24 Brumaire CCXV

Interesting Techcrunch article about aboutus.org, the wiki about every domain on the Internet. It was started by Ray King, an extremely nice guy that we've met at a couple of Wiki events, and it seems to be doing really well. I guess he just closed an initial round of investments, which is great. There was an article about Aboutus in the Portland Business Journal. Although I don't think it's a "potential Google" (!), as the reporter does (gotta love the home town crowd), Aboutus is a neat idea and it's a good group of people, too. tags:

Puck Quebecois Speaking of things that are rocking, I just got an invite to Le Puck Quebecois. It's the Montreal tournament of the Hocky Association of the Arts, a group of artists and musicians nationwide who love to play hockey against each other. The organizer is Jeff Waye of Ninjatune, who combines in one person an unhealthy obsession with music with an unhealthy addiction to hockey. It should be a really fun amateur hockey tournament. All proceeds go to charity, of course. tags:

Not only but also Next week, 30 Brumaire, (or 22 November for those of you who need some math help) there's a meeting of MSLUG, the Montreal Scheme/Lisp Users Group. I have get to get out to an MSLUG meeting, but I think this one will be my first. It's admirable that the group has pulled off so many meetings in the last 3 years. tags:

Lenny So, at the bottom of this release message, we get the name of the post-etch Debian release: Lenny. Is Debian now using codenames from The Simpsons? I think Lenny Leonard is as nice as the next guy, but we're still going through the minor characters in Toy Story. I've scoured the Toy Story credits and Toy Story 2 credits, and "Lenny" is the name of the little binoculars character, which gets about 12 seconds of screen time, if I remember correctly. Man, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this naming convention. tags:

Hey Doc! Don Marti's intro to OpenID for Doc Searls is cracking me up. I'd mentioned in my articles for LinuxWorld last week that I'd written an OpenID extension for MediaWiki, and I guess now Doc wants to know how to use it. tags:

Stefano Zacchiroli: cdbs relevance

/me on the Relevance of CDBS Whoa, people discussing about CDBS, I can't help joining them. My position: I love CDBS. I started switching my packages to CDBS an year ago or so and nowadays I've almost finished. I understand that people not knowing CDBS might have trouble fixing bugs in my packages, but that's life and it's the same as having to fix a bug in a software written in a programming language you are not fond of. It's just a matter of setting a minimal standard: today people in the NM have to learn debhelper, tomorrow they will have to learn CDBS too. I think it's worth the effort, because CDBS, if used extensively in our archive, has the benefit of providing a single place where to massively make changes to potentially all packages of the archive. That's a huge win for QA in Debian. The same does debhelper, but it only takes care of technical aspects in the packaging process while CDBS also takes care of behavioural aspects. Of course CDBS has drawbacks and nuisances (the available hooks for examples are not properly standardized nor documented IMO), but I think it's a step in the right direction. In Debian we should push more and more toward the possibility of making changes in a centralized/batch manner, so that when maintainers tend to get MIA we have a quick and easy way to take over their unfulfilled duties. Collaborative maintenance is a social step in that direction, CDBS is a technical one.

Mario Iseli: Microsoft and Novell - Support for opensource projects?

Right now I sit in my office and read the magazine “InfoWeek”. This is a magazine for IT professionals and IT companies, almost everbody in Switzerland who works as a sysadmin or programmer read it. Generally I really like this magazine, because you find stories about almost everything, opensource, closedsource, new technologies, routers, databases etc. Sometimes there are also good tutorials about how to exchange something in a company with an opensource pendant. Today I found this bad article, the title is “Microsoft unterst tzt Linux” (means in english something like “MS supports Linux”). There’s a picture with Steve Ballmer and Ron Hovsepian shaking their hands. Hmmm, for me the title is just completely wrong. Because this would mean “Linux ==Novell” and nothing more. There’s written that they got a lot of money from Microsoft which is dedicated for opensource projects. Now a question to everyone: Did someone of you got money from Microsoft/Novell for your free software project? I think not really, otherwise I would be very confused. Dear reporters of IT magazines: Linux is a free operating kernel and not “a desktop system developed by Novell”. And by buying money _FOR_ Linux you would have to give this money to the community or whatever because opensource products in general are not developed by companies as Microsoft. Sorry in a way for this article, I hope that the !Free-Software-People reading my blog will learn anything, I really hate this “Linux == Novell product”, because Novell is in my eyes a very proprietary company which destroys parts of the community. :-(

Jeff Licquia: What Do We Want From Microsoft?

Jason Matusow of Microsoft wants to know:
That said, the real voice of the community is…well…from those of you I don’t know. I have to tell you that the issues with getting this covenant right are incredibly complex and there are real concerns on all sides. Our design goal is to get language in place that allows individual developers to keep developing.
(This is in response to the recent patent deal between Microsoft and Novell, and the poor reception it’s getting from the free software community.) Unfortunately, he got GrokLaw-ed, and his comment system isn’t taking the heat well. So, here’s my feedback; hopefully, he’s paying attention to views outside his comments. The big problem, if you ask me, is the distinction between “commercial” and “non-commercial” that Matusow (and everyone else I hear from Microsoft) is making. In our world, that distinction is a lot less important than the distinction between “proprietary” and “open”. For us, “commercial” is just another way software can be used, and restrictions on commercial use are like restrictions on use by women, or by people in Illinois, or by people who have ever picked their nose in public. Why are businessmen any less deserving of our software as a class than housewives, or Haitians, or other free software developers? Matusow claims not to be interested in any of this:
We are not interested in providing carte blanche clearance on patents to any commercial activity - that is a separate discussion to be had on a per-instance basis. As you comment, please keep in mind that we are talking about individuals, not .orgs, not .com, not non-profits, not…well, not anyone other than individual non-commercial coders.
Dialogue often means meeting the other person where they’re at, not where you want them to be. They would, presumably, not take us seriously if we insisted on a blanket patent license as a condition for any kind of conversation. Fair enough; but then why should we taken them seriously when they insist on us turning our backs on one of our bedrock principles? But does the conversation have to be either-or? I’m betting that Matusow’s blog post is evidence that it doesn’t. People at his level are not the types to waste time on wild goose chases. And is it all that strange to think there might be value in the conversation? There’s a mighty thin line between “proprietary” and “commercial”, so thin even we get them confused sometimes. Does Microsoft really care all that much about for-profit use and improvement of free and open tech? If so, they’re prominent members of a small and shrinking club. If not, then it seems to me that we have a lot of common ground for discussion.

15 November 2006

Per Olofsson: What's the deal with hermeneutics?

Dear Lazyweb,

Today I had a philosophy class and we discussed hermeneutics. But I didn't understand a thing. Not that I ever understand much of what my philosophy teacher says, but I just don't get hermeneutics.

Yes, I've looked it up on Wikipedia, and I've read about it in a book. But I still don't understand. The language used to describe hermeneutics is complicated and weird, and just doesn't make any sense to me.

What I've grasped so far is this: Hermeneutics is a methodology and/or epistemology used in the humanities and, to some extent, the social sciences. Hermeneutics is about interpreting texts. A text can be a literary text or something else (like a film, painting, or perhaps even reality). When you read a text, you need to read it several times and perform "close reading" of the parts. A text consists of the parts and the whole, and somehow they relate to each other, and you need to understand the parts to understand the whole and vice versa (I have no idea what this means). Hermeneutics is also some kind of way of describing reality (epistemology) which differs from the natural science in that it seeks to understand things rather than explain them. In the natural sciences, or the logical positivist tradition, knowledge is sought by explaining cause and effect (at least that's what my teacher says). Proponents of hermeneutics argue that this method does not apply to the humanities. Hermeneutics also employ something called the "hermeneutic circle", which means that you understand a text better the more you read it.

But I don't understand this method. What's so special about reading a text several times? What's the deal with close reading, why is it that good? What kind of knowledge is gained by this method? How does it differ from simply reading a text any number of times and then write an essay about what you think and feel about it? The parts I understand about hermeneutics are only trivialities. Also, there seems to be some kind of rules when you read the text. Like, you need to observe the characters one time, and the plot the second time, etc. Who decided that? Why is it necessary to follow these particular rules, if they exist?

Most importantly, exactly why is hermeneutics a scientific method? To me it looks merely as a practice of reading texts and writing essays about them. These essays are of course subjective; they don't generate any objective knowledge in the natural scientific sense. I'm not saying that it's wrong to write about literature, I just don't understand why a certain method of doing it is considered more scientific than any arbitrary method. In the natural sciences, there are criteria of intersubjectivity, independent testability, verifiability, falsifiability, etc. I see nothing of the like in hermeneutics; I don't know any of its scientific criteria. Apparently you need to refer to specific parts of the text in order to justify your statements (opinions? theories?), but it is a rather vague criterion, and I don't understand the rationale for it.

Another thing is the epistemological side of it. Somehow, hermeneutics is a general theory of knowledge. How that could be I don't know. Why would, for example, a close reading of a text give us the answer to questions like the distance to a particular star or human effect on global warming? Maybe that's not what hermeneutics is intended for. But if it is claimed to be a general theory of knowledge, it should be able to answer those questions in some way.

Maybe all this is just me being stupid or zealous. Or maybe I'm not thinking clearly -- I'm suspecting that I've not been thinking clearly lately. Perhaps I'm refusing to understand out of mere distaste or frustration. My classmates suggested something in the line of that. Perhaps it's because I've read physicist Alan Sokal's brilliant satirical article "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", and I am now allergic to the language used by academics in the humanities.

If someone could enlighten me on these issues, that would be much appreciated.

Erich Schubert: Eclipse just doesn't work

Eclipse just doesn't work right for me. I'm so pissed by this crap... I've been following this tutorial (whoever had the idea to use screenshots for the actual code parts... ever heard of copy'n'paste?). At one point you need to add a class. A new class. Derived from Object. So I chose the menu option in Eclipse to, well, add a new class. After pressing "Next" in the wizard, eclipse froze, using 100% CPU. After killing and restarting eclipse, it had only created an empty file. But since I have to type in the data from the Tutorial anyway, ok. Next step in the tutorial: edit the faces-config.xml file with the faces-config editor. Sounds easy. I click on the file, open with, faces-config editor. Boom. First some content type error message is displayed, but the details actually list a NullPointerException:
java.lang.NullPointerException
    at org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.StructuredTextEditor.update(StructuredTextEditor.java:3047)
    at org.eclipse.jst.jsf.facesconfig.ui.FacesConfigEditor.addPages(FacesConfigEditor.java:396)
    at org.eclipse.ui.forms.editor.FormEditor.createPages(FormEditor.java:142)
    at org.eclipse.ui.part.MultiPageEditorPart.createPartControl(MultiPageEditorPart.java:276)
    [... 40 more lines of backtrace ...]
Error handling in Java sucks, too. Usually you just get a 50 lines+ stack trace. [Update: deinstalling XML buddy resolved the last problem, and I could add a second class without another crash]

Erich Schubert: CDBS is NMU-friendly

Steinar H. Gunderson even threatens kittens because of it, and Steve McIntyre ranted against using CDBS for packaging, claiming that it's much harder to fix bugs in packages that use CDBS. I have to disagree. More than once I've given up on fixing a bug in a package because I couldn't decrypt the huge makefiles used for building the package. For private packages I often switch over packages to CDBS then, so I don't have to fiddle around with a build system noone except the original maintainer understands. And every now and then I fix a bug in Debian, but don't upload it because I replaced the "magic" build system with CDBS magic... While CDBS does a lot of "black magic" to build packages, it usually does quite a good job. If it doesn't, it maybe even is a bug in CDBS, that happens. debian/rules files that use CDBS are usually quite easy to read, even easier than traditional debhelper template-based scripts. And that is why I think that CDBS is a good thing: it does a good job at separating package-specific and package-independendant build scripting. Maybe all we need is more documentation on how to properly fix common issues in CDBS, starting with misplaced or misnamed files etc. CDBS has a lot of hooks, but it's not obvious which hooks to use for which fixes. (Note that sometimes the fix should maybe be done in the upstream makefile instead.) On the long run, Debian could use a more unified way of packaging. Debhelper has already unified package building a lot, and CDBS maybe goes one step too far, but ideally we would all be able to understand each others debian/rules.

Alexander Sack: mozilla security updates available for testing

Thanks to Mike Hommey we have another set of security updates for
our mozilla apps in sarge. The versions are: mozilla-firefox 1.0.4-2sarge13
mozilla-thunderbird 1.0.2-2.sarge1.0.8d.1
mozilla 1.7.8-1sarge8 Please use my security archive to get the preview packages and
test them as extensively as possible. If you encounter any NEW problems, please let us know at pkg-mozilla-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org. Thanks for your support.

MJ Ray: Business: Email, sigs and signing

Ian Rawlings wrote in an article in uk.comp.os.linux that:
"There was a legal precedent set in the UK a little less than a year ago, in which the company's name and contact details in an email signature were taken as sufficient identification of the company for the contents of the email to be acceptable as a contract [...]"
and then helpfully provided some references about it. The headline on Disclaimers could make emails into contracts [The Register] seems a bit off. Even the article ends:
"The end result of this could be that people who include a signature and disclaimer at the bottom of their emails might actually be making themselves more liable than people who just send one line emails."
Note the might there. It's quite a leap, isn't it? Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA [2006] EWHC 813 (Ch) (07 April 2006) appears to have ruled that headers were not a sufficient signature, rather than that a plain text signature block (sig) is sufficient. Have I missed a key point here? AFAICS, the ruling contains the following key general points:
"28. I have no doubt that if a party creates and sends an electronically created document then he will be treated as having signed it to the same extent that he would in law be treated as having signed a hard copy of the same document. [...]"
"30. [...] if a party or a party's agent sending an e mail types his or her or his or her principal's name to the extent required or permitted by existing case law in the body of an e mail, then in my view that would be a sufficient signature for the purposes of Section 4. [...]"
I doubt that a sig is quite the same as a hand signature, as it doesn't necessarily 'serve as a method of authentication' as required by the Digital Signature Directive ( 1999/93/EC, Electronic Signatures Regulations 2002), but there are times when it could bind one to things. Essentially, using a sig is like using headed paper, not like hand-signing. Parts of the ruling (para.19) seem to argue that automatic insertions make things carry less weight AFAICT - does that hint at how futile those forced stupid disclaimers would be if relied upon in court? Does the same automatic-or-decision point also mean that using a electronic signature tool (gpg or whatever) selectively helps it carry more weight than signing everything automatically? I don't agree it ... signs death warrant for Digital Signatures [Financial Cryptography] Interesting questions. Anyone know if the answers are decided yet?

Matthew Palmer: Severe Discomfort's "The Joy of UDP"

(For the grammar Nazis out there: no, that apostrophe is not misplaced)
There are times when a connectionless protocol almost doesn't seem worth the hassle. Take, for instance, the troubles of a round-trip communication, using UDP, where the initial request is sent to a secondary IP address on an interface. Your code, on the server, might look like this:
 s = UDPSocket.new
 s.bind('', 12345)
 loop   data, remote = s.recvfrom(65535); s.send(data, 0, remote[3], remote[1]  
This is a pretty simple Ruby fragment which just reflects your UDP packets back at you. It really doesn't get much simpler than that. Connect to this thing from somewhere else (using nc -u remoteip 12345) and you can reflect packets back and forth to your heart's content. Or so you'd think... When talking to a regular IP address, your packets probably look something like this (when viewed using tethereal):
 192.168.0.1 -> 192.168.0.2 UDP Source port: 35716 Destination port: 12345
 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.1 UDP Source port: 12345 Destination port: 35716
Fantastic -- I send a packet, and get one back. In netcat, you see whatever you typed printed back out again. But, what if I add a secondary IP address to the server's interface (ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.0.5, for instance) and try sending packets to that IP address (with nc -u 192.168.0.5 12345)? I get this insanity:
 192.168.0.1 -> 192.168.0.5 UDP Source port: 35772 Destination port: 12345
 192.168.0.2 -> 192.168.0.1 UDP Source port: 12345 Destination port: 35772
And of course, no self-respecting network stack is going to accept a packet back from a totally different IP address, even if it did manage to get the ports right. Hence, the client never sees the return packets, and thinks that the server is snubbing it. What's happening here seems insane, but it's actually just a regular artifact of a connecntionless protocol like UDP. You see, we've bound our socket to the "any" address (the empty string in the call to #bind tells UDPSocket to bind to the "any" address -- no, I don't know why either, it's not a particularly intuitive interface). When we get the packet into our app via #recvfrom, we get no information on what address the packet was actually sent to, only that the OS decided that the packet was for us (yay for encapsulation). The only information we get is where the packet was coming from -- and due to the fact that the kernel keeps no connection-related information around for the socket (the kernel figures it'll hold us to our connectionless pledge), when the time comes for us to send a packet back, we have to explicitly say where we want that packet to go -- that's the remote[3], remote[1] arguments in the #send call. The brain-leakage starts when we work out where to say the packet is coming from. When we send the packet, a source address needs to calculated -- again, the kernel keeps no information on source or destination because we're connectionless. Because our socket is bound to the "any" interface, the OS thinks it has carte blanche to set whatever source address it likes. In Linux, the behaviour appears to be to pick the IP address set on the primary alias for the interface that will be used to send the packet out on. So for the common case (one IP address per physical interface) everything is fine. But those corner cases, gee, they're awfully sharp and pointy... The solution, of course, is to send the packet out through a socket that is bound to the particular address you want to use as the source address -- then the kernel knows what source address you want, and there's no confusion. Seems pretty trivial, right? Surely every sensible network application does that already, right? So obviously Ruby's UDPSocket implementation just sucks. That's what I thought, and I don't blame you if you think so too. But before you raise pitchforks and storm the gem-covered castle, try repeating our little experiment with some other widely-used UDP-based applications, such as net-snmpd or your ntp server. (The NTP server is a little different, in that to trigger the problem you need to start it and then setup the interface alias, for reasons I'll explain later). Both net-snmpd and ntpd exhibit the same behaviour as our trivial UDP echo service -- at least, the versions present in Ubuntu Breezy do, although I can't imagine everyone's suddenly cottoned onto this problem in the last 12 months or so and come out with a rash of fixes. So, basically, everyone seems to be suffering from the same malady. For values of "everyone" that equal "some UDP servers". There's some services that don't seem to have such troubles with alias interfaces -- the Bind DNS server comes immediately to mind, and ntpd works fine if you start the NTP server after you setup the interfaces. Why the difference? These services are clever and bind to each IP address on the system separately, like so:
 $ netstat -lun  grep :53
 udp        0      0 192.168.0.1:53          0.0.0.0:*                          
 udp        0      0 192.168.0.5:53          0.0.0.0:*                          
 udp        0      0 127.0.0.1:53            0.0.0.0:*                          
This is very cool, and solves the problem, except that if you add another interface after you start Bind, it doesn't pick up the new address, and you're boned until you restart the daemon. It also increases code complexity a bit, since you need add a select into your request handling loop (instead of just blocking on the #recvfrom call, like I've been doing thus far). Whilst I'm never happy about unnecessary complexity, I'll deal with it where I have to, but the real killer for this application is the "you can't change your interfaces after starting the daemon" rule -- my particular need is to make requests to a virtual service IP address, and restarting my service after each IP address change is going to suck hard. I mentioned ntpd earlier because it has some extra trickery at work. It's list of bound interfaces looks like this:
udp        0      0 10.6.66.6:123           0.0.0.0:*                          
udp        0      0 192.168.250.6:123       0.0.0.0:*                          
udp        0      0 172.14.16.6:123         0.0.0.0:*                          
udp        0      0 172.31.62.1:123         0.0.0.0:*                          
udp        0      0 192.168.37.179:123      0.0.0.0:*                          
udp        0      0 10.64.64.64:123         0.0.0.0:*                          
udp        0      0 127.0.0.1:123           0.0.0.0:*                          
udp        0      0 0.0.0.0:123             0.0.0.0:*                          
It listens to every IP address explicitly plus the "any" interface. I'm not quite sure why, either -- just listening to the specific addresses works for Bind, and if you add an interface alias after starting ntpd, it exhibits exactly the same problem as the trivial UDP echo service, so I don't think that listening on "any" is really gaining it anything. Listening on "any" does make ntpd behave differently to Bind: with Bind, if you send packets to an interface that wasn't available when Bind was started, it just completely ignores you (because it lacks a socket listening for packets to that address), while with ntpd the packets hit the "any" socket and suffer from the wrong-source-address bug. At the moment, my best chance of a solution appears to be to follow Bind and ntpd's lead and hook onto every address, but with the extra twist inspired by ntpd -- listen on the "any" address as well as all of the specific addresses. If I use any packets that arrive on the "any" socket as a trigger to rescan the available addresses (to add any new addresses that have been created since the last scan), that should solve all my problems. Now I only need to make it work (and deal with the insanities that will no doubt result). Wish me luck. The screams of pain and frustration you hear (no matter where you are in the world) are probably mine.

14 November 2006

Joachim Breitner: Infoning in Ghana

I m running a computer club at the school in Ghana where am volunteering as a Free Software advocate at the moment (as you probably know already). At first I tried to spread a little bit of general hacker attitude by introducing an internal wiki and blog, and by explaining what Free Software is. Then some students indicated interest in a programming course, so I held python lessons in the club (Sessions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). Unfortunately, interest was declining over time, and while the first lessons had over ten participants (not to speak of the 20 at the very first one), it soon fell to around four. There was also some fluctuation, students leaving, others joining (and then of course lacking the lessions from the earlier sessions).So today, with four students who only recently joined, I started something new: I introduced the game infon, by fellow entropianian Florian 'dividuum' Wesch. It is a networked battle area where bugs compete over food and fight each other. Suitable for the computer club makes it the fact that the bugs are not directly controlled, but the players write their intelligence (using the simple language lua) and only upload code to the server. They can even do this while the game is running and it was a very fun game to play at GPN5 in Karlsruhe. You can read my infon-tutorial, and it s mostly non-SOSHGIC specific.I got them far enough to type the code that I presented as an example, to get it running, and to extend it slightly. I am only hoping that they will dig in a little bit deeper until next week. I think that you can only be successful in learning programing or similar things if you spend some time doing it besides the classes, and I did not see that happening when I was doing python. Maybe I was going too fast or the text-only way of doing it was discouraging, but I did expect them to starting having their own ideas at least after we were programming a simple text-based maze in the club.

Steve McIntyre: aaargh! cdbs...

Steinar suggests that he doesn't like cdbs. He's not alone. cdbs may make life easy for the maintainer, but it can make it incredibly difficult for anybody trying to fix bugs and NMU a package. I've found this myself when doing RC bugfixes during the recent round of BSPs; I must admit that more than once I've started looking into a bug only to give up the moment I've seen it uses cdbs. Fixing packaging errors is much harder when all the details of the package build are hidden from you in a mass of variables and included Makefiles. Unfortunately, it seems quite a number of new inexperienced maintainers have been using cdbs with very little understanding of the magic it does behind the scenes. This doesn't bode well for the quality of their packages in my experience.

Evan Prodromou: 22 Brumaire CCXV

My third and final article on the Web 2.0 conference came out today in LinuxWorld: Web 2.0 Summit: Open Source software borrows back from the open API Web. I tried to insist that they use the French Revolutionary Calendar for the byline but LW flatly refused. Go figure. The article turned out well, except that Chad Dickerson's name somehow ended up as "Brad Dickerson". D'oh. But I think overall it was pretty good series, and I concentrated on the stuff that I thought was fantastico. Which turned out to be the fun way to do it. I'm not sure whether it's best to take a breather right now and not worry about more conferences until March with SxSWi 2007, or if I should be finding other things to do. Really, I kinda have a lot of work to catch up on, some interesting projects to get started, and all kinds of stuff just goin' on. tags:

MTL I had beers at La ka this evening with Michael Lenczner of le sans Fil (our local, insanely good community wireless system in Montreal) and Civic Access and just generally an all-around good guy. We met... last year, maybe?... at one of Seb Paquet's Friends of Seb lunches. Man, Seb knows everybody. Anyways, a fun time was had. La ka is always a nice place to spend a few hours, especially with a Griffon Rousse in hand. Or so. We chatted about alternative office systems (my new obsession since Patrick Tanguay's presentation at BarCampMontreal), 802.11n (the new multi-antenna standard for wireless), and HAL, the incredible new system SF has for distributing locally-made art and culture on the local network of their hotspots. A great idea, and I hope it goes far... I want to use it in New York, Durban, KL and Perth. I think if I get around to talking to Boris sometime in the next week I'll have completed my post-barcamp trifecta. tags:

Smashing success! Sounds like The Kokoromi Collective had a Smashing success at their event the other night. A little bummed that we couldn't make it, but glad it turned out so well. tags:

13 November 2006

Wouter Verhelst: Rock's kernel

I've decided it's been enough. Rock has been running 2.6.12 for ages. Not because I didn't want to upgrade, but since 2.6.12 was the last Debian-packaged kernel that would actually boot on rock. You see, this machine is a rather old SMP system, and there seems to be something wrong with its interrupt system. It would boot if I used a uniprocessor kernel instead, but then it's pretty silly to have a box with two processors, and only use one of them... At first I ignored it, assuming it would get fixed some time soon. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. And since we're at 2.6.18 right now, and the kernel team has done away with uniprocessor or SMP-only kernels, that means I can't even upgrade to the latest kernel anymore, even if I'd want to. I've been using git-bisect for the last few days in an attempt to find the issue, so that I can report it... only today I realized that I did remember 2.6.13 not to work, but that perhaps it failed for reasons not related to my current problem. Downloading that package from snapshot.debian.net and verifying showed that this is, indeed, the case. Grmbl. So I had to start all over again... Not fun. After starting that, I suddenly found out that make-kpkg didn't want to be friends anymore:
LC_ALL=C make-kpkg --initrd --config oldconfig --rootcmd fakeroot kernel-image
exec debian/rules  DEBIAN_REVISION=2.6.13-10.00.Custom  INITRD=YES  ROOT_CMD=fakeroot  kernel-image 
debian/ruleset/targets/source.mk:34: *** target pattern contains no  %'.  Stop.
wouter@rock:/usr/src/linux-2.6$ 
Hate. Grmbl.

Wouter Verhelst: Me too, daddy, me too!

According to Aurelien Jarno, it's possible to run Debian/ARM and both Debian/MIPS platforms inside an emulator that itself is packaged and runs on Debian. Since fairly recently (about a month or two, I guess), the same is true for Debian/m68k. Granted, the emulator you need to install isn't called "qemu", but with ARAnyM (short for 'Atari Running on Any Machine') it is now possible to run Debian/m68k. And it's fairly easy to do, too: There, you have a free m68k development machine! Note, however, that there might be issues with the network interface; the NIC in the emulated machine is unlike any real, actual Atari hardware. There is a driver for Linux, but I'm not 100% sure whether it's been integrated in the Debian kernels yet. I'm sure Christian will kick me awake on this, though ;-)

Aurelien Jarno: Cheap MIPS/MIPSEL development machine

In addition to the ARM platform, it is now possible to emulate a MIPS (big endian) or MIPSEL (little endian) machine running Debian under QEMU. It could be used as a cheap MIPS/MIPSEL development machine to test your packages, provided that you have a not to slow i386, AMD64 or PowerPC computer. Running on an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ the emulated system is around 10% faster than my SGI Indy R4400SC 200MHz and possibly with much more RAM (my emulated system has 512 MB of RAM). Also for the ones who know about the Indy SCSI controller, the transfer rate is around 13 MB/s on the emulated system. I have written a small howto explaining how to install Debian Etch on such an emulated MIPS or MIPSEL machine, using Debian-Installer RC1, which has just been released. Thanks to Daniel Jacobowitz who has recently improved QEMU/MIPS a lot, and to Thiemo Seufer who has started the integration of the MIPS QEMU platform in Debian-Installer and in the Debian kernel. Note 1: I have written this howto very quickly, so there are probably some mistakes. Comments are welcome.
Note 2: I have updated the ARM howto to take in account improvements from Debian-Installer RC1

Erich Schubert: Eclipse chaos

For my diploma thesis, I'll be extending a tomcat-based wiki. So I decided to setup a development framework for Tomcat, JSF and all these. What a mess. The installation docs are really really bad etc. Two hours later, a dozen Eclipse restarts, I might finally have the Eclipse.org Web Tools Platform on my computer. I don't know yet, since I didn't even write a single line of code or metadata yet. I think I've picked my preferred mirror about 20 times by now. I wish I could just use apt-get. Debian is so nice for installing software... I wish eclipse were a pure opensource project, and there weren't so many companies trying to sell extensions to it. Oh, and I wish it were a native Linux/Unix project, and wouldn't care about working around Windows userunfriendliness by offering an own installer and own update tool and own everything-that-windows-lacks. [Update: how to install eclipse extensions without going crazy:
mkdir -p ~/.eclipse/eclipse/plugins
mkdir -p ~/.eclipse/eclipse/features
touch ~/.eclipse/eclipse/.eclipseextension
Now start eclipse, go to Help, Software Updates, Manage Configuration and add ~/.eclipse/eclipse as a location to search at. Note that the folder must be called eclipse and have these two folders and marker file in it.]

Evan Prodromou: 21 Brumaire CCXV

Long day today (yesterday, actually, but I'm post-dating this in the interest of chronological flow). The baby's having a hard time coming off of West Coast time; she got up late and took a loooong nap till half-past three. Which was fine, because I needed the time to work on my NSLU2, which needed some attention. The NSLU2, or "Slug", is a tiny Linux computer from Linksys, about the size of a two packs of Marlboros laid side-by-side. My brother Nate gave me one last year for Christmas (thanks, nate), and I've been using it for network backups, but on our trip to SF Nate showed me that he's running all kinds of wild services off of his. So I decided to start shifting over some responsibilities to the little bugger. Which was just about time. Sometime during our trip to San Francisco, my main home server started having fan problems; it kept overheating and shutting itself down. It's going to take some time to diagnose the problem, but I figured that this was as good a time as any to move the critical services over to the Slug. The main one that needed budging was DNS. Maj's main domain, as well as my two .san-francisco.ca.us domains, run from home, because it's too hard to get the registrar to change them. The Unslung system I use for the Slug has a BIND package, which is a good thing to run, anyways. I was running MaraDNS on the big server, because I always root for the underdog, but there wasn't a MaraDNS package for the Slug. So I rewrote my zone files and things are up and running now. I don't know what else I'm going to put on there. Jabberd? Asterisk? A home wiki? Just not sure. tags:

Blah blah blah When the baby got up, we went to our local Loblaws, out towards the end of rue Rachel across from Canadian Tire. It's a pretty fantastic place to buy groceries -- it's the old CPR Angus Shops, a repair and maintenance facility for the Canadian Pacific Railway. The building is huge, with giant cranes and beams still attached to the roof. Amita and I grabbed a crapload of groceries and brought them home to Maj, who'd just had a massage at the centre around the corner and was feeling really good. She'd rented Tristram Shandy, the 2005 movie based on the 18th-century level-twisting novel. Me and Amita June made some baked potatoes, and we all watched the movie, and a good time was had. tags:
 

H****e en vrac One thing I always want to buy when I'm at the store in Quebec is the quite commonly available communion wafers. Yeah, really! big ol' 5-inches-diameter communion wafers, in the snack section next to the Doritos and the Humpty Dumpty potato chips. Quebec society has a had a precipitous secularization -- from around 90% church attendance in the 1950s to less than 10% today. But Catholicism still infuses all parts of life. For example, in Quebec, you cuss by using words from the church, including, of course, hostie ("the host"). So I can't figure out why hostie are a tasty snack treat. Is it a deliberate snub to the sacrament of communion by a secular society? Or did the practice antedate the Quiet Revolution, and did the formerly religious Quebecois eat communion wafers for fun? Or is it just a snork-snork funny thing to do, when the name of the food is actually a naughty word? I dunno. I'm fascinated, but not enough to buy a big bag of communion wafers to eat. (They're never cheese- or BBQ-flavored, by the way; they have a pristine seriousness to them.) More info solicited. tags:

Opinity One of the services mentioned in the Web 2.0 Summit infrastructure workshop was Opinity. Opinity seems to be a distributed reputation system, kind of like claimID but with a little more soft information. I think it looks pretty cool, and I'm glad to see another addition to the growing OpenID identity provider market. tags:

Next.

Previous.