I m using GNU Screen daily for definitely more than a decade and I became maintainer of Debian s screen package nearly exactly two years ago. Nevertheless it still happens occassionally that I discover features yet unknown to me. Recently I had one of these moments again: I looked for a specific line in the long output of a command which has run inside a Screen session. For that I entered Screen s copy mode with Ctrl-A [ and scrolled around with arrow keys and page-up and -down keys. But didn t find it. I thought, it would be cool if I can search for the string I m looking for. Intu tively I typed /, the search string and pressed enter. And it worked! It jumped to the next occurrence of that string. Of course I immediately had to check if tmux has such a feature, too. And it indeed has, but it seems to be a less sophisticated implementation:

Feature	Key-binding in GNU Screen	Key-binding in Tmux
Switch into copy/scroll mode (needed for the remainder)	Ctrl-A [	Ctrl-B [
Search for string once, forward	/ + string + Enter	Ctrl-S + string + Enter
Search for string once, backward	? + string + Enter	Ctrl-R + string + Enter
Search for string again, forward	/ Enter	Ctrl-S Enter
Search for string again, backward	? Enter	Ctrl-R Enter
Incremental search for string, forward	Ctrl-S + string	-
Incremental search for string, backward	Ctrl-R + string	-
(Incremental) search for next occurrence, forward	Ctrl-S again	-
(Incremental) search for next occurrence, backward	Ctrl-R again	-

Being able to do incremental search like with GNU Emacs gave me yet another reason for continuing to use Screen and not to switch Tmux. ;-)

This is a quick bug-fix release of my collection of POD formatters. When I fixed a problem with the latest Pod::Simple and added some tests, I had assumed that the behavior of Pod::Simple with invalid POD would always be the same. Unfortunately, for the particular invalid POD that triggered the bug, versions of Pod::Simple from Perl 5.16 and earlier didn't produce any errors. That caused the test case to fail everywhere since it didn't find the error section it expected. This release now skips those specific tests on older versions, while still ensuring that no unexpected exceptions or warnings are thrown. It also fixes a documentation bug I noticed while working on other things. You can get the latest release from CPAN or from the podlators distribution page.

I wish I had known about that quote from Michael Graves before now. I would have perhaps had an answer to some recent visitors to makespace.

There are regular scheduled visits to makespace where people can come and view our facilities, and perhaps start the process of becoming a member if they decide they like what they see.

However, we sometimes get people who just turn up at the door. If a member feels charitable they may choose to give a short tour rather than just turn the person away. I happened to be in one Friday afternoon recently varnishing a folding chair when two such people rang the doorbell. There were few other members about and because watching varnish dry was dull I decided to be helpful and do a quick tour.

I explained that they really ought to return for a scheduled event for a proper tour, gave the obligatory minimal safety briefing, and showed them the workshops and tools. During the tour it was mentioned they were attending a certain local higher education establishment and were interested in makespace as an inexpensive studio.

Before they left I was asked what I was working on. I explained that I had been creating stools and chairs from plywood. At this point the conversation took a somewhat surreal turn, one of them asked, well more demanded, who my principle influence had been in designing with plywood.

When I said that I had mainly worked from a couple of Google image searches they were aghast and became quite belligerent. They both insisted I must have done proper research and my work was obviously influenced by Charles and Ray Eames and Arne Jacobsen and surely I intended to cite my influences in my design documents.

My admission that I had never even heard the names before and had no design documents seemed to lead to a distinctly condescending tone as they explained that all modern plywood design stemmed from a small number of early 20th century designers and any competent designers research would have revealed that.

At this point in proceedings I was becoming a bit put out that my good deed of showing off the workshop had not gone unpunished. I politely explained that I designed simply by generating a requirement in my head, maybe an internet search to see what others had done, measuring real things to get dimensions and then a great deal of trial and error.

I was then abruptly informed that my "design process was completely invalid and there were well established ways to design furniture correctly and therefore my entire design was invalid" and that I was wasting time and material. I thanked them for their opinion and showed them out, safe and well before anyone gets any ideas.

I put the whole incident out of my mind until I finished writing up the final folding chair post the other day. It struck me that perhaps I had been unknowingly influenced by these designers. It was certainly true I had generated ideas from the hundreds of images my searches had revealed.

I did some research and it turns out that from the 1930s to the 1950s there were a string of designers using plywood in novel ways from the butterfly stool by Sori Yanagi through formed curvy chairs by Alvar Aalto and eero saarinen.

While these designers produced some wonderfully iconic and contemporary furniture I think that after reviewing my initial notes that two more modern designers Christian Desile and Leo Salom probably influenced me more directly. Though I did not reference their designs beyond seeing the images along with hundreds of others, certainly nothing was directly copied.

And there in lies an often repeated observation: no one creates anything without being influenced by their environment. The entire creative process of several billion ape descendants (or Golgafrincham telephone sanitisers if you prefer) is based on the simple process of copying, combining and transforming what is around us.

I must accept that certain individuals at points in history have introduced radical improvements in their field, people like Socrates Galileo Leonardo Newton Einstein. However, even these outstanding examples were enlightened enough to acknowledge those that came before. Newtons quotation "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" pretty much sums it up.

In my case I am privileged enough to live in a time where my environment has grown to the size of the world thanks to the internet. My influences, and therefore what I create, is that much richer but at the same time it means that my influence on others is similarly diminished.

I have joined the maker community because I want to create. The act of creation teaches me new skills in a physical, practical way and additionally I get to exercise my mind using new techniques or sometimes things I had forgotten I already knew. I view this as an extension of my previous Open Source software work, adding a physical component to a previously purely mental pursuit.

But importantly I like that my creations might provide inspiration for someone else. To improve those chances in the wider world I force myself to follow a few basic rules:

Release

Possibly one of the hardest things for any project. I carefully avoided the word finish here because my experience leads me to the conclusion that I always want to improve my designs.

But it is important to get to a point in a project where you can say "that is good enough to share", this is more common in software but it really applies to any project.

Share

If your aim here is to improve your society with your contribution sharing your designs and information is important. I think there is nothing better than someone else taking one of your designs and using it and perhaps improving on it, remember that is what you probably did in one way or another better to make it less hard for that to happen.

Ensure your design files are appropriately licensed and they are readily accessible. I personally lean towards the more generally accessible open source licences like MIT but the decision is ultimately yours.

Licencing is important, especially in the current copyright happy society. I know it sounds dull and no one takes that seriously, right? Sorry, but yes they do and it is better for you to be clear from the start, especially if there is a software component to your project. Oh one personal plea, use an existing well known licence, the world simply does not need another one!

Write about it

The blog posts about the things I have made sometimes take almost as much time as the creation. The clear recording on my thoughts in written and photographic form often gives me more inspiration for improvements or other projects.

If someone else gets pleasure from the telling then that can only be good. If you do not do this then your voice cannot be heard and you wasted an opportunity to motivate others.

Feedback

If you do manage to get feedback on your creation, read it. You may disagree or not be interested for the current project but the feedback process is important. In software this often manifests as bug reports, in more physical projects this often becomes forum or blog comments.

Just remember that you need a thick skin for this, the most vocal members of any society are the minority with inflammatory opinion, the silent majority are by definition absent but there is still useful feedback out there.

Create again

By this I simply mean that once you are satisfied yourself on a project move on to the next. This may sound a little obvious but once you have some creative momentum it is much easier to keep going project to project than in you leave time between.

Also do not have too many projects ongoing, by all means have a couple so you do not get stuck waiting for materials or workshop time but more than three and four and you will never be able to release any of them.

Those students were perhaps somewhat misguided in how they stated their opinions, but they are correct that in the world in which we find ourselves we are all influenced. Though contrary to received wisdom those influences are more likely to be from the internet and our peers in the global maker society than historical artists.

Despite the fact that I've had very little time to either read or write reviews, I haven't stopped buying a few books here and there. And, of course, Powell's Indiespensable keeps coming. Matt Bell In the House Upon the Dirt Between the Lake and the Woods (mainstream)
Steven Brust Orca (sff)
Steven Brust Dragon (sff)
John W. Campbell Collected Editorials from Analog (non-fiction)
Jane Fletcher The Walls of Westernfort (sff)
Mira Grant How Green This Land, How Blu This Sea (sff)
Tate Hallaway Tall, Dark, & Dead (sff)
Diana Wynne Jones Howl's Moving Castle (sff)
Rebecca Lee Bobcat and Other Stories (mainstream)
Victor Lombardi Why We Fail (non-fiction)
George R.R. Martin & Gardner Dozois (ed.) Songs of Love and Death (sff anthology)
Seanan McGuire In Sea-Salt Tears (sff)
Seanan McGuire Late Eclipses (sff)
Justina Robson Selling Out (sff)
John Scalzi Muse of Fire (sff)
Mark Slouka Brewster (mainstream)
Tor.com (ed.) The Stories (sff anthology)
Carrie Vaughn Kitty and the Midnight Hour (sff) This is a wide variety of random stuff, including some stuff that was free (the Tor.com anthology, which is every piece of short fiction they've published and is about 4000 pages, the Campbell editorials from the Internet Archive) and a lot of stuff that was on sale. As well as another two shipments of Indiespensible. The Brust books I've already read and are already in the family, but I hooked a friend of mine on the Vlad Taltos series, and those were the only two that I both didn't have and that weren't available on Kindle. So I picked them up while he was visiting so that he could read the whole series.

XMir's been delayed from Ubuntu 13.10. The stated reason is that multi-monitor support isn't sufficiently reliable. That's true, but it's far from the only problem that XMir still has:

• It's still broken on some single-monitor systems

Some machines have display corruption. There are writes to freed memory. To be fair, some of the behaviour that's been seen has been down to underlying bugs in the Xorg drivers that were never triggered under normal use but are hit by XMir. Others are down to implicit assumptions made in the drivers that XMir happens to violate. The problem is that there doesn't appear to have been enough room in the schedule to deal with these interactions, presumably because nobody accounted for the inevitable "This thing we thought would be easy turns out to be difficult" part of the project.


• The input driver bug still isn't really fixed

I've mentioned this bug before. It's now marked "Fix released" which is kind of true but not really. Mir now tells XMir that the VT is changing before the VT is changed, but it doesn't wait for that to complete before switching the VTs. Until XMir is scheduled and runs, it's still receiving input events. In most circumstances that window is small, so there's no real risk of triggering it accidentally.

There's one corner case where it might still cause problems. Simply running isn't enough - XMir has to make progress through its event loop. That'll only happen if the X server is processing its wakeup events, and it's possible to effectively stall that by submitting a sufficiently awkward drawing request to the server. The X server will appear to freeze, and if the user then attempts to work out what's going on by switching to a VT and logging in, those input events will still be going to XMir. It's left as an exercise to the reader to construct ways to take advantage of this.

This can't happen in Xorg because the VT switch is blocked until the input devices have been released. Mir could have done the same, but doesn't because of a conscious design decision - in the Ubuntu Phone world, clients stop doing things when they're told to. Ubuntu Desktop is expected to behave the same way.

This is an unfortunate situation to be in. Ubuntu Desktop was told that they were switching to XMir, but Mir development seems to be driven primarily by the needs of Ubuntu Phone. XMir has to do things that no other Mir client will ever cope with, and unless Mir development takes that into account it's inevitably going to suffer breakage like this. Canonical management needs to resolve this if there's any hope of ever shipping XMir as the default desktop environment.


• It's still missing features

XMir doesn't support colour profiles. XRandR properties aren't exposed, so there's no way to control TV output encoding or overscan. There's still no hardware cursor support. Switching to XMir now would reduce functionality without providing any user-visible gain.

It's clear that XMir has turned into a larger project than Canonical had originally anticipated, but that's hardly surprising. There's only one developer with previous X experience working on it full-time, and the announced schedule provided no opportunity to deal with unexpected problems. As if that weren't enough, there's obvious conflict between Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Phone when it comes to developer time and required functionality. The one hardware vendor who's willing to take a public stand has demonstrated that they have no interest in supporting XMir, despite Canonical assuring people that they were already engaging in productive negotiations with GPU manufacturers.

Multiple monitor support may be the single most obvious feature where XMir is lacking, but it's not the only one. Technically and politically, this code is a long way from being ready for prime time. Without significant community contribution, Canonical need to focus on prioritising it appropriately rather than expecting a tiny number of developers to perform miracles. Or, alternatively, they could just drop XMir entirely and focus on Unity 8.

comments

After 1.5 month of work, I am proud to officialy release OUnit 2.0.0. This is a major rewrite of OUnit to include various feature that I think was missing from OUnit1. The very good news is that the port of the OASIS test suite has proven that this new version of OUnit can drastically improve the running time of a test suite. OUnit is a unit test framework for OCaml. It allows one to easily create unit-tests for OCaml code. It is based on HUnit, a unit testing framework for Haskell. It is similar to JUnit, and other XUnit testing frameworks. Download OUnit v2.0.0 Documentation of v2.0.0 Website The basic features:

• better configuration setup
  • environment variable
  • command line options
  • configuration files
• improved output of the tests:
  • allow vim quickfix to jump in the log file where the error has happened
  • output HTML report
  • output JUnit report
  • systematic logging (verbose always on), but output log in a file
• choose how to run your test:
  • run tests in parallel using processes (auto-detect number of CPU and run as many worker processes)
  • run tests concurrently using threads
  • use the old sequential runner
• choose which test to run with a chooser that can do smart selection of tests:
  • simple: just run test in sequence
  • failfirst: run the tests that failed in the last run first and skip the success if they are still failing
• some refactoring:
  • bracket: use a registration in the context but easier to use
  • remove all useless functions in the OUnit2 interface
• non-fatal section: allow to fail inside non-fatal section without quitting immediately the whole test
• allow to use OUnit1 test inside OUnit2 (smooth the transition)
• timer that makes tests fail if they take too long, only when using the processes runner (I was not able to do it cleanly using threads and sequential)
• allow to parametrize filenames so that you can use OUNIT_OUTPUT_FILE=ounit-$(suite_name),log and have $(suite_name) replace by the test suite name
• create locks to avoid accessing the same resources within a single process or the whole application (typically to avoid doing a chdir while another thread is doing a chdir elsewhere)
• create a in_testdata_dir function to locate test data, if any

Migration path OUnit 2.0.0 still provides the OUnit module which is exactly the same as the last OUnit 1.X version. This way, you are not forced to migrate. However, this means that you will gain no advantage of the new release and even some slowdown due to increase complexity of the code. Though, I strongly recommend to upgrade to OUnit2. Here is a checklist to do the migration:

• replace all open OUnit by open OUnit2
• the test function now takes test_ctxt argument, so replace all fun () -> ...) by fun test_ctxt -> ...
• bracket are now inlined so bracket setUp f tearDown is now let x = bracket setUp tearDown test_ctxt in
• make sure that you don't change global process state like chdir or Unix.putenv or that you don't rely on another test setting something for the next test

The OASIS test suite migration In order to check that everything was working correctly, I have migrated the OASIS test suite to OUnit2. This is a big test suite (210 test cases) and it includes quite big sequences of tests (end to end tests from calling oasis setup to compiling and installing the results). This was really time consuming and I wish to see a significant speedup for the tests with OUnit2. You can see the result in term of code of the full migration here. Here are the results on my Intel Core i7 920/SSD:

• Pristine test suite (210 tests):
  • oUnit v1: 52.36s (i.e. latest OUnit v1.x, reference time)
  • oUnit1 over oUnit2: 60.39s (OUnit v2.0.0 using the OUnit v1 layer)
• Migration to OUnit2 (166 tests):
  • processes (8 shards): 10.12s
  • processes (autodect, 4 shards): 12.99s
  • sequential: 58.77s

The migration was quite heavy because this test suite had a big design problem. It uses in-place modification of the test data. I think I pick this design because I thought this was a good idea to decrease the running time. As a matter of fact, this was a huge mistake, that keeps popping failed test cases because one of the previous tests was failing. I have refactored all this and now we start by copying the test data into a temporary directory, which ensure that everything is always starting from pristine test data. During the redesign, I have decided to reduce the number of tests by merging some of them. This should have no big impact on the running time, although this is not as pure 1:1 comparison with OUnit v1. Although it is still testing exactly the same thing. This explain the loss of ~50 tests, which in fact has been merged in other tests. The overall speedup is 4x compared to OUnit v1, when using processes. However there is a 12% increase compared to OUnit v1 for sequential and a 15% increase when using OUnit v1 compatibility layer. While this is not very good score, I hope this is small enough to compensate the huge win of being able to run tests in parallel with processes. And now the magic ! At this point, if you read carefully the numbers, you would have noticed that there is a 4.5x decrease in speed when you compare sequential and 4 processes for OUnit2. Since we are only actively testing in 4 shards, it looks strange. I don't expect a super-linear speedup due to the use of processes. I have checked that every tests was indeed running and found no solutions to this mystery. Right now, I think this is due to the fact that we are running less tests in more processes which should lighten the load of the GC (which may not trigger at all). I am not sure about this explanation and will welcome any bug report which shows a problem in the implementation of either sequential or processes runner. Although, this is great. Help still wanted If you find any bugs with OUnit v2, this is the time to submit a bug. OUnit BTS If you want to try to fix bugs by yourself, please checkout the latest version of OUnit:

 $> darcs get http://forge.ocamlcore.org/anonscm/darcs/ounit/ounit

Patches always welcome.

By popular demand: (source: myeerah's avatar on Why, God, Why? forum. I guess (s)he's the author)

During the last week I was attending the first Heidelberg Laureates Forum as one of the lucky 200 accepted young scientists. The HFL is a (from now on hopefully yearly) event that brings together Fields Medalists, Abel Prize laureates and Turing Award winners with young scientists (undergraduates, Ph.D. students and postdocs) from both fields in the city of Heidelberg. The extremely well organized week consisted of lectures from the laureates, some workshops held by postdocs, excursions and plenty of good food. Videos of the lectures are available (but don t work on Linux, at least not for me ), and I have shot a few pictures of the event as well. I believe that my favourite lectures where Michael Atiyah s Advice to a Young Mathematician , Vladimir Voevodsky s Univalent Foundations of Mathematics , William Morton Kahan s Desperately Needed Remedies for the Undebuggability of Large-Scale Floating-Point Computations in Science and Engineering and Alan Kay s Putting Turing to Work . Where are all the functional programmers? During that event, one gets to talk to many other math and computer scientists researchers; sometimes just Where are you from? and What do you do? , sometimes long discussions. Unfortunately, I hardly found one who is into functional programming language research is that only because the event was parallel to ICFP (which I really would have liked to attend as well), or is functional programming really just about 1% of all computer science? What is a proof? My other research interest lies in interactive theorem proving, especially using Isabelle. Of course that is a topic that one can discuss with almost everyone at that event, including the mathematicians. The reactions were rather mixed: On the one end of the spectrum, some mathematicians seriously doubt that they would ever trust a computer to check proofs and that it would ever be efficient enough to use. Others would not mind having a button that tells whether their paper written in LaTeX is correct , but were not keen to invest time or thought into making the proof readable by the computer. And then there were some (but very few!) who had not heard of theorem proving before and were very excited by the prospect of being able to obtain certainty about their proofs immediately and without having to bother other scientists with it. During the mathematician s panel discussions, where I posed the question Do you see value in or even a need for machine-checked proofs in mathematics. , Efim Zelmanov (Fields Medal 1994) said a proof is what other mathematicians see as a proof . I found this attitude a bit surprising for me, a proof has always been a rigorous derivation within a formal system (say, ZFC set theory), and what we write in papers is a (less formal) description of the actual proof, whose existence we believe in. Therefore I was very happy to see Vladimir Voevodsky give a very committed talk about Univalent Foundations and how using that as the language for mathematics will allow more of mathematics to be cast in a formal, machine-checked form. I got the chance to discuss this with him in person, as I wanted to hear his option on Isabelle, and especially on the usefulness of the style of structured proof that Isar provides, and which is closer to the style of proofs that mathematicians use in papers. He said that he enjoyed writing his proof in the style required in Type Theory and in Coq, and that maybe mathematicians should and will adjust to the language of the system, while I believe that a structured proof languages like Isar, independent of the underlying logic (HOL in this case; which is insufficient to form a base for all of abstract mathematics), is a very useful feature and that proof assistants should adjust to the mathematicians.
We also briefly discussed the idea of mine to work with theorem provers already with motivated students in high schools, e.g. in math clubs, and found that simple proofs about arithmetic of natural numbers could be feasible here, without being too trivial. All in all a very rewarding and special week, and I can only recommend to try to attend one of the next forums, if possible.

---

• Mahout k-Means took 51 minutes on average per iteration (The raw numbers are 38:24, 62:29, 46:21, 56:20, 52:15, 45:11, 57:12, 44:58, 52:01, 50:26, so you can see there is a surpisingly high amount of variance there).
• ELKI k-Means on a single CPU core took 4 minutes 25 seconds per iteration, and 45 minutes total, including parsing the input data from an ascii file. Maybe I will try a parallel implementation next.

---

• ELKI is quite well optimized. The Java Hotspot VM does a good job at optimizing this code, and I have seen it to be on par with R's k-means, which is written in C. I'm not sure if Mahout has received a similar amount of optimization yet. (In fact, 15% of the Mahout runtime was garbage collection runtime - indicating that it creates too many objects.)
• ELKI can use the data in a uniform way, similar to a column store database. It's literally crunching the raw double[] arrays. Mahout on the other hand - as far as I can tell - is getting the data from a sequence file, which then is deserialized into a complex object. In addition to the actual data, it might be expecting sparse and dense vectors mixed etc.
• Size: this data set fits well into memory. Once this no longer holds, ELKI will no longer be an option. Then MapReduce/Hadoop/Mahout wins. In particular, such an implementation will by design not keep the whole data set in memory, but need to de-serialize it from disk again on each iteration. This is overhead, but saves memory.
• Design: MapReduce is designed for huge clusters, where you must expect nodes to crash during your computation. Well, chances are that my computer will survive 45 minutes, so I do not need this for this data size. However, when you really have large data, and need multiple hours on 1000 nodes to process it, then this becomes important to survive losing a node. The cost is that all interim results are written to the distributed filesystem. This extra I/O comes, again, at a cost.

---

Recently I've been playing gtetrinet, against the publicly accessible server at tetrinet.debian.net. If you're unfamiliar with the game it is a multi-player variant of Tetris. You clear many lines and your opponents suffer. Want to make them suffer some more? Use the special blocks you acquire. Special blocks? How about shuffling your opponents playing field? Adding new semi-formed rows? etc. All good stuff. There is support for up to six players. To fire a special block at the player in field 1 you press "1". To fire the special block to the player in field 6 press "6". But to fire a block at yourself, to clear your playing field ("nuke") or remove a single line ("clear") you have to know what player-number you are, which will change from day to day, as it is literally a marker for the order you joined the channel in. It seems obvious that there should be a special-case keybinding "fire to self", and indeed there was bug #291844 filed in 2005 saying as much. I've just submitted a functional patch to resolve this, and already my playing is getting better. Join me sometime.

Today, I released Lintian 2.5.19. It is mostly a bug-fix release, but it also features a new tag. The new tag, homepage-in-binary-package, is emitted for packages where the source package has no Homepage-field, but one of its binaries do. The problem is that some tools (e.g. the PTS) only processes the data from the .dsc files (or Sources indices from the mirrors) and would in these cases miss the Homepage of the page. We now also carry a work around for a bug in tool, t1disasm, where it ends up in an infinite recursion (i.e. until the C call stack overflows). That issue is filed as #724571. The work around is to prevent Lintian from exiting with a failure (which causes packages to be auto-rejected when uploaded to Debian archive). These problems are currently reduced to a warning on stderr. In other (Lintian related news), the full run was completed yesterday after only 4 days (rather than the 8, I expected). While that is a pleasant surprise, I cannot find any changes in Lintian since the last run that would explain this difference. My current conjecture is that our last pseudo full run (when we added amd64) included more processing since the amd64 packages would not have any pre-collected information. With the follow up run to catch packages uploaded after the full run, Lintian spent a little more than 3 and half days (~86.5 hours) processing about 20700 package groups. This gives an average of about 240 groups an hour (or ~4 a minute). Though, remember these numbers include some data having been pre-collected from previous run on the majority of packages.

Some time ago, Ubuntu had Ubuntu Brainstorm, a website where non-developers could submit ideas of improvements, and other people could comment and vote on them. I was wondering if there was existing software to deploy a similar service, e.g. as a plugin to popular forum software. I ve found ideascale.com, but relying on the Cloud for that is not acceptable for my planned use. (For clarification: my immediate interest for that is unrelated to Debian work)

Like it or not, XML has been used everywhere, even in cases where text-based formats would have been sufficient. Unfortunately, standard tools such as grep, sed or awk are not really adapted to work with XML. Let us take the following example:

<chapter
    xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook" version="5.0">
    <title>The Debian distribution</title>
    <para>Debian is a free operating system, describing itself as  the
    universal operating system . It is mostly known as a GNU/Linux
    distribution, but it also exist in other variants such as GNU/Hurd
    and GNU/kFreeBSD </para>
</chapter>

PYX and xml2 There are at least two line-oriented alternative formats for XML:

• PYX is an even-oriented format derived from an SGML subset, which can be used with the tool XMLStarlet,
• xml2 is a tool that can transform XML to a content-oriented format.

This is what our example would like in PYX:

(chapter
Aversion 5.0
-\n
(title
-The Debian distribution
)title
-\n\n
(para
-Debian is a free operating system, describing itself as
- the\n    universal operating system . It is mostly known as a GNU/Linux\n    distribution, but it also exist in other variants such as GNU/Hurd\n    and GNU/kFreeBSD 
)para
-\n
)chapter

And in the xml2 format:

/chapter/@xmlns=http://docbook.org/ns/docbook
/chapter/@version=5.0
/chapter/title=The Debian distribution
/chapter/para=Debian is a free operating system, describing itself as  the
/chapter/para=    universal operating system . It is mostly known as a GNU/Linux
/chapter/para=    distribution, but it also exist in other variants such as GNU/Hurd
/chapter/para=    and GNU/kFreeBSD 

Examples of use We want to extract the DocBook version number. This is not easy to do in a reliable way using the XML directly, but it appears directly with xml2:

$ xml2 < chapter.xml   grep '^/chapter/@version=' \
      cut -d= -f2
5.0

We want to move the title into an info tag, using PYX:

$ xmlstarlet pyx chapter.xml   sed -e '/^(title$/i\
(info
/^)title$/a\
)info'   xmlstarlet p2x
<chapter version="5.0">
    <info><title>The Debian distribution</title></info>
    [ ]

We could go further, adding a keywords entry in that info tag for instance, but you get the idea: when you want to work with XML in a reliable way, try xmlstarlet pyx or xml2.

I ve just been given a set of Hive Bluetooth speakers by MobileZap (see this link for all their Bluetooth speakers) [1]. The speakers charge by a micro-USB cable so I started charging them in my car immediately after collecting them. To connect them to a phone or other Bluetooth device you just press the Bluetooth button on top and get the phone to be visible and scanning for devices, they identify themselves as Hive , after that they just work. My first test of using them was playing Ingress and the quality of the sound was impressive, I had thought that the Ingress recommendation to use headphones was due to the risk of annoying other people or alerting other players, but the quality of the sound was impressive and the internal speakers of a phone can t do it justice. After getting home I did some tests listening to music. For watching music videos it didn t work so well as the sound was too far removed from the video, but the audio quality was very good. I listened to Vow by Garbage (a good benchmark for stereo sound) and even though the Hive speakers are only 16.5cm wide I could still notice the stereo effect when they were about 1.5m away from me. The audio quality didn t compare well with my Bose QC-15 headphones, but for affordable and portable speakers it was quite good and an obvious improvement over the speakers that are built in to any phone I ve used. According to the Bluetooth Wikipedia page the range of a class 2 device is 10m and the range of a class 3 device is 1m. When my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 is talking to it I get a reliable range of about 5 meters and a mostly working range of 6 or 7 meters (sound randomly drops out and gets choppy). It could be that other phones would support a longer range due to having a higher transmission power (either class 1 or being closer to the limits of class 2) and a more sensitive receiver. But it doesn t seem likely that a 5m range is going to be a problem. Volume and Quality The speakers are rated at 5 Watt, when running at maximum volume (both through the phone volume setting and the volume control on the speakers) the sound is reasonably distortion free, as good as can be expected from playing an MP3 that s not compressed with the highest quality. Sound Meter [2] reports the sound volume as almost 85dB on a Galaxy S3 and as almost 100dB on a Galaxy Note 2, that would be somewhere between the volume of a busy street or alarm clock and the volume of a subway train or blow dryer which seems like a reasonable description, I find it very unpleasant to be within a meter of the speakers at maximum volume. With the typical amount of background noise in my house I can play music on the Hive speakers at one end of my house and hear it clearly at the other end. These speakers are more than capable of supplying the music for any party I d want to host or attend. I m not really into wild parties, but I think that anyone who has a one room party would be more than satisfied with the Hive speakers. Obviously the sound quality of portable speakers in a box that s 16.5cm wide and 6cm high isn t going to equal that of a full size set of speakers, but I think that hardly anyone who attends a party would expect better sound quality than the Hive speakers can provide. The aim of such speakers is to be portable, not really expensive, and to provide good sound quality within those constraints. I think that they meet such aims well. Over the years there have been many occasions when I have used a Thinkpad to provide the music for a party and found it to be quite loud enough. My current Thinkpad is a T420 which can produce 75dB according to my Galaxy S3 or 85dB according to my Galaxy Note 2. So it seems that I only really need about 10dB less than the maximum volume of the Hive speakers. Appearance The designers obviously made an effort on the appearance of the device. They have gone with the Hive concept and used hexagons everywhere. It really looks nice. Unfortunately when I took the photo there was some dust on it which didn t look bad to the eye but caught the camera flash. But with a matte black device there s always the problem of light colored dust. Even with a bit of dust it still looks great as a set of speakers, the dust just detracts from the appearance in photos. Line In One of the features I looked for was an audio line input so I could connect it directly to a non-Bluetooth device. I m assuming that this feature works as it s something that s difficult to stuff up when designing such a product, but I haven t got around to testing it. Once I started using the device I just found that I didn t have a real need for that feature. One thing that it might be useful for is PC desktop speakers that are powered by a USB port on the monitor. Currently I have a bearable (but not great) set of speakers for each PC and I don t need to change anything. But having the option of another set of speakers is very handy in case I suddenly need to make hardware changes. Other People s Reviews When I review a product I generally try and get opinions from random other people if possible. My mother and my mother-in-law were both impressed by the Hive speakers and expressed interest in owning a set. My mother-in-law was particularly interested as she uses her phone to listen to radio stations from outside Australia (I m going to get her onto Aldi for cheap 3G data ASAP so she can listen to Internet radio when travelling). Generally the impression that other people have of this device seems to be very positive. It seems that Bluetooth speakers aren t just a Geek toy. Conclusion While I m very impressed by this product, at this stage I m not sure whether I would pay for this one or something cheaper if I was paying for it. MobileZap offers a range of other products that look appealing at lower price points. It really depends on how much I use it. I ve just got a Makerbot Replicator 3D printer working and I ve found the Hive speakers very useful for the purpose of drowning out it s noise. If I keep doing that sort of thing then I ll get enough use out of the speakers to justify the price.

• [1] http://www.mobilezap.com.au/10059/stereo-speakers.htm
• [2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=kr.sira.sound

Review: Throne of the Crescent Moon, by Saladin Ahmed

Series:	Crescent Moon Kingdoms #1
Publisher:	DAW
Copyright:	January 2013
ISBN:	0-7564-0778-8
Format:	Mass market
Pages:	367

Doctor Adoulla Makhslood is the last ghul hunter in Dhamsawaat. He's an old man, and tired, and increasingly uncertain whether he wants to continue putting his life in danger to fight one more fight. But there are no replacements; his young and idealistic dervish apprentice, despite obvious skill, is too inexperienced and uninterested in the knowledge and investigation that makes Adoulla so good at what he does. So, when a young boy shows up on his doorstep, a survivor of a vicious ghul attack, he goes hunting once again. And both finds something much darker and stronger than he expected and meets an unexpected ally: a shape-shifting girl who is herself a survivor of something far worse than ghuls. Throne of the Crescent Moon is a first-novel fantasy that has made quite a splash, including a Hugo nomination (although I thought a win was unlikely, and I was right). One of the more interesting comments I've read about it was the observation by Jo Walton that if it had come out in 1980, it would have been an amazing, unusually wonderful, non-normative book. That it isn't is evidence of the changes in fantasy since then. The field has grown. As you might guess from the publisher's insistence on comparing it with The Arabian Nights, and from the names mentioned above, this book is set in an unspecified Middle Eastern culture and draws heavily from its mythology. It does not contain any western characters; the entire story is native to its region. The same is true of the mythology, which gave it a refreshing originality for me. And while I'm not the best one to judge, the presentation of that setting seemed free of the tint of the exotic. People live here, there are factions and multiple cultures, and the supernatural is a backdrop to most of the city. This would be very unusual decades ago. It's a bit less unusual now, and the story itself is a familiar ensemble fantasy, if refreshingly free of extended map exploration journeys. Ahmed brings together five characters with very different backgrounds and throws their varying talents at a problem. A few of those elements are a bit too familiar: female sexuality as a threat to male power is a world-building element that I could do without, for example. I also found the villain completely inadequate in its unidimensional evil (reinforced with a few more torture scenes than I needed to read), and even the attempted complication felt too predictable to me. Except for one touch of perspective, I'd call Throne of the Crescent Moon a competent, enjoyable, but somewhat forgettable fantasy novel, albeit one that's refreshingly concerned with a city instead of countrysides and travel. That touch is in the age of several of the protagonists. We get sections following several of the main characters in tight third person, but Adoulla is the first protagonist and the focus of much of the book. And Adoulla is neither young nor inexperienced, and is not going through the typical fantasy bildungsroman. He's old, experienced, a bit set in his ways, cranky, cantankerous, and deeply in love with his city. In tone, this shifts the story towards Star Wars as seen through the eyes of Obi-Wan Kenobi instead of Luke Skywalker. And that change I really liked, and would be happy to see become more common in fantasy. There was a bit of a downside for me in three of the five main characters being older. At times, Throne of the Crescent Moon has an elegiac tone, a feeling of life, power, and time slipping away and cultures and ways of life being lost. That's not my favorite thematic element. I tend to find it more depressing than I really want in my reading. But, here, the mature perspective more than makes up for some occasional negativity. I particularly liked how the older characters treated the likely budding young romance, which would have been the center of many books in this genre, with bemused detachment and playful encouragement without giving it more significance than it deserves. There's another romance that ends up being more significant, and which needs the weight of time and well-lived lives to become so. I don't think this book deserves a Hugo, but it is an enjoyable fantasy with some interesting characters and a refreshing perspective and setting. The villain really isn't adequate to the story, there's a bit too much torture for my liking, and I could have done without a few of the tropes, but it's a solid entry in its genre and a pleasant few hours of reading. And despite being advertised as the first of a series, it comes to a satisfying conclusion. Rating: 7 out of 10

On a regular basis, I find myself the odd-man-out when it comes to talking about how to work with Python on Debian systems. I'm going to write this and post it so that I might be able to point people at my thoughts without having to write the same email in response to each thread that pops up. Turns out I don't fit in with the Debian hardliners (which is to say, the mindset that pip sucks and shouldn't exist), nor do I fit in with the Python hardliners (which is to say apt and dpkg are out of date, and neither have a place on a Development machine). I think our discourse on this topic has become petty and stupid in general. Let's all try to step back and drop a bit of the attitude. pip doesn't suck, and neither does apt. The truth is, both sides are wrong. As with any subject, the real answer here is much more nuanced than either side presents it. I'm going to try and present my opinion on this, in the way that both my Pythonista self and my Debianite self see the issue. Hopefully I can keep this short, to the point, and caked with logic. The case for dpkg (the Debianite in me) In defense of dpkg and apt, imagine having to install python-gnome2 on all your systems when you install. It'd be hell on earth. Imagine having a user try to do this. It's insane to assume that end-users will be using pip for this purpose. pip is fun and all, but it's also installing 100% untrusted code to your system (perhaps as root, if you're using pip with sudo for some reason), and hasn't been reviewed for software freeness, which is something Debian (and Debian users) take seriously. This isn't even to mention the hell that pip wreaks on dpkg controlled files / packages. Try to remember how much of your system running (yes, right now) is running because of Python or Python modules. Try to imagine how much of a pain in the ass it'd be if you couldn't boot into GNOME to use nm-applet to connect to wifi to pip install something. I'm sure even the most extreme pip'er understands the need for Operating System level package management. Debian also has a bigger problem scope - we're not maintaining a library in Debian for kicks, we're maintaining it so that end user applications may use the library. When we update something like Django, we have to make sure that we don't break anything using it (although, to be honest, the fact that we package webapps is an entire rant for later) before we get to update it to the newest release. Hell, with a few coffees, I could automate the process of releasing a .deb with a new upstream release, 100% unattended. I won't, however, since this is an insane idea. Let's go over a brief list of things I do before uploading a new package:

1. Review the entire codebase for simple mistakes.
2. Review the entire codebase for license issues.
3. Review the entire codebase for files without source, and track down (and include source for) any sourceless files (such as pickle files, etc).
4. Get to know the upstream, get to know open bugs, write something using the lib, in case I need to debug later.
5. Install the package.
6. Test the package.
7. Work out any Debian package issues (this is easy).

Now, a brief list of things I do before I update a package:

1. Review the changes between the last uploaded version (in diff format, if it's sane, otherwise get the VCS and review), ensure all the above are still OK.
2. Review for Debian-local issues (such as how it will upgrade, using piuparts, and adequate, etc).
3. Check to make sure it won't break any reverse dependencies.
4. Review for bugfixes that I might need to bring back to the stable release.
5. Figure out if I should (or even can) backport the package, if API is stable.
6. Review for bugs (upstream or in Debian) that I need to mention in the debian/changelog.

Clearly, this isn't a quick-and-dirty task. It's not a matter of getting a package updated (technically), it's a much more detailed process than that. This is also why Debian is so highly regarded for its technical virtuosity, and why the ISS decided to deploy Debian in space, despite other commercial distros such as Red Hat, or Ubuntu, and community distros, such as Fedora or Arch. It's also not Debian's job to package the world in the archive. This is an insane task, and it's not Debian's place to do it. We introduce libraries as things need them, not because we wrote some new library that someone may find slightly useful at some point in the future. maybe. Upstream developers and language communities (not only Python here) tend to lose sight of why we're doing this in the first place, which is our users. This isn't some sort of technical pissing contest to see who can distribute the software in the best way. Debian-folk always keep end users as our highest priority. I quote the Debian Social Contract, when I say that Our priorities are our users and free software. No one's trying to get developers to use dpkg to create software. In fact, as you'll see below, I actively discourage using system modules for development. The case for pip (the Pythonista in me) In defense of pip, the idea that Debian will keep the latest versions of packages is insane. The idea that we can keep pace with upstream releases is nuts, and the idea that every upstream release on pypi is ready to ship is bananas. b-a-n-a-n-a-annas. As a developer, I don't want to support every release, and I surely don't want other people depending on some random snapshot. Often times, I'll put stuff up on pypi as a preview, or to release often, and solicit feedback without having to give out instructions on using a git checkout (it's also easier to have them try a version from pypi so I can cross-ref the git tag to reproduce issues when they file them) pypi is easy, ubiquitous and works regardless of the platform, which means less of my development time is spent packaging stuff up for platforms I don't really care about (Arch, Fedora, OSX, Windows), even though I value feedback from users on those systems. The effort it takes to release something is limited to python setup.py sdist upload, and it's in a place (and in a shape) that anyone can use it without having 10 sets of platform-local instructions. Even ignoring all the above, when I'm writing a new app or bit of code, I want to be sure I'm targeting the latest version of the code I depend on, so that future changes to API won't hit me as hard. By following along with my dependencies' development, I can be sure that my code breaks early, and breaks in development, not production. Upstreams also tend to not like bug reports against old branches, so ensuring I have the latest code from pypi means I can properly file bugs. Lastly, I prefer virtualenv based setups for development, since I'm usually working on many things at once. This often means version mismatches in libraries, which brings in API changes (another whole rant here as well). I don't want to keep installing and uninstalling packages to switch between the two projects, and using a chroot(8) means a lot of overhead and that it's disconnected from my development environment / filesystem, so I resort to virtualenv to isolate my Development environment. Final notes I don't want to keep arguing about this. Just accept that the world's a big place and that there exist use-cases that both apt and pip need to exist and work in the way they're working now. At the very least, try and understand there exist smart people on both sides, and no one is trying to screw anyone over or keep their own little private club to themselves. Hopefully, going forward, we can make sure that the integration between these two tools gets better, not worse. Help make this dream a reality. Contribute to a productive tone, not a destructive one. In short:

• Use pip without sudo always. Don't tell people to use sudo.
• Use apt or dpkg when deploying system-wide.
• Understand people are going to package, and they will be more concerned about software using your library then keeping your library up to date.
• Understand Debian Developers and package maintainers have to do a lot of work when updating or sponsoring an upload.
• Understand upstream developers can't be bothered to fix every issue with every release (release early, release often) with some snapshot you introduced into unstable.
• Use pip and virtualenv in development setups, so we can upgrade your app when we upgrade the lib.

I have just uploaded Lintian 2.5.18 to unstable. While fixing 22 bugs, it only features 5 new tags.

• debian-changelog-has-wrong-weekday
• debian-rules-missing-good-practice-target-dfsg
• empty-udeb-package
• file-name-in-PATH-is-not-ASCII
• misplaced-extra-member-in-deb

The release also include fixes to some false-positives, such as python:any dependencies triggering python-script-but-no-python-dep, a rewritten README file. We also included a patch to make Lintian accept the Original-Maintainer field by default for non-Debian vendors (even if they do not have a profile and Lintian ends up loading the debian/main profile). We also added support for running Lintian directly from a git checkout or source tree without setting LINTIAN_ROOT (or passing root). Since that was the primary use-case for root that option has now been deprecated. I also had lintian and lintian-info require the include-dir and [no-]user-dir options as the first if given at all. I would like to thank Bastien Roucari s, Gaudenz Steinlin, Gunnar Wolf, J r my Bobbio and Lucas Nussbaum for contributing to Lintian and the many who submitted reports or suggestions for improvements. I would also like to thank Brian hugmeir Fraser, who assisted me in identifying and working around a bug in Perl s glob function when run under threads (filed upstream as RT#119897).

Well at least he should be according to Sartre though I am not entirely convinced the repercussions of my choice to manufacture another folding chair were entirely thought through.

After my most recent posting the urge to do "just one more iteration" became too great and I succumbed. I therefore present version 4 of my folding chair which corrects all the previously discovered issues.

The popliteal height (420mm) and buttock popliteal length (400mm) are both comfortable for a wide selection of people. The seat slopes a few degrees front to back and the back rest no longer comes further forward than the rear of the seat.

There is a small gap above where the seat folds in when flat but that is only an aesthetic issue when being stored.

Manufacture wise the design is simple to produce although I really will have to teach our CNC router how to use the round over bit to reduce the finishing steps as currently that takes longer than the CNC operation.

In future if I make more of these I will use this design and, once she is less annoyed at me for making another chair, I am going to consult with my wife on adding some cushioning material to the seat and backrest.

And of course that concludes my furniture making for a while...yeah, right!

there have been comments which have complained about my usage of space on sheets and suggested I waste too much material. That is probably true and in my own defence I have not been working with this machine for very long and am not quite used to what I can "get away with" yet.

I was looking at the sheet after removing the last chair design and had a thought, I had not attempted a side X type folding design and perhaps I could squeeze one into the offcuts? I kinda got carried away, it roughly went:

• Measure the available offcut space
• Measured the remaining 18mm dowel leftover from my dowel hinge experiments
• Found the largest width and height area I could get out of the sheet the CNC router ruined.
• Sketched a design
• Capture design to a DXF
• Carefully spread the pieces over the available material in the CAM software
• Generate a toolpath.
• Cut material

If all of that sounds like and utterly mad way to design a size X stool, you are of course correct, but it worked, and it was a very fast process taking less than four hours from idea to stool.

There are a couple of issues:

• the popliteal height is 470mm ( I was aiming at 420 and missed...badly)
• It uses a lot of expensive hardwood dowel (1373mm plus cutting width and only way I could get it accurate was to use the disc sander to remove fractions till the length was correct)
• I used pockets for the interference seat joints rather than through cuts and discovered that you need to allow tolerance depth (the pegs are 10mm deep and the sockets need to be at least 10.2 not the 10mm I cut)
• Dowel joints are great but have a small surface area so friction fit joints work loose.

It is pretty simple to put together and aside from needing half the clamps in makespace to hold it in place while the glue dried, I had no trouble.

Though this is definitely not a case of use glue "sparingly" I put generous amounts in all the dowel joints and all the seat slots and got very little ooze so I guess it could have used more.

The final varnished stool is pretty robust but folds up nicely the concept of hooking to its own pivot dowel means it stays closed when flat which makes it very portable.

Total cost was an estimated 10.00 ( 4.25 dowel, 2.50 of 24mm ply, 1.75 for 18mm ply, 0.50 tool wear, 1.00 varnish) though the materials in my case could be argued to have cost nothing.

It has been suggested that I could make an entire picnic table and chairs set this way but if I did I would reduce the stool height by 50mm and examine ways to use less dowel.

This is usually the bit where I point you all at the freely usable design files on github and all the photos on flikr and wrap up.

But you know what the Monty Python boys say? "Nobody Expects the Spanish inquisition"

Or in this case my final (and yes I am going to do something else next) chair design. It is based on the stool, in fact it is the stool design with the outer legs extended and a back rest added.

The modified design reduces the dowel requirements to 775mm but requires a bit more sheet material (cannot get this one entirely from offcuts).

Total cost was an estimated 10.50 ( 2.50 dowel, 4.50 of 24mm ply, 1.75 for 18mm ply, 0.50 tool wear, 1.25 varnish).
Because it is based on the stool design it suffers from the height issue and in addition the back rest is a bit far back to be completely comfortable.

Neither of the side X designs have flaws that interest me enough to follow the iterative approach again to solve them. Both the designs work well enough and rounded out my adventures with folding chairs and indeed furniture for now.

As always the design files are on github and the images are on flikr.