Some time ago Bill Joy (who is famous among other things for being a co-founder of Sun) [1] wrote an article for Wired magazine titled “Why the future doesn’t need us” [2]. He wrote many sensible things but unfortunately focussed on the negative issues and didn’t receive a good response. On reading it today I thought more highly of the article than I did in 2000 when it was printed, largely due to having done some background research on the topic. I’ve recently been reading Accelerating Future [3] which has a more positive approach. Now a talk by Bill Joy from 2006 has been published on the TED.com web site [4]. He starts by talking about “super empowered individuals” re-creating the 1918 flu. He also claims that “more technology super-empowers people more“. Such claims seem to be excessively hyped, I would be interested to see comments from someone who has a good knowledge of current bio-technology as to the merits of those claims. He talks briefly about politics and has some good points such as “the bargain that gives us civilisation is the bargain to not use power” and “we can’t give up the rule of law to fight an asymmetric threat - which is what we seem to be doing“. He mentions Moore’s law and suggests that a computer costing $1000 then (2006) might cost $10 in 2020. He seems to be forgetting the cost of the keyboard and other mechanical parts. I can imagine a high-end CPU which cost about $800 a couple of years ago being replaced by a $2 CPU in 2020, but I don’t expect a decent keyboard to be that cheap any time before we get fully automated nano-factories (which is an entirely separate issue). Even the PSU (which has a significant amount of government regulations for safety reasons) will have a floor cost that is a good portion of $10. Incidentally the keyboard on my EeePC 701 sucks badly, I guess I’m spoiled by the series of Thinkpad keyboards that I keep getting under warranty (which would cost me a moderate amount of money if I had to pay every time I wore one out). I will make a specific prediction, that by 2015 one of the better keyboards will comprise a significant portion of the entire cost of a computer system (more than a low end computer unit) - such that in some reasonable configurations the keyboard will be the most expensive part. It would be good if PCs could be designed to use external PSUs (such as the Compaq Evo models that took laptop PSUs). Then the PSU, keyboard, and monitor would be optional extras thus giving a small base price. Given that well built PSUs and keyboards tend not to wear out as fast as people want to replace computers, it seems that financial savings could be provided to most customers by allowing them to purchase the computer unit without the extra parts. People like me who type enough to regularly wear out keyboards and who keep using computers for more than 5 years because they still work are in a small minority and would of course be able to buy the same bundle of computer, PSU, and keyboard that new users would get. In 2020 a device the size of an iPaQ H39xx with USB (for keyboard and mouse) and the new DisplayPort [5] digital display interface (that is used in recent Lenovo laptops [6]) would make a great PDA/desktop. You could dock a PDA the way some people dock laptops now and carry all your data around with you. Bill cites an example of running the Mac interface on an Apple ][ (does anyone know of a reference for this) as an example of older hardware being more effective with newer software. It's a pity that often new software needs such powerful hardware. EG it's only recently that hardware developments have overtaken the developments of OpenOffice to make it deliver decent performance. He has an interesting idea of using insurance companies to replace government regulation of food and drugs. The general concept is that if you can convince an insurance company that your new drug is not a great risk to them so that they charge a premium you can afford then you could sell it without any further testing. Normally I'm in favor of government regulation of such things, but given the abject failures of the US government this idea has some merit. Of course there's nothing stopping insurance companies from just taking a chance and running up debts that they could never hope to repay (in a similar manner to so many banks). Finally I think it's interesting to note the camera work that the TED people used. My experience of being in the audience for many lectures (including one of Bill Joy's lectures in the late 90's) is that a speaker who consults their notes as often as Bill does gives a negative impression to the audience. Note that I'm not criticising Bill in this regard, often a great talk requires some significant notes - very few people can deliver a talk in a convincing manner entirely from memory. It seems to me that the choices of camera angle are designed to give a better impression than someone who was seated in the audience might receive - there's no reason why a video of a talk should be spoiled by seeing the top of the speaker's head while they consult their notes!

• [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Joy


• [2] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html


• [3] http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog


• [4] http://blog.ted.com/2008/11/what_i_worry_ab.php


• [5]
  
• [6] http://lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=161

Space and place has long been important to hackers. Whether it was/is the university lab, the workplace, the hacker con, or the particularly high-tech city, hackers congregate and meet face to face, often and everyday. One semi-new development has been the explosion and proliferation of hacker labs and spaces, such as Noisebridge located in the Mission district of San Francisco Foulab in Montreal. I recently got back from San Francisco and was able to spend a few nights at Noisebridge and was jaw droppingly impressed. The space is, well, spacious and nice (and located right by the Bart, a real +++++), but more important is that it is a thriving collective with all sorts of geeky participants and they have just souped up the space with all sorts of equipment, from the usual suspects (lots of computers) to lots of electronic gear such as oscilloscopes. What I also was impressed by was not only the blizzard of events but the open and accessible nature of the organization, which seemed to sit in some contrast to NYC’s hacker collective, NYC Resistor. Like so many organizations in this metropolis, they apparently are lacking in space to grow and the word on the streets (which I cannot confirm or deny as I have had very little contact with them but have heard this repeatedly) is that the organization has had a tough time letting in new members. Some folks are understanding of this given their space limitation, others have been less kind, and have referred to the group as a clique. There are already a few other initiatives under way to find a larger space so as to accommodate a more open, participatory atmosphere for a hacker space but I imagine that over time the culture and developments of NYC Resistor will also change as new spaces develops and do hope that this creates the conditions for more access rather than less (and again, I know next to nothing of the situation though I suspect space plays a real limiting role as it does with nearly everything else in NYC). And thankfully Rose White, a NYC-based sociology graduate student at CUNY, is paying close attention to the rise and development of these hacker spaces. She is well underway doing her dissertation dissertation on these hack spaces and I really look forward to her work.

Yesterday I exchanged my “old” Thinkpad T60 with a shiny new T500. This time I ordered a Thinkpad with integrated Intel graphics since it’s supposed to be way better supported than the graphic chips from ATI or NVIDIA under Linux. And of course it is supposed to be much more silent. I don’t regret this decision so far, the new T500 is barely hearable even under heavy load. Debian I installed Debian unstable (aka. frozen for waaayy to long) without a problem. Sound worked out of the box, graphics worked somewhat. The kernel automatically loaded the correct modules but I had to tell Xorg that I want the “intel” driver instead of Vesa. Unfortunately Xorg’s intel driver in unstable is already too old to allow me to use an external monitor via the docking station’s DVI port, so I had to to upgrade to Xorg from experimental, which is not very cool since this is the machine I depend on at work. Wifi also doesn’t work, since the the driver and firmware available in unstable are outdated. Suspend to RAM works sometimes, but most of the time the laptop refuses to wake up properly so I have to shut it down. I’ve not yet tested if bluetooth and Wimax works. So currently the T500 is usable under unstable but without external monitor and without Wifi. If you are brave enough to use packages from experimental, you get your external monitor to work but still don’t have Wifi. Suspend to RAM does not work reliably. The T500 should probably work fine with Lenny but of course without external Monitor and Wifi support. Vista After I’ve installed Debian and moved my /home from the old laptop to my new baby, I noticed that silly “Windows Vista” sticker on my laptop. Of course I tried to remove that thing, which I regretted painfully. After I’ve successfully removed the sticker — which was surprisingly hard — some glue remained on the surface of the laptop. No problem I thought, nothing some nail polish remover can’t handle. Unfortunately it only smeared the glue but did not resolve it as I had expected. So I’ve tried perfume, water, soap, rubber, tape and solvent for several hours, but was not able to remove the glue at all. All I achieved was to smear the compact but thick chunk of glue to a very thin but much more distributed layer of this nasty glue on my laptop. Now it looks like a 5×5cm square of dirt on top of my laptop — not sure if removing the Vista sticker was worth it.

There is currently a discussion on the Debian-security mailing list about how to protect data which came from an encrypted file. I was going to skip that one until someone summoned me by mentioning SE Linux. The issue which was raised is that data from an encrypted file can be read from /dev/mem (for all memory of the machine) or /proc/<pid>/mem (for the memory of the process). It was suggested that SE Linux can prevent such attacks, however it’s not that simple. In most SE Linux configurations there will be a domain with ultimate privileges, examples are unconfined_t for a default configuration (also known as targeted) and sysadm_t for a “strict” configuration. SE Linux differs from many security models (such as the Unix permissions model that we are familiar with) in that there is no inherent requirement for a domain with ultimate privileges. I have in the past written policy for machines in which no domain could read /dev/mem or modify the running policy. This meant that booting from installation media might be required to modify the configuration of the system - some people desire systems like this and have good reasons for doing so! As the vast majority of SE Linux users will have a “targeted” configuration, and the majority of the rest will have a “strict” configuration with minimal changes (IE sysadm_t will work as expected) there will always be a domain that can access /dev/mem (I’m not certain that sysadm_t can directly access /dev/mem on all variants of the policy - but given that it can put SE Linux in permissive mode it has ultimate access to work around that). This however doesn’t mean that SE Linux provides no benefit. A typical Linux system will have many daemons running as root, while a typical SE Linux system will have few processes running as root while also having a SE Linux context that grants ultimate privileges. The root owned processes that SE Linux constrains are generally the network facing daemons and other processes which provide a risk, while the root owned processes that are not constrained by SE Linux policy are generally processes related to early stages of the system boot and programs run as part of the system administrator’s login session - processes that are inherently trusted. Now regarding the memory of the process (and the ptrace API), in most cases a process that is likely to be accessing such a file will run in a domain that permits such access to itself. If the process in question is run from a login session (ssh login etc) then other processes in the same session will have access to the data. It is quite possible to write policy to create a new domain for the program which accesses the decrypted data and to deny the domain the ability to ptrace itself, but it will require at least 10 minutes of work (it’s not a default configuration). So while SE Linux will generally help you to improve your security no matter what your exact requirements may be, it’s not something that can be used to make such corner cases entirely disappear. In a more general sense the idea that only a single program can access certain data is almost unattainable in a typical system. Among other things to consider is the fact that the Linux kernel is one of the larger programs on a typical Linux system…

Wouter insists that Ruby Gems are enough of an argument to keep Rails at a distance. Even though I agree with the basic claim and think that Gems are basically insane and sick, this should be taken a bit more under perspective.
We are blessed. We are blessed to have Debian, such a rich OS with such a great package management system, and with superb integration between so many packages. Blessed are also the users of most Free Software based distributions, as they share the advantages of systems growing with full consciousness of their interaction's benefits. However, integration with the rest of the world is not seamless.
Most scripting languages have their own infrastructure for managing the modules/libraries/pacakges/whatevers dependencies. Perl has CPAN, PHP has PEAR, Ruby has Gems... I do see Gems as the most obnoxious of them all, but the basics are the same.
The Rails crowd started being Unix-centric, but the Windows (and MacOS - they are no better, believe me, at least in this regard) world has exerted its pressure. Gems caters very well to their needs, but we do suffer the integration at the distro side.
The only sane way the propietary-minded people have managed to stay clear of the well known "DLL hell" is to ship everything a given program requires bundled together - that's the main reason for the bloat of lots of applications, and for the sloppiness of security support. Every application packager is responsible for shipping updated versions to any library it bundles in, except for the very basic core that the OS itself provides. That seems so annoyingly backwards to us that... it is unbelievable.
So, yes, Rails application trees often include Rails itself. For $DEITY sake, even I have grown used to working that way, as things tend to break under your nose otherwise. My proposal (which we talked over at DebConf, but have not pushed so far) is to support simultaneous versions of Rails installed in a Debian system (of course, via different packages), more or less in the way that simultaneous versions of Ruby, PHP or Python (and, in some limited fashion, Perl - Although Perl does not suffer from this incompatible bumps. Yay for Perl!) can be installed.
...And, yes, together with the pkg-ruby-extras team, I have been trying to -slowly, yes- package whatever modules we often use so they don't have to be included in Rails applications.
So far, the best way (although by far not optimal) I have found to limit this explosion of trees is to include most libraries in my Rails application trees as git submodule trees - If they are not explicitly downloaded, the systemwide libraries will be used.
Yes, the "ship the whole thing as a bundle" approach is quite annoying. However, at least I must acknowledge that it works better than the approach I took with previous (mod_perl-based) webapps I wrote... As relatively few people grok mod_perl, I ended up with quite some apps which were not installed by anybody but me. Rails is obnoxious... but seems to be parsable by the humanity at large.

The Timeless Way of Building: Diagnosis and Repair Architect Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language is well known among programmers as the inspiration for the Design Patterns school of thought, but for some reason his other books are less widely read. My mother and father are both architects—"real" ones, not "software architects." :) My own amateur interest in the subject led me to read several of Alexander's books over the past couple of years. The Timeless Way of Building is the first volume of an open-ended series. (A Pattern Language is the second.) It is in this book that Alexander first lays out the idea of a pattern language. More importantly, he explains an entire theory and practice of design and construction, of which the pattern language is only one piece. Another piece of the Timeless Way is the practice of diagnosis and repair. Rather than a detailed plan of future projects, Alexander prefers to maintain a diagnosis of current problems. Each new project must be targeted at fixing these existing problem in the system: "At every moment we use the defects of the present state as the starting point for the definition of the new state" (p. 485). Alexander's goal is to create a type of spontaneous growth and order that is possible when change is incremental and decision-making authority is decentralized. Alexander was hired to produce a new type of master plan for the University of Oregon campus. The result was published as the third volume in the "Timeless Way" series: The Oregon Experiment. In it, he writes again about diagnosis and repair:

It is still not clear where global order will come from, without a master plan.… How is the problem solved in an organism? Essentially, the problem is solved by a process of diagnosis and local repair.… The master plan tells us what is right for the future. The diagnosis tells us what is wrong for the present. (p. 146–148)

In software, the same problems and conclusions have led to "agile" processes, which emphasize incremental change and flexible planning. But I haven't seen any software companies adopt a consistent practice of "diagnosis"—keeping track of what's wrong or unsatisfactory with the current system. This extends beyond defect tracking; it should include a constantly updated list of code that, although it works, is hard to understand, difficult to change, or otherwise likely to cause problems. (This should be easy to generate—every programmer knows certain parts of their code base that they dread working on for one reason or another.) This knowledge can then guide new development to include "repair" and address such problems before they become defects. I've applied this on a small scale to my own work, and now I wish I had used it at Amazon, where my team spent much more time maintaining and improving old code than writing new code.

I've found myself writing this several times recently in the context of Telepathy, so I thought I'd make a blog post that I can refer people to. D-Bus is defined (by the wire protocol spec) to be an asynchronous message-passing system, and libdbus behaves accordingly; there are no blocking calls at the wire protocol level. However, libdbus provides a "blocking" API (dbus_do_something_and_block), via a mechanism I'll refer to as "pseudo-blocking" for the purposes of this post. Most D-Bus bindings (at least dbus-glib, dbus-python and QtDBus) expose this pseudo-blocking behaviour to library users. These pseudo-blocking calls work like this:

• send a method call message (call it M)
• while a reply to M has not been received:
  • select() or poll() on the D-Bus socket, ignoring all other I/O
  • whenever a whole message has been received:
  • check whether the message is a reply to M
  • if it is (call it R), stop
  • if it is not, put it on the incoming message queue

The messages received between M and R are delivered when the main loop is next entered. This can cause a number of problems:

• Messages are re-ordered: messages received between M and R aren't delivered until after the reply, violating the ordering guarantee that the D-Bus daemon usually provides. (This causes practical problems if a signal indicating object destruction is delayed - the client gets a method reply "UnknownMethod", has to guess that this is because the object has vanished, and can't know why it vanished until the signal indicating its destruction arrives with more details.)
• The client is completely unresponsive until the service replies - if the service has somehow got wedged (e.g. telepathy-gabble is meant to be purely non-blocking and asynchronous, but there are cases where it will do blocking I/O on SSL connections due to Loudmouth bugs), the client will be unresponsive for (by default) 25 seconds until the call times out. (Clients shouldn't crash or lock up, whatever happens to the services they depend on.)
• The client can't parallelize calls - if a signal (e.g. an incoming Text message in Telepathy) causes method calls to be made, a client that uses pseudo-blocking calls can't even start processing the next message until those method calls return
• If two processes make pseudo-blocking calls on each other, deadlock occurs. This is particularly tricky in the presence of a plugin architecture and shared D-Bus connections - a plugin that "knows" it's a client and not a service, and a plugin in the same process that "knows" it's a service and not a client, can end up sharing a connection, resulting in a process that is both a service and a client (and hence deadlock-prone). (We've seen this happen in the OLPC Sugar environment and on Nokia internet tablets; it's not just a theoretical concern.)

As a result, telepathy-glib's code generation mechanism does not generate any pseudo-blocking code. There are several alternative modes of operation that we do support:

• Fully asynchronous: call a method now, pass it a callback, get your callback called from the main loop later. This can be awkward to program with, but is the only way forward for most non-trivial projects.
• Re-entrant main loop: re-enter the main loop, processing all messages (D-Bus, GUI, network, anything), and run it until the reply has been received. This is useful for trivial projects (like telepathy-glib's regression tests), but dangerous for non-trivial projects (like Empathy), and I'm somewhat regretting implementing this.
• Ignoring the reply: when appropriate (it rarely is), you can make an asynchronous call with callback = NULL and the reply will be ignored completely

We make a couple of narrowly targeted exceptions to the "no pseudo-blocking" policy in internal code, by allowing telepathy-glib internals to make a small number of pseudo-blocking method calls to the dbus-daemon (which is the one component we can definitely trust to return results promptly). Here are some examples of the same strategies in other libraries:

• Pseudo-blocking: dbus-python method calls with no special keyword arguments; dbus-glib dbus_g_proxy_call; QDBus calls with mode QDBus::Block
• Fully asynchronous: dbus-python method calls with reply_callback and error_callback keyword arguments; dbus-glib dbus_g_proxy_begin_call; QDBusConnection::callWithCallback
• Re-entrant: QDBus calls with mode QDBus::BlockWithGui
• Ignoring reply: dbus-python method calls with ignore_reply keyword argument; QDBus calls with mode QDBus::NoWaitForReply

Gintautas Miliauskas blogs about a computer program that can generate something which reportedly really sounds like composer-written music; apparently it has passed a 'turing test' where people listened to music generated by this thing, and music written by a human composer. I'm afraid, however, I'll have to disappoint him a bit, really. If we ignore the effect that music can have on the emotional state of a living being for a moment, then it's a plain and simple fact that music is pure math:

• 'An octave' is the musician's term for 'a doubling in frequency'. As many people know, a center A on a piano is tuned at 440Hz; it follows that an A one octave higher is tuned at 880Hz, and that the one which is one octave lower will be 220Hz.
• 'Chords' are based around that, too. A regular C chord, for example, contains the C, E, and G notes; and usually, a C at one octave above the first C is included, too. The frequency of a G is exactly halfway between the two C notes, and the E is about halfway between those. Most chords are built in such a manner; the sound waves of those notes will build an interference pattern that is perceived as a chord.
• A melody usually starts with the base note of the key in which the piece is written, and almost always (except during a short time in the early baroque) ends with that same base note. Note that the 'base' note is not the same thing as the "bass" note (although the base is often used in the bass).

There are many other things in music that can be expressed as mathematical rules; learning to how to compose music involves learning those rules, which is a long and tedious process. Now I'm not saying that following those rules will necessarily lead you to an interesting piece of music; the fact that it's possible to create something ugly while still using chords etc. But since so much of it already is math, I can imagine it not being extremely hard to figure out what the other rules are (the ones a composer figures out by imself as opposed to being taught them), transferring them into a computer program, and using that to generate music. That's not to say that such a thing is easy to do, and I'm sure it's still an impressive feat to create a computer program which can create "nice" sounding music; but I don't think this would qualify as 'artificial intelligence'. At least not any more than Deep Blue

Now you need to register to install addons from addons.mozilla.org. For god's sake, what's the point of such a thing, except annoying people. Mozilla you suck: your softwares suck, your ideas suck. You'll really gonna get out of my computer ASAP.

A while ago, I found a way to open multiple firefox instances so I could have multiple cookie/password repositories. One issue that plagued me was that when launching URLs from other applications (e.g. liferea, gnome-terminal, etc), the URL would open in the longest running firefox, so if I opened my Browsing instance first, then my Authenticated instance, URLs would open in the Browsing instance. That’s what I wanted. However, if I had to restart my Browsing instance (like, say, when flash was crashing), URLs would start opening in the Authenticated instance, which I didn’t want. So, I changed the Gnome preferences to run this script when launching a browser:

#!/bin/sh
firefox -p Browsing -remote 'openURL('"$@"')'

Ta-da, URLs are always directed to the “Browsing” instance, regardless of when it was started.

Yesterday I wrote that I'd ordered a new ASUS EEE PC, the 901 model, and today it arrived. The machine is gorgeous though I suspect in the long term I'll regret ordering the white model. This entry was written on the device, slowly due to my fat fingers, with its new Debian Lenny operating system. To save time I didn't even use the default system, I just immediately rebooted it into the installer via a 2Gb USB stick. Unfortunately I had to run through the installation twice, because I made some bad partitioning decisions and decided to fix them rather than live with them. Happily everything on the device appears to work perfectly, although there were a few hiccups along the way. The only niggle is that suspend to RAM seems a little flaky; 50% of the time I try to resume and just get a blank window not my X.org desktop. Happily suspend-to-disk works perfectly, and the bootup/restoration process looks very pretty with the splashy package installed. There are times when I really love using Debian, and this is definitely one of them. Together we've produced an operating system which just works on an amazing array of devices and systems and gets better and better as time goes on! For example in the past I'd always regarded Network Manager as "that thing we remove to stop breaking our system" - but now I see it working correctly with no effort on my part at all. Amazing! I guess I'll be returning my Nokia internet tablet in the near future. This device is bigger, but much more capable and versatile. ObFilm: St Trinians (the recent remake; not too bad. Bonus points for the Shampoo cover).

today in my website's access.log (wrapped for easier legibility):

64.1.215.166 - - [21/Nov/2008:19:03:02 +0100] "GET / ,blog/  HTTP/1.0" \
  404 6963 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Twiceler-0.9 http://www.cuil.com/twiceler/robot.html)"

the broken URL comes from my ~/.signature which since about 2 months contains the following fragment:

http://info.comodo.priv.at/ ,blog/ 

& probably that line was found in some web archive of a mailing list or newsgroup or somesuch.

now what is this highly intelligent Twiceler thingy? a look at the URL in the access.log entry redirects to cuil, & the page proudly claims in friendly, large, green letters

Cuil is the biggest search engine on the planet.

apart from the fact that I've never heard about them & that their search results are not impressive either, their "philosophy" (huh?) page claims:

Size matters

maybe it's just me but probably they should invest more in technical "cuil" [0] than in marketing speak that sounds less like search engines but more like another business branch on the intarwebs.

[0] "Cuil is an old Irish word for knowledge." (source: cuil again)

Thanks to Koha, TTLLP is partly a library services worker cooperative and just now there’s a massive flame-storm about the largest library services consumer cooperative - OCLC, the Online Computer Library Center - because it just updated the terms for sharing its book data collection. OCLC seems to be treating it as a private asset that it can exploit, not the common resource that many librarians thought it was. I’ve been watching this fire with interest - because, at best, I don’t think it’s helping other cooperatives that sell to libraries - and here is my summary. OCLC and the Great Library Scandal is a good introduction and there’s a summary of the Talis Podcast about OCLC WorldCat Record Use Policy with Karen Clahoun and Roy Tennant which reveals some of the OCLC thinking. Just like CC and Open Source? Still No is a great illustration of how some librarians think OCLC is reaching the wrong conclusion, which then leads to asking Is OCLC truly cooperative? and What would it look like if OCLC was broken up? A commenter on Tom Watson: Library data asks: “Why would libraries play this game?” Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and this road has taken 40 years. First off, OCLC is essentially a good idea - libraries cooperating to act as a counter-weight to the large library service companies. However, I believe OCLC predates many recent company rule innovations (stronger common asset locks) and data licensing innovations (Share-Alike, Fiduciary Licensing and the general free and open source software movements), so there’s nothing to stop them trying to privatise the assets (library data) that the libraries have given to OCLC and it was only a matter of time before someone tried. I’m having a similar discussion with another organisation that has been given data by its members under vague terms and is now apparently about to exploit that data for the organisation’s benefit, to the detriment of some members. TTLLP is a member but has not contributed much data because I was suspicious of the lack of terms. In time, hopefully, asset locks and more awareness of data licensing will eliminate these problems, but there’s going to be a lot more people getting burnt first. Finally, a quick shout-out to the Open Library Environment as a possible emerging alternative to OCLC for practical services. Raw Thought: Stealing Your Library: The OCLC Powergrab covers some of its motivation (and includes a link to a petition to OCLC, if you want something to sign), but I share Stefano’s (now there’s someone I’d not read in 7 or so years) analysis of some of the challenges:

“any grass-root approach that will get big enough to take on OCLC on the metadata collection and redistribution service that libraries need will have to incorporate under the pressure of its users (if only for legal liability protection) and will have to find an answer to the same set of problems (policy, governance, financial sustainability) that OCLC has.”

This might be a good message to write in Spanish... But then again, a long time ago I decided this is an English-posting site. So be it, I'll only have to give more background information.
This day marks the date when, 98 years ago, Francisco I. Madero started the Mexican Revolution - About a decade of unrest, civil war and ideologies. The revolution is what created the violent, uncivil image of the Mexican, which accompanied us for long years in many foreigners' minds. The revolution brought to an end 30 years of a single-man rule, the Porfiriato. But that's only the major symptom - The Revolution had many, many other consequences. About one million (out of a 10 million population) people died. There was a very significative rearrangement of the society, a rearrangement that took about half a century to settle. But I won't write more background - You can always ask the wikipedia about our Revolution.
The reason I am posting this is that, as it usually happens in this time of year, several so-called analysts in the media have started asking, was the Revolution really worth it? Did it change anything at all? Did the Revolution in the end win, or was it defeated from within? Should we still celebrate it?
And there are, yes, reasons to doubt it. Renato Leduc, at the same time a great journalist and a delicious poet, says it as many - while at the same time, as nobody else: Tiempos en que era Dios omnipotente / y el se or Don Porfirio presidente / Tiempos, ay! tan iguales al presente, or ya se est n muriendo todos / Jes s qu desilusi n...! / se est volviendo gobierno / Ay dios...! La revoluci n.
Anyway... Our media overlords insist on us forgetting the struggles and the real changes that came from them, on rewriting the history... Probably they will push us later on to have the cristeros as the real fathers of the Nation?
Even if so many bits of reality didn't change after Porfirio Diaz's regime fell in 1910, I find it insulting to think that even 70 years of PRI -with very sharp differences between periods, with huge differences between the PRI-born governments- are comparable to 30 years of a one-man rule; even with brutal repressions such as the dirty war against so many subversive movements in the 50s-80s (as officially There Was No Armed Struggle Anymore, just some pesky communist subversives), it cannot be compared to the Porfirian Peace (ask Cananea and R o Blanco). Today we might have a shameful concentration of money and power in very few hands (including the world's richest man), but it certainly does not reach the point of 1910 where most of the Mexican soil was owned by less than 30 families, with latifundios as big as many states...
Anyway - So far, nothing new - just bits I heard here and there, and my reactions to them. But this morning, around 8:25, I tuned in to Noticias IMER, the news program of one of the few public, non-gubernamental, independent radio stations. An interview was under way, but I could not get the interviewed person's name (I guess, a historian - will write to ask for his data). His comments were very interesting, and very worth echoing. I'll try not to distort him.
The Revolution started off very organized, and with a very simple goal: Get Porfirio Diaz out, and call for real federal elections. Sufragio efectivo, no reelecci n. Of course, the fight was very short, and Madero became the president, with an overwhelming majority. Of course, also, the reactionary sectors set up a coup and killed Madero. Victoriano Huerta seized the power - and that's where the real revolution really began. Groups all over the country (some of which were at unrest since Madero, as they were not seeing the changes they needed - changes that would bring an end to the huge class differences and disrespect to the native Mexican population) rose in arms, and forced Huerta into exile. Then, they battled each other for many more years. It became known as la bola - When somebody joined the revolutionary forces, people said he went to fight with the crowd. But, inside the crowd, there were very different points of view. No, Carranza, Villa and Zapata (the foremost leaders in the hardest part of the fight) were not power-hungry barbarians - much to the contrary. They had very full, very complex views of the problem and possible solutions. I won't delve much into them, also, as I'm not an expert...
Villa and Zapata had the most compatible approaches, seeking an aggresive land redistribution, a communal property system (closest to most of the indigenous population's roots, what we would now call usos y costumbres). For the government, both favored going towards a Europe-like parliamentary system, where the parliament were the real force, and the president (or prime minister or whatever) would only be the designated person to implement the parliament's decision. Both Villa and Zapata feared the evil stemming from the unlimited power that the Presidential Chair symbolized (Fui soldado de Francisco Villa / de aquel hombre de fama mundial, / que aunque estuvo sentado en la silla / no envidiaba la presidencial). They met at the Aguascalientes convention, and were quite close to each other - but were defeated by the superior Venustiano Carranza (Constitucionalista) army.
Carranza, although vilified for his corruption (nowadays, carrancear is still a synonim for stealing), had an opposite view - also originating from a very deep analysis. Carranza saw that what brought down Madero was, in the end, the lack of power of the President to rule the country without support from the legislative power. So, he pushed a political program making the President the strongest man in Mexico. He and his people wrote and passed the 1917 Constitution, valid today. This constitution goes to great lengths pushing revolutionary ideals - Land and wealth redistribution, universal and free education, keeps a complete separation between state and church, ensures state control over strategic areas... The 1917 constitution is one of our history's greatest achievements.
But, of course, it is not perfect - it paved the way for a hegemonic party controlling the real power behind it all. PRI started as a very heterogeneous mixture of the whole revolutionary family, but slowly became a bureaucratic, stagnated monolith.
And in a somehow ironic twist of destiny, the forces that today push for deepest changes, and precisely in the same direction that Villa and Zapata wished, are... Ej rcito Zapatista de Liberaci n Nacional (EZLN) and Frente Popular Francisco Villa (FPFV). EZLN is far more successful and advanced in its social experiment. Again, I won't comment further in what I don't really understand.
As a last point, the commenter I'm quoting (and whose name I must get, to update this post!), said that practically in every country that has transited from any sort of dictatorship towards a more-or-less believable democracy (say, everywhere in South America, or Spain, or Eastern Europe, or...), one of the first steps has been to update or replace the constitution with a new one, preventing the mistakes overlooked by the previous one from being reinstated. In our country, we have long heard about the "Reforma del Estado", a very nice-sounding-term which nobody believes in. After the 2006 electoral mess (no matter who won in the end, everybody will agree it was a mess that should be prevented from happening again, we had high hopes of real changes being introduced. A parliamentary, or at least semi-presidentialist regime was strongly suggested as a way forward. Changing the electoral system towards having second-rounds if needed. _anything!_ But no, we were stuck with... The same as always.
So, did the Revolution win or lose? It is clear to me. It won, and it really shaped -for better- what would happen in the next 100 years. However, in a century, we have been able to twist the law to make it turn against itself. I have to agree with my EZLN-minded friends (I sympathize with EZLN's general goals, but don't think its way forward is the right way to go): Pushing the change from within the government is just wishful thinking, but a strong delusion. However, is there a way to push our country forward without repeating a violent cycle? I really hope so. Our current situation is simply pathetic.
I lack a good closing for this post... So I'll let good old Jefe Pluma Blanca, Renato Leduc, do it for me.
Tiempos de Pancho Villa
y de la guerra de mentadas y tiros en la sierra.
Tiempos de fe
no en Dios sino en la tierra Por el cerro de la Pila
fueron entrando a Torre n
mi general Pancho Villa
y atr s la revoluci n...
Ay jijos...! ya se nos hizo
cu nto diablo bigot n... Ya viene Toribio Ortega
subiendo y bajando cerros
y no te enredes ni enga es
que ah anda Pablito Se ez
haciendo ladrar los perros. Cu nto usurero barb n...!
Ay jijos... c mo les vuela
de la levita el fald n...!
Ay jijos... ya se nos hizo:
triunf la revoluci n...! Tenemos camino andado...
No hay que juntarse con rotos
siempre te juegan traici n
ya Madero est vengado
ya muri la usurpaci n. En su caballo retinto
lleg Emiliano Zapata
bonita su silla charra
y sus botones de plata
pero mucho m s bonito
su famoso Plan de Ayala... Este gallo es de navaja
y no es gallo de espol n
si quieres tierra trabaja
trabaja no seas huev n... Ya lleg don Venustiano
con sus anteojos oscuros
y Villa y Zapata gritan:
No s que tengo en los ojos...
porque ya en Pablo Gonz lez
se vislumbra la traici n
Ay reata no te revientes
que es el ltimo jal n...! ya se est n muriendo todos
Jes s qu desilusi n...!
se est volviendo gobierno
Ay dios...! La revoluci n.

It is often argued that companies have to work with the FOSS community and there are good reasons for doing so. I've tried to collect a number of case stories of good and bad community interaction that may help as a starting point for further exploration of this topic:

• NVidia is probably the best example of a company that is not interested in providing open source drivers for their graphics chips. There are lots of folks who won't buy hardware with NVidia chips for this reason. Intel is the number 1 choice at the moment because they work closely with the community. Related to this, the Linux Foundation and kernel community released a statement regarding open drivers.
• When Sun finally made Java available as open source, they argued that it would help inclusion and distribution of Java (e.g. inclusion into Debian). Sun also felt that the GPL provides the strongest protection "against misbehaviour by monopolists in the Java platform".
• The Novell/Microsoft deal was not perceived well by the community, which led to web sites like http://boycottnovell.com
• Nokia recently had an insightful blog posting about the problems when nobody knows about the open source contributions you make: for example, you cannot influence decisions in a project as easily.
• Sun is often criticized for dominating all open source projects they run. They can be used as a good example that you have to give up some control in order to get outside participation.
• The fact that Xen is not in the mainline kernel is a key reason why a number of companies (e.g. IBM, Red Hat) are looking at KVM (which is in the mainline kernel and actively developed in the community). In fact, "looking" is probably not the best word. IBM is actively working on KVM to make it a viable solution and Red Hat recently acquired Qumranet, the company behind KVM.
• Oracle got fairly bad press for copying the Red Hat distribution and changing Red Hat to Oracle, without engaging in the Red Hat community.
• There's a paper that looks at "empirical evidence on the incentives of firms that engage in OS activities." They look at 146 Italian companies supplying open source solutions, but unfortunately the study doesn't include any major company.

Can you think of other examples? (Originally published on FOSSBazaar where comments are possible)

The Open Rights Group is 3, and now has reached over 1000 fivers a month. To celebrate ORG have issued each of the first 1000 members with web badges, I have added my ORG badges into the sidebar. If you care about any of these: * Automatic Vehicle Tracking
* Copyright
* Creative Commons
* Data Protection
* DRM
* e-Voting
* Freedom of Information
* Identity
* Intellectual Property
* Net Neutrality
* Open Geodata
* Open Source
* Police Records
* Privacy
* Public Domain
* Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
* Release The Music
* RFID visit the site and sign up to help reach them target of 1500 fivers a month by December.

My current desktop PC has an RS790-based Radeon on-board graphics controller. It also has a Radeon X1900 plugged in. Playing with my Watts Up, I found that the system was (at idle!) drawing around 35W more power with the X1900 than with the on-board graphics.

This is clearly less than ideal.

Recent Radeons all support dynamic clock gating, a technology where the clocks to various bits of the chip are turned off when not in use. Unfortunately it seems that this is generally already enabled by the BIOS on most hardware, so playing with that didn't give me any power savings. Next I looked at Powerplay, the AMD technology for reducing clocks and voltages. It turns out that my desktop hardware doesn't provide any Powerplay tables, so no joy there either. What next?

Radeons all carry a ROM containing a bunch of tables and scripts written in a straightforward bytecode language called Atom. The idea is that OS-specific drivers can call the Atom tables to perform tasks that are hardware dependent, even without knowledge of the specific low-level nature of the hardware they're driving. You can use Atom to do several things, from card initialisation through mode setting to (crucially) setting the clock frequencies. Jerome Glisse wrote a small utility called Atomtools that lets you execute Atom scripts and set the core and RAM frequencies. Playing with this showed that it was possible to save the best part of 5W by underclocking the graphics core, and about the same again by reducing the memory clock. A total saving of 9-10W was pretty significant.

The main problem with reducing the memory clock was that doing it while the screen is being scanned out results in memory corruption, showing up as big ugly graphical artifacts on the screen. I'm a fan of doing power management as aggressively as possible, which means reclocking the memory whenever the system is idle. Turning the screen off to reclock the memory would avoid the graphical corruption but introduce irritating flicker, so that wasn't really an option. The next plan was to synchronise the memory reclocking to the vertical refresh interval, the period of time between the bottom of a frame and the top of the next frame being drawn. Unfortunately setting the memory frequency took somewhere between 2 and 20 milliseconds, far too long to finish inside that time period.

So. Just using Atom was clearly not going to be possible. The next step was to try writing the registers directly. Looking at the R500 register documentation showed that the MPLL_FUNC_CNTL register contained the PLL dividers for the memory clock. Simply smacking a new value in here would allow changing the frequency of the memory clock with a single register write. It even worked. Almost. I could change the frequency within small ranges, but going any further resulted in increasingly severe graphical corruption. Unlike the sort I got with the Atom approach to changing the frequency, this corruption manifested itself as a range of effects from shimmering on the screen down to blocks of image gradually disappearing in an impressively trippy (though somewhat disturbing) way.

Next step was to perform a register dump before and after changing the frequencies via Atom, and compare them to the registers I was programming. MC_ARB_RATIO_CLK_SEQ was consistently different, which is where things got interesting. The AMD docs helpfully describe this register as "Magic field, please use the excel programming guide. Sets the hclk/sclk ratio in the arbiter", about as helpful as being told that the register contents are defined by careful examination of a series of butterflies kept somewhere in Taiwan. Now what?

Back to Atomtools. Enabling debugging let me watch a dump of the Atom script as it ran. The relevant part of the dump is here. The most significant point was:

MOVE_REG @ 0xBC09
src: ID[0x0000+B39E].[31:0] -> 0xFF7FFF7F
dst: REG[0xFE16].[31:0] <- 0xFF7FFF7F

, showing that the value in question was being read out of a table in the video BIOS (ID[0x0000+B39E] indicating the base of the ROM plus 0xB39E). Looking further back showed that WS[0x40] contained a number that was used as an index into the table. Grepping the header files gave 0x40 as ATOM_WS_QUOTIENT, containing the quotient of a division operation immediately beforehand. Working back from there showed that the value was derived from a formula involving the divider frequencies of the memory PLL and the source PLL. Reimplementing that was trivial, and now I could program the same register values. Hurrah!

It didn't work, of course. These things never do. It looked like modifying this value didn't actually do anything unless the memory controller was reinitialised. Looking through the Atom dump showed that this was achieved by calling the MemoryDeviceInit script. Reimplementing this from scratch was one option, but it had a bunch of branches and frankly I'm lazy and that's why I work on this Linux stuff rather than getting a proper job. This particular script was fast, so there was no real reason to do it by hand instead of just using the interpreter. Timing showed that doing so could easily be done within the vblank interval. This time, it even worked.

I've done a proof of concept that involved wedging this into the Radeon DRM code with extreme prejudice, but it needs some rework. However, it demonstrates that it's possible to downclock the memory whenever the screen is idle without there being any observable screen flicker. Combine that with GPU downclocking and we can save about 10W without any noticable degradation in performance or output. Victory!

I gave the code to someone with an X1300 and it promptly corrupted their screen and locked their machine up. Oh well. Turns out that they have a different memory controller or some such madness.

So, obviously, there's more work to be done on this. I've put some test code here. It's a small program that should be run as root. It should reprogram an Atom-based discrete graphics card[1] to half its memory clock. Running it again will halve it again. I don't recommend doing that. You'll need to reboot to get the full clock back. This isn't vblank synced, so it may introduce some graphical corruption. If the corruption is static (ie, isn't moving or flickering) then that's fine. If it's moving then I (and/or the docs) suck and there's still work to be done. If your machine hangs then I'm interested in knowing what hardware you have and may have some further debugging code to be run. Unless you have an X1300, in which case it's known to break and what were you thinking running this code you crazy mad fool.

Once this is stable it shouldn't take long to integrate it into the DRM and X layers. I'm also trying to get hold of some mobile AMD hardware to test what impact we can have on laptops.

[1] Shockingly enough, it's somewhat harder to underclock graphics memory on a shared memory system

I just had a very nice chat on the phone with a man whose first attempt at online shopping seemed to have resulted in a fraudster using his card to buy mobile phone top-ups. I don’t understand why he called us (it wasn’t one of my web shops), but I hope I did the right thing by directing him back to his credit card company’s fraud department. While I was talking to him, I was checking the shop he had problems with. I wouldn’t have bought from it. Here’s how I checked it:- 1. Check the Page Open the front page of the site in one browser window and then use another window to get to a page that ought to be secure (the payment/checkout page is my usual one). Look at them both. Do either of them show any logos from well-known payment (Barclays, RBS, Protx, …) or security-checking services (thawte - who else?)? That’s not entirely reliable, but it’s usually a good sign because those companies attack people using their marks without permission. Look at the payment/checkout page - does the address in the address bar start “https”? If so, is the padlock in the browser status bar (usually bottom right) closed? That usually means it’s encrypted with a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) certificate. 2. Check the Certificate Open the certificate details. In Firefox-based browsers, double-click the padlock, then click the “View Certificate” button. Then pick “Subject” in the second list box. Usually, it looks like this:-

in that case, as long as the “CN” (common name) is the webserver you thought you were using and the “O” (organisation) and country code (C) make sense, then there’s nothing wrong. Some shops now use Extended Validation certificates and give a bit more information. Here’s one from a train company:-

In addition to the CN and O, it shows Organisational Unit (OU), Location (L), State (ST) and also other address parts and company number that Firefox doesn’t display neatly. This is a bit more reassuring, but also a lot more expensive for the shop owner (around 20 times more, last I checked), so I don’t blame shops for not using them. 3. Check the Registrations By this point, the payment processing and actual transaction are looking pretty good. Finally, I check the recipient. Find the business details on the web shop. Does it include a geographic address? If it contains a company registration number, look it up on the Companies House website. Then I find the business details on the domain names - you can use CoolWhois to look up domain names. If any of the addresses or numbers don’t match (Website, SSL Certificate, Whois), then I call them to ask why their website says they’re based in Bristol but their domain name is registered to Bolton. If they don’t answer messages, or - worse - the domain name says “Non-trading Individual” and the address has been omitted from the public listing, I give up on them and look for another shop. There’s no point securely paying someone that you can never reach if there’s a problem. 4. Buy Stuff and Check the Statements All being well, I then buy stuff and check my credit card statement each month before I pay it. I think any web shop owner (or webmaster - I help some people with this sort of thing) should be taking care of the basics above. Do your shops measure up? Despite the above checks, I can only remember not buying something online once in the last year. A couple of times, I’ve worked through the above steps and it’s changed which shop I bought from - and I’m pretty sure it saved me from losing 400 on one purchase.

Some time ago I spoke to Craig Keating about his plans for a new secondary school in the center of Melbourne. His plan was to focus on the core academic areas and cater to academically gifted students. He had some interesting ideas for his business, one of which was to pay teachers rates that are typical for private schools (higher rates than government schools) but not have any sport programs in the evenings or weekends (private schools typically require teachers to work every Saturday and one evening every week in coaching a sport). This would therefore give an hourly pay rate that was significantly higher than most private schools offered and would thus allow recruiting some of the most skilled teachers. One of his ideas was to intentionally keep the school small so that every teacher could know every student. One of the problems with most schools is that they take no feedback from the students. It seems that this serious deficiency would be largely addressed if the teachers knew the students and talked to them. He pointed out that in the history of our school system (which largely derived from the UK system) the private schools had a lot of sporting activities as a way of filling time for boarding students, given that few schools accept boarders (and those that do have only a small portion of the students boarding) the sports are just a distraction from study. This is not to say that sports are inherently bad or should be avoided. He encouraged parents to take their children to sporting activities that suit the interests of the child and the beliefs of the parents instead of having the child be drafted into a school sport and the parents being forced to take an unwilling child to sporting activities that they detest (which I believe is a common school experience). My own observation of school sport is that it is the epicentre of school bullying. There is an inherent risk of getting hurt when engaging in a sport. Some children get hurt every lesson, an intelligent person who ran a school with an intensive sports program might statistically analyse the injuries incurred and look for patterns. Children who are not good at sport are targeted for attack, for example when I was in year 7 (the first year of high school) one of my friends was assigned to the “cork bobbing” team in the swimming contest - this involved a contest to collect corks floating in the toddler pool for the students who were really bad at swimming. At that moment I knew that my friend would leave the school as the teachers had set him up for more intensive bullying than he could handle. Yet somehow the government still seems to believe that school sports are good! This is not to say that physical activity is bad, the PE 4 Life program [1] (which is given a positive review in the movie Supersize Me [2]) seems useful. It has a focus on fitness for everyone rather than pointless competition for the most skilled. I have just seen a sad announcement on the Keating College web site [3] that they will not be opening next year (and probably not opening at all). The Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VCRA) announced in November that the application to be registered as a school (which was submitted in March) was rejected. The first reason for the rejection was the lack of facilities for teaching woodwork and metalwork. As the VCRA apparently has no problems registering girls’ schools that don’t teach hard maths (a teacher at one such school told me that not enough girls wanted to study maths) it seems unreasonable to deny registration to a school that doesn’t teach some crafts subjects and caters to students who aren’t interested in those areas. The second reason was the lack of facilities for sport and PE. Given the number of gyms in the city area it seems most likely that if specific objections were provided eight months earlier then something could have been easily arranged to cover the health and fitness issues. When I spoke to Craig he had specific plans for using the city baths, gyms, and parks for sporting activities, I expect that most parents who aren’t sports fanatics would find that his plans for PE were quite acceptable. The third reason is the claim that 600 square meters of office space is only enough to teach one class of 24 students. That would mean that 25 square meters is needed for each student! I wonder if students are expected to bring their own binoculars to see the teacher or whether the school is expected to provide them. :-# The government has a list of schools that work with the Australian Institute of Sport [4]. These schools provide additional flexibility in studies for athletes and probably some other benefits that aren’t mentioned in the brief web page. I don’t object to such special facilities being made available for the small number of students who might end up representing Australia in the Olympics at some future time. But I think that a greater benefit could be provided to a greater number of students if there were a number of schools opened to focus on the needs of students who are academically gifted. This doesn’t require that the government spend any money (they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the AIS), merely that they not oppose schools that want to focus on teaching. Currently the government is trying to force Internet censorship upon us with the claim that it will “protect children” [5]. It seems obvious to me that encouraging the establishment of schools such as Keating College will protect children from bullying (which is a very real threat and is the direct cause of some suicides). While so far no-one has shown any evidence that censoring the net will protect any child.

• [1] http://www.pe4life.org/


• [2] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2006/09/22/supersize-me/


• [3] http://www.keatingcollege.com.au/


• [4] https://secure.ausport.gov.au/asc_internet/ais/scholarships/ais_athlete_career_and_education/ais_ace_-_what_we_do/educational_guidance


• [5] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2008/11/18/other-reasons-for-not-censoring/