The conclusion of this discussion is that systems like cmucl are no longer possible under this new system.

You are wrong. If there is a good reason, there can be exceptions. As we mentioned. One of those is for new architectures. Another can be for such packages. But not for I am too lazy to do that , only for it is impossible . Whatever it might be in the cmucl case. Anyone else up for a useless discussion via blog posts?

In a comment on my post about Designing Unsafe Cars [1] Noel said If you don t know how to make a surgery, you don t do it. If you don t know how to drive, don t drive. And if you don t know how to use a computer, don t expect anybody fix your disasters, trojans and viruses. Later he advocates using a taxi. Now I agree about surgery apart from corner cases such as medical emergencies in remote places and large-scale disasters. I also agree that it s good to avoid driving if you aren t very good at it (that would be much better than the current fad of sub-standard drivers buying large 4WD vehicles). But I don t think that people who lack computer skills should avoid using computers. When cars were first invented everyone who owned one was either a mechanic or employed one. Driving a car often involved being well out of range of anyone else who might know how to fix it, so either the car owner or their chauffeur had to be able to fix almost any problem. As the car industry evolved the level of mechanical knowledge required to own and operate a car has steadily decreased. I expect that a significant portion of drivers don t know how to top up the oil or radiator water in their car and probably don t know what is the correct pressure for air in their tires. To a large extent I don t think this is a problem, owning a car involves regularly taking it to be serviced where professionals will (or at least should) check every aspect of the car that is likely to fail. If I used my windscreen-washer less frequently I could probably avoid opening the bonnet of the car between scheduled services! When budgeting for car ownership you just have to include regularly spending a few hundred dollars to pay for an expert to find problems and fix them with of course the occasional large expense for when something big breaks. When the computer industry matures I expect that the same practice will occur. Most people will buy computers and plan to spend small amounts of money regularly to pay people to maintain it. Currently most older people seem to plan to have a young relative take care of their PC for them essentially free mechanic services. The quality of such work will vary of course, and poorly designed OSs that are vulnerable to attack may require more support than can be provided for free. Due to deficiencies in city design it is almost essential to drive a car in most parts of the US and Australia as opposed to countries such as the Netherlands where you can survive quite well without ever driving. When a service is essential it has to be usable by people who have little skill in that area. It would be good if driving wasn t necessary, I would be happy if I never drove a car again. The need to use computers however will continue to increase. So we need to make them more available to users and to support users who can t disinfect computers etc. The only skill requirements for using a computer should be the ability to use a keyboard and a mouse! This requires a new industry in supporting PCs. Geek Squad in the US [2] seems to be the organisation that is most known for this. I expect that there will be multiple companies competing for such work in every region in the near future, just as there are currently many companies competing for the business of servicing cars. We need support for free software from such companies. Maybe existing free software companies such as Red Hat and Canonical can get into this business. One advantage of having such companies supporting software is that they would have a strong commercial incentive to avoid having it break unlike proprietary software vendors who have little incentive to do things right. The next issue is the taxi analogy. Will software as a service with Google subsidising our use of their systems [3] take over any significant part of the market? Of course the car analogy breaks down when it comes to privacy, no-one does anything remotely private in a taxi while lots of secret data is stored on a typical home computer. Google is already doing some impressive security development work which will lead towards low maintenance systems [4] as well as protecting the privacy of the users to the extent that you can trust whoever runs the servers. My parents use their computer for reading email, browsing the web, and some basic wordprocessing and spreadsheet work. The mail is on my IMAP server so all I need is to have some way to store their office documents on a server and they will pretty much have a dataless workstation. Moving their collection of photos and videos of their friends and relatives to a server will be a problem, transferring multiple gigabytes of data on a cheap Australian Internet access plan is a problem.

• [1] http://etbe.coker.com.au/2009/11/24/designing-unsafe-cars/
• [2] http://www.geeksquad.com/
• [3] http://abovethecrowd.com/2009/10/29/google-redefines-disruption-the- less-than-free -business-model/
• [4] http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/security-overview

I m back from Dallas, where I was invited at the Ubuntu Developer Summit for Lucid. I spent a great week there ; the event was extremely well organized (by organizing them every 6 months, you are probably able to gather a lot of experience!). Of course, after all I had heard about people hugging each other all the time in the Ubuntu community, I was a bit worried, especially with the flu spreading! But there are lots of fantastic people around Ubuntu, and it was a very nice opportunity to be able to meet them all. Since it was my first UDS (I was at FOSSCAMP in Prague a few years ago, but didn t stay for UDS back then), I was not really sure of what to expect. I was very pleasantly surprised. UDS vs Debconf UDS is very different from Debconf. In Debconf, we do three different kind of things:

• we hack, mostly on our own, in the hacklabs
• during talks, we report on what we have done recently
• during some talks or BOFs, we discuss future (possible) changes

In UDS, the main focus is on the third point: most of the sessions are about discussing what will be implemented for the next release. All of the relevant developers are in the same room to discuss possible problems, and the outcome of each session is usually a detailed plan, with a list of action items. It s a very nice way to ensure that changes are well thought, and allows making large-scale changes in Ubuntu very easily (you don t spend weeks arguing about them on mailing lists). Of course, it s probably also helped by the fact that there s a company behind Ubuntu, with a set of large teams (kernel, foundations, desktop, etc), which helps transfering trust (not everybody feel like they have to participate in each discussion, even when they affect the whole distribution: the team in charge is trusted by the rest of the project). On the other hand (yeah, let s be negative for a while) it doesn t really help spreading information between Ubuntu developers: it s often a bit difficult to get the global view of what is happening inside Ubuntu, especially since lots of things are discussed on IRC. Collaboration between Debian and Ubuntu During the week, I mainly was interested on collaboration between Debian and Ubuntu. There s a strong focus on doing the right thing wrt Debian (and also other upstreams). Then, of course, Ubuntu also has an agenda, which sometimes requires moving very fast on some things, or making compromises between technical purity and pragmatism. But the willingness to have common foundations between Debian Squeeze and Ubuntu Lucid will surely benefit both distros. Quality Assurance On the QA front, I am planning to do archive rebuilds for Ubuntu as well (fixing FTBFS is an easy way to start contributing to Ubuntu or Debian, and having those bugs fixed in Lucid would benefit Debian as well, by having patches already prepared). I also had a session with the QA team, where I gave an overview of what we are doing in the Debian QA group, to discuss opportunities for collaboration. The Ubuntu QA team focuses more on testing (with automated or manual testing) and bug triaging than archive quality that part is left to the MOTUs and the release managers. (About MOTUs, I liked how what they do was described as long-tail maintenance, landscape gardening or terraforming. That gives a good idea of what it s about). Ultimate Debian Database On the Ultimate Debian Database front, I did a plenary talk to try to demonstrate how UDD could be useful to Ubuntu as well, and, with Jorge Castro, we examined some metrics of Ubuntu s giving back to Debian. I also talked with the Launchpad team to try to resolve my long standing pretty please provide an export of Ubuntu bugs, so I can easily import them in UDD! issue. Ubuntu and ARM ARM netbooks and smartbooks (mix between netbooks and smartphones) are coming, and Ubuntu is clearly very well positioned to play an important role on that market. There was a whole track about ARM support, with lots of changes that will be done for Lucid. Let s all hope that Ubuntu-powered ARM netbooks win that market, so we don t reproduce the failures of the non-ARM netbooks. Distributed Development James Westby has been working on a set of tools to be able to work on Ubuntu packaging using bzr. The point is not to store the canonical source for Ubuntu packages in bzr (well, at least it s not the plan yet), but to provide a set of branches to make it easier to merge or cherry-pick from Debian. The resulting workflow looks extremely nice, with lots of syntaxic sugar. And even better, he assured me that his code is portable to Git ;)
Using his work, merging Ubuntu-specific changes in a new version of a Debian package basically means pulling from lp:ubuntu/foopkg, merging from lp:debian/sid/foopkg, and you are done!
As a bonus, we (Debian) would get bzr branches with the history of packages (kind of bzr-powered snapshots.debian.org).
James project is not completely ready yet, but should be very soon. It s already basically usable, apparently. Conclusion Ubuntu has clearly gone a very long way since 2004. Everything looks very well organized and polished, and gives the impression of a big machine that nothing can stop. With Cloud Computing and now ARM netbooks, Ubuntu has proven to be able to adapt to the current trends and attract a lot of visibility. It is great news for Free Software, but also proposes an interesting challenge to Debian: of course, it s nice that a Debian-based distro is in that position, but will Debian manage to stay relevant, or are we just going to be the technically-pure distro without many users that serves as a package supermarket for Ubuntu?

I recently almost died from a heart attack because after a really horrible crash (don't ask), Debian unstable on my laptop wouldn't boot anymore. The system hung at "Waiting for root filesystem...", and I was in panic mode as I feared I lost all my data (and as usual my backups were waaay too old). At first I was suspecting that something actually got erased or mangled due to the crash, either at the dm-crypt layer, or the LVM layer, or the ext3 filesystem on top of those. After various hours of messing with live CDs, cryptsetup, lvm commands (such as pvscan, pvs, vgchange, vgs, vgck) and finally fsck I still had not managed to successfully boot my laptop. I finally was able to boot by changing the initrd from initrd.img-2.6.30-2-686 to initrd.img-2.6.30-2-686.bak in the GRUB2 menu (at boot-time), at which point it was clear that something was wrong with my current initrd. A bit of debugging and some initrd comparisons revealed the cause: Both, the cryptsetup and lvm2 packages were no longer installed on my laptop, which made all update-initramfs invokations (e.g. upon kernel package updates) create initrds which did not contain the proper dm-crypt and lvm functionality support. Hence, no booting for me. I only noticed because of the crash, as I usually do not reboot the laptop very often (two or three times per year maybe). Now, as to why those packages were removed I have absolutely no idea. I did not remove them knowingly, so I suspect some dist-upgrade did it and I didn't notice (but I do carefully check which packages dist-upgrade tries to remove, usually)...

The LA Times has an interesting article about problems with Toyota and Lexus cars [1]. Basically there are problems where the cars have uncontrolled acceleration (there seems to be some dispute about whether it is due to engine management or the floor mat catching the accelerator pedal). When that happens the brakes don t work (due to the vacuum power-assistance for brakes going away when the engine is at full power) and a terrible crash seems inevitable. There are suggestions that the driver should shift the car to neutral and discussion about how the Toyota gear selection makes that difficult. Some years ago I was driving an automatic car on a freeway at 100Km/h and the engine stalled (due to a problem with the LPG system). I had become used to never touching the gear lever while driving so the possibility of moving the gear lever one notch to neutral didn t occur to me. With a dead engine in gear the car slowed rapidly which is quite dangerous when surrounded by 100Km/h traffic. Fortunately I was able to swerve into the emergency lane (across one lane of active traffic) before the car slowed much. That was in a relatively controlled environment with a gear shift mechanism that is a lot simpler than that which is common in some of the more expensive cars. According to Wikipedia the maximum speed limit in the US is 80M/h [2]. It seems to me that Toyota is being irresponsible by selling cars that can sustain 120M/h, while the probability of surviving a crash at 80M/h is quite low, it seems likely to be a lot greater than the probability of surviving a crash at 120M/h. Also if a car is out of control at 80M/h then the driver will have a lot more time to work out how to put the engine in neutral or turn it off the lower speed will extend the time available by more than 50% because bends in the road can be better handled at 80M/h. It seems to me that it would be a feature for the car owner to have the car limited to a speed that is not much greater than the speed limit. According to Wikipedia the highest speed limit in Australia is 130Km/h (in NT), but it s 110Km/h in all places where I have driven. If my car had a governor to limit the speed to 115Km/h and a switch to change the limit to 135Km/h in case I ever drive to the NT then it would not affect my driving patterns (I rarely drive on roads with a 100Km/h limit and almost never drive on roads with a 110Km/h limit) but it could reduce the probability of things going horribly wrong. Also one thing to note is that last time I checked car tyres sold in Australia were only required to operate safely at speeds below 190Km/h (118M/h), so a Lexus that went out of control at 120M/h in Australia might risk a tyre blow-out which admittedly would only make things marginally worse. A governor for the reverse gear would also be a good feature. Some time ago a granny got her foot stuck on the accelerator in a car park and caused serious damage to her car and a parked car after passing close by where I was standing. I don t think that there is a real need to do more than 5Km/h in reverse, limiting the speed would give pedestrians a better chance of escaping parking accidents. One serious problem with some of the Toyota and Lexus vehicles is that it apparently takes 3 seconds to turn the engine off in an emergency! I ve been driving for almost 20 years and experienced a number of dangerous situations, all of which were essentially resolved (for better or worse) in significantly less than 3 seconds. A 3 second delay is as good as a 1 hour delay for safety critical systems. Also if the accelerator and brake pedals are pressed at the same time then the brake should take precedence. It seems quite obvious that whenever both pedals are pressed hard then the driver would probably prefer hard braking to hard acceleration. If you look at industrial machinery (robots, lathes, etc) you will always see big red buttons (or whatever color is used for emergency stop in your region) that are clearly marked and obvious to the workers and to bystanders. Escalators have less obvious red buttons but they can still be shut down in an emergency. It seems to me that there are potential benefits to having an emergency shutdown button in a car, maybe in a position that is accessible to the front-seat passenger in case the driver is incapacitated. Such a shutdown button wouldn t do anything extreme such as fully activating the brakes (which would be very bad on a road that has high-speed traffic), but would prevent acceleration (with some sort of hardware control to avoid software problems) and maintain power to the brakes and the steering. One thing that needs to be considered is that people tend not to do the most logical things when in an emergency situation. It needs to be possible to do whatever is necessary to save your life without any great deal of thought. Pushing a big red button is easy, holding down the on button for 3 seconds or even navigating a gear shift to an uncommon setting is a lot more difficult. It seems to me that there is also an issue of driver training. If putting an automatic car into neutral and cruising to a stop was part of the test for new drivers then the results of such car problems might not always be so bad. But I don t expect there to be any serious changes to driver training or car design. People are too accepting of road deaths. Don Marti has expressed a plan to never buy a vehicle with an automatic transmission because of this issue [3]. But the number of new vehicles being sold with a manual transmission is steadily reducing. An automatic transmission allows better performance (F1 cars have used them for ages), better fuel efficiency (you could never make a manual Prius), a more comfortable ride (the Hybrid Lexus keeps winning the Australian Luxury Car of the Year award), and allows less skillful drivers. Unless Don wants to ride a moped or drive an old car then I expect that he will be forced to get an automatic transmission. Then of course he will still be at risk of other people having car problems (the LA Times article mentions a third party being killed after an out of control car hit them). Also I expect that the extra safety features that are implemented in luxury vehicles such as the Lexus would save a few lives, they should save enough to outweigh the number that are lost on the rare occasions when the car goes out of control. Other luxury cars such as the Mercedes S class have great safety features and don t have a history of going wrong in a newsworthy way. A second-hand S Class Mercedes was surprisingly cheap in the UK last time I checked, cheap enough to make it worth considering the importation of one to Australia. But my solution to these problems is to try and minimise my driving. A 1.5 ton Lexus driving out of control at the maximum speed possible in urban streets won t do much damage to a 20 ton tram.

• [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-recall18-2009oct18,0,2352642,full.story
• [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_by_country
• [3] http://zgp.org/~dmarti/wiki/mlp/chromium/

Recently I have been having issues fitting everything I want to do into the time available.

As my kids grow up they always seem to need to be taken someplace or picked up from an activity and that is on top of the daily school run. I recently worked out I spend over eight hours a week, a whole five hundred minutes, taking them to and fro.

Now do not get me wrong, I actually enjoy spending time with my children and we do talk and interact during these occasions but it is hardly a stimulating activity walking to school or being driven to a club.

Add to that my job and its traveling requirements and assuming I want to sleep, eat etc. and all of a sudden I discover I have about forty hours left in a week to share between my family and hobbies.

Anyone with kids knows they are a wonderful time sink :-) and of course the family home often needs something doing. All of a sudden I realize why I feel like I often end up having to trade sleep for my hobbies!

As I get older I find I still have the same number of ideas for projects but the realization that even if I find the time to start something I am unlikely to be able to devote the resources to finishing it. Being one of life's boring people who like to finish a project they start (ok at least make something useful) this means I tend not to start new things too often.

All of this has lead me to become very careful about how I spend my free time and on what. It means my personal involvement in software projects like Debian and the Linux kernel is nowhere near the level I might like. Similarly my music practice (or absolute lack thereof) causes my teacher to get snippy with me.

As you can imagine starting something like a blog when I do not have enough time for what I am already doing is something of a challenge for me and may indeed falter. However I shall give it a chance as I feel a need for public place to share all those small things which I would probably put on my personal website if I had time to work on it ;-)

Update: TumbleDry has a good analysis of the Square Trade report [0]. It seems that there are significant statistical problems in Square Trade s analysis and a possible conflict of interest. Square Trade did a survey of laptop reliability and wrote an interesting article about the results [1]. One thing to keep in mind when reading them is that the usage patterns vary greatly by type of product (netbook vs laptop) and probably by brand. Their statistics indicate that netbooks are less reliable than laptops, but I think that my actions in taking my EeePC to places such as the beach are probably not uncommon a netbook is ideal when you might need access to a computer at a moment s notice. I expect that the reliability of my laptop has increased because I bought a netbook! Their statistics show that Lenovo is far from the most reliable brand, I wonder what the usage scenarios for such machines are. I ve been using Thinkpads happily for over 11 years. I have had many warranty repair jobs, I lost count long ago. But I don t think that this indicates a problem with Thinkpads, my use is very demanding, I have done a lot of traveling, and done coding in planes, trains, trams, and taxis in many countries. So instead of criticising IBM/Lenovo for having their machines break, I praise them for repeatedly repairing them no matter how they wear out in my use. The speed and quality of the repair work is very impressive. Based on this I have been strongly recommending Thinkpads to everyone I know who seems likely to wear laptops out through basically doing everything that a laptop is designed to do all day every day! Among people I know the incidence of laptop warranty repairs is probably about 100% as the number of systems that are never repaired are outweighed by the systems that are repaired multiple times. Generally Thinkpads seem fairly well built to me, I ve been surprised at how many times they didn t break when I expected them to. When articles like the one from Square Trade are discussed people usually cite personal anecdotes. My above anecdote covers just over 11 years of intensive use of four different Thinkpads. Of course it doesn t prove much about the inherent reliability of Thinkpads (I could have received through random selection either four Thinkpads that were significantly more or less reliable than average). But having dealt with the IBM/Lenovo service in a few countries I can confirm the quality of their repair work. Every time they have returned my machine rapidly, they never complained about my policy of giving them a system with the hard drive removed, and in all but one case they completely solved the problem on the first try. One time they forgot to replace a broken rubber foot and to make up for this they sent me a complete set of spare parts by courier they had repaired the other two faults without problem. Now comparing the reliability of rack-mount servers would be a lot easier. The vast majority of such systems are stored safely in racks all the time and tend not to be mishandled. My experience with servers from Dell, HP, IBM, and Sun is that apart from routine hard drive failures they all run well if you keep them cool enough. But of course as I haven t run more than a few dozen of any of those brands at one time I don t have anything near a statistically significant sample.

• [0] http://tumbledry.org/2009/11/20/when_information_overwhelms
• [1] http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/laptop-reliability-1109/

Others are doing it, so I thought I'd join in, too. Though, from a different perspective. Often enough people claim that package maintainers don't seem to care about their packages anymore once they did hit stable because they say it isn't as easy to update packages in stable. While this is partly true it still doesn't send a too good impression to have a high and increasing release-critical bug count for stable. UDD makes it easy. It has a field affects_stable in its bugs table, and the view bugs_rt_affects_stable is even yet better. I fiddled together two short statements that help me to find release-critical bugs for stable:

SELECT b.id FROM bugs_rt_affects_stable bas
   LEFT JOIN bugs b ON bas.id=b.id
   WHERE b.severity IN ('serious', 'critical', 'grave')
   AND b.id NOT IN (select bau.id from bugs_rt_affects_unstable bau)
   ORDER BY b.id;

The second statement is without the AND clause to see all open release-critical bugs. Going through this list isn't too complicated, and I already found a good rush of bugs to mark as not affecting stable because the reason for the bug only appeared after the lenny release. I could list their bugnumbers, but it's currently up to 39 such bugs since yesterday and I don't want to bore you with it, actually it didn't involve any touching of the package but it will definitely make it easier to find the real release-critical bugs that do affect stable and should get addressed in an update to it. Still lots to do, 39 bugs down isn't the world when the barrier is set to about 1500. Though, it's still more than 2% and this is something that makes me a bit happy.

RCBW - week #11 Here is this week squashes, by yours truly:

• 16/11/2009 bug #553120 - db4.2 - add missing ldconfig invocation (3 at once, YAY!)
• 17/11/2009 bug #553120 - db4.2 - idem
• 18/11/2009 bug #553120 - db4.2 - idem
• 19/11/2009 bug #553107 - libsigc++0c2 - move dh_installdeb to fix lack of ldconfig in postinst
• 20/11/2009 bug #553106 - db4.6 - mark as closed an already fixed ldconfig bug
• 21/11/2009 bug #533888 - ddclient - fix debconf failure w/ non-interactive frontend (patch by Jonathan Niehof)
• 22/11/2009 bug #553125 - libvdkxdb2-2c2 - move dh_installdeb to fix lack of ldconfig in postinst

This week I've been both lazy and lucky, with a single NMU of db4.2 3 RC bugs were gone (well, truth to be said, I've discovered later on that db4.2 is not meant to be released with Squeeze, but well, stuff happens ...) and with some triaging a few more were gone too. The rest is nothing special. Also, during past week, Tim got back to my welcome message, adding some interesting considerations. Beside the issue of personal sponsorship, I fully agree that we used to lack pointers to NMU activity in NM. Now it is a bit better, though. As an AM, I pose the "please fix at least 2 RC bugs" question, and the usual outcome is the sponsoring of NMUs prepared by applicants. But surely we lack a more general "culture" of NMU, which is de facto more and more needed to actually deliver our releases. In fact, my RCBW initiative is not meant to make other people feel bad (hello Gunnar, we all love you and your work, and you should know that ). Rather, it is meant to convince people that fixing RC bugs (at least some of them which are nevertheless a huge slide of the total) is easier than what we might think and help fighting the boredom. Not sure it is being successful in its "marketing" facet, but it has surely been fun for me thus far!

Sometimes computers fail. If you run enough computers then you encounter failures regularly. If the computers are important then you need to plan for the failure. An ideal situation is to have redundant servers. Misconfigured clusters can cause more downtime than they can prevent and it requires more expensive hardware to properly implement a cluster (you need at least two servers and hardware to allow a good node to kill a bad node) as well as more time (from people who may charge higher rates). Most companies don t have redundant servers. So if you have some non-redundant servers there seem to be two reasonable options. The first one is to use more expensive hardware on a support contract. If a server is really important to you then get a 24*7 support contract it only takes an extra mouse click (and a couple of thousand dollars) when ordering a Dell server. I am not going to debate the relative merits of Dell vs IBM vs HP at this time, but I think that most people will agree that Dell offers significant advantages over a white-box server, both in terms of quality (the low incidence of failure) and support (including 24*7 part replacement). The second option is to have a cheap server that can be easily replaced. This IS appropriate for some tasks. For example I have installed many cheap desktop systems with two IDE disks in a RAID-1 array that run as Internet gateway systems for small businesses. The requirements were that they be quiet, use little power (due to poorly ventilated server rooms / cupboards), be relatively reliable, and be reasonably cheap. If one of those systems suddenly fails and no replacement hardware is available then someone s desktop PC can be taken as a replacement, having one person unable to work due to a lack of a PC is better than having everyone s work impeded by lack of Internet access! This ability to swap hardware is dependent on the new hardware being reasonably similar. Finding a desktop PC in an office today which can support two IDE disks and which has an Ethernet port on the motherboard and a spare PCI slot is not too difficult. I expect that in the near future such machines will start to disappear which will be an incentive for using systems with SATA disks and USB keyboards as routers. This evening I had to advise someone who was dealing with a broken server. The system in question is mission critical, was based on white-box hardware, and had four SATA disks in a LVM volume group for the root filesystem. This gave a 600G filesystem with less than 10G in use. If the person who installed it had chosen to use only a single disk (or even better two disks in a RAID-1 array) then there would have been a wide range of systems that could take the disks and be used to keep the company running for business tomorrow. But finding a computer that can handle four SATA disks is a little more tricky. Of course running a mission critical server that doesn t use RAID is obviously very wrong. But using four disks in an LVM volume group both increases the probability of a data destroying disk failure and makes it more difficult to replace the computer itself. Some server installations are fractally wrong.

Yesterday was the last day of presidential campaign, the most poisonous campaign since 1989, when the communist rule has fallen ... or so says history.

This campaign period was one of firsts of all kinds, mostly bad.

This is the first presidential campaign:

• when, as a voter, one could clearly see polls were doctored massively as a means to influence the voters
• when the internet was crucial and almost the only means of spreading ideas for the campaign of a candidate, Remus Cernea
• in which an important internet news site, hotnews.ro, decided not to publish polls anymore
• when the public television didn't perform its duty to organise a debate with all the candidates at the same time
• when candidates were separated in two groups: "insignificant candidates" and "important candidates"
• when some candidates refused to participate in public debates, except on their own terms, as if it was a service done by them to others
• when candidates accused each other of being afraid to participate in face to face debates, while it was clear that this was true for many
  
• when a candidate, Remus Cernea, was kicked out of a debate where he was previously invited, without being given a reason
• when journalists' investigations found that all major parties had during the last year donations from at least 100 politicians with a declared income lower or identical to the donated sums totalling up to 91 millions of new lei (RON) (approximately 22 million euros)
• when we have proof directly from frauders that all major parties prepared to fraud the elections via electoral tourism, electoral bribes and vote purchase
• when a referendum was used as a electoral means by one of the candidates
• when opponents twisted and re-twisted others' electoral message
• when an illegitimate organisation organised a debate with only the first three candidates
• when it was announced that special polling stations were made to target people voting away from home, not allowing such voting on special lists in regular polling stations; also the special polling stations will be, for the first time, monitored via webcams which will record the voters when they insert the bulletin
• when some candidates clearly stole ideas from others mid-campaign
  
• when I decided I am going to vote out of conviction and cast a positive vote for Remus Cernea

This is the first time I realise how important it is for everybody to go and cast a vote for the candidate they prefer to dilute the effects of the frauds.

Go and vote for the candidate you agree the most!

Don't cast a "useful vote", otherwise you will disservice your prefered candidate in three ways:

• you're strentghning one of the adversaries
• your prefered candidate will be in a worse position to negotiate with others the implementation of some of the points on his platform in case he doesn't win
• you're canceling one of the votes somebody did vote for the one you prefer

Don't forget, tomorrow, the 22nd of November spare some 15-30 minutes and vote for the person that represents you most! Don't follow the flock, vote sincerely!


Vote, because your vote counts! Otherwise why would they bother to convince you to vote for them?

During the month of October I spent quite a bit of time thinking about the past, present, and future of F/OSS. This was due in part to participation in a Berkman Center event on Free Culture, where we discussed the historical arc of Free Software to Free Culture, the relationships between them (and their differences), and also the content and meaning each. Over the years, what I have found so interesting about Free Software is how it left its enclave to inspire countless groups into rethinking the politics and ethics of production and access and yet, as I raised in this pod-cast interview (due to the prompting of my interviewer, Elizabeth Stark), Free Software and/or Free Culture is still pretty bounded and contained phenomenon especially when compared to something like the existing consciousness over the environmental movement, which many folks know about and understand even when and if they are not involved in doing anything for the movement. I always ask my first year students whether they know what Free Software or Free Culture is and 9 out 10 stare at me with those blank eyes that basically speak in silence: no. Now, there are a group of activists, many located in Europe, a number of them with deep roots in the social justice movement who are taking Free Culture down a different path, trying to expand its meaning and conjoin it to social justice issues, build a broad set of coalitions across the political spectrum so as to override the fragmentation that is so characteristic to contemporary political moment, and use FC as an opportunity to critique the market fundamentalism of the last few decades. If you are interested in these issues, take a look at their charter: they are looking for comments (critical and constructive) as well as endorsements (here is the long version). I myself have a few comments, for example, I think it is worth noting something like the limits of what FC can do, that even if in many ways it can be activated to do good in the world, it is also best to highlight in the same swoop that FC is not some political panacea and has limits. For example some groups in the world, notably some indigenous communities abide by a different logic of access and culture, whereby full access is not culturally or ethically desirable, as the work of Kim Christen has illuminated. I also wonder in what ways issues of labor might be addressed more forcefully, and though they briefly raise the question of environmental sustainability, it is worth expanding these more directly and deeplyas this article by Toby Miller and Richard Maxwell make clear. There is more to say but I will leave it here for now and just say it is really great to see Free Culture taken down another political path that is rooted in coalition building.

During the month of October I spent quite a bit of time thinking about the past, present, and future of F/OSS. This was due in part to participation in a Berkman Center event on Free Culture, where we discussed the historical arc of Free Software to Free Culture, the relationships between them (and their differences), and also the content and meaning each. Over the years, what I have found so interesting about Free Software is how it left its enclave to inspire countless groups into rethinking the politics and ethics of production and access and yet, as I raised in this pod-cast interview (due to the prompting of my interviewer, Elizabeth Stark), Free Software and/or Free Culture is still pretty bounded and contained phenomenon especially when compared to something like the existing consciousness over the environmental movement, which many folks know about and understand even when and if they are not involved in doing anything for the movement. I always ask my first year students whether they know what Free Software or Free Culture is and 9 out 10 stare at me with those blank eyes that basically speak in silence: no. Now, there are a group of activists, many located in Europe, a number of them with deep roots in the social justice movement who are taking Free Culture down a different path, trying to expand its meaning and conjoin it to social justice issues, build a broad set of coalitions across the political spectrum so as to override the fragmentation that is so characteristic to contemporary political moment, and use FC as an opportunity to critique the market fundamentalism of the last few decades. If you are interested in these issues, take a look at their charter: they are looking for comments (critical and constructive) as well as endorsements (here is the long version). I myself have a few comments, for example, I think it is worth noting something like the limits of what FC can do, that even if in many ways it can be activated to do good in the world, it is also best to highlight in the same swoop that FC is not some political panacea and has limits. For example some groups in the world, notably some indigenous communities abide by a different logic of access and culture, whereby full access is not culturally or ethically desirable, as the work of Kim Christen has illuminated. I also wonder in what ways issues of labor might be addressed more forcefully, and though they briefly raise the question of environmental sustainability, it is worth expanding these more directly and deeplyas this article by Toby Miller and Richard Maxwell make clear. There is more to say but I will leave it here for now and just say it is really great to see Free Culture taken down another political path that is rooted in coalition building.

Since some days we keep packages of Architecture: all in the archive as long as they are needed. You can find some details about that in my former post:
dak dominate will dodadoda the Debian archive soon.

The package that could currently profit most from that change is rpm! But the package dependencies are actually not strong enough. The source package rpm builds some arch all packages like rpm-common and several arch any packages and some of them (rpm, librpm0) have an unversioned field
Depends: rpm-common.
This dependency can be improved to
Depends: rpm-common (= $ source:Version )
to avoid nasty bugs after upgrading.

I fear that we have more of such packages in Debian.

Many moons ago while doing fieldwork I went to a radical tech activist camp sponsored by The Ruckus Society to give a presentation on Free Software (which I actually still have online in the gaudy orange I so loved. I could only stay 2 days as I had to go to Debconf2 in Toronto for fieldwork but it forever changed my life in pretty significant ways. One remarkable thing about Ruckus was that for the first time I meet a particular kind of geek I had yet to come across: the crunchy and chewy granola/environmentalist/hippie hacker a type of hacker that can be found world over but is likely to be (unsurprisingly) living, sometimes in the trees (literally) in the Pacific Northwest. They are one of my favorite kind of people as I can talk endlessly to them about 2 of my great passions: Free Software and environmental justice. Comfrey, pictured above, was one such hacker from Portland who I met at the Ruckus event and now routinely shows up, usually unannounced to our house at least 1-2x a year. I woke up this morning to find him on our couch, got a bunch of knot-weed to chew on compliments of his foraging, and took the afternoon off to share some food. Among many stories, he told me of a new transportational pursuit of his, Roller-Hitching, which he uses to get around the country. He uses old school roller skates to skate along the road, even highways, until he gets picked up and get where he needs to go. Naturally, these old school states are not just functional in the sense that they are faster than two feet in motion, but since they signify a particular spirit of the 1970s you know, the groovy, dynamite, free love spirit of things, they draw positive attention and apparently when he roller-hitches, he gets picked up frequently (and made it from Minneapolis to Portland in 2 hours and 2 days: not shabby). In California while on the 101 north of Arcata, California, Comfrey got stopped by the highway patrol and basically the cop wanted to kick him off on the grounds the he was a pedestrian (apparently prohibited on this patch of the 101). Comfrey, being a bright fellow, basically noted that roller skating is not really a pedestrian activity, that he was using, much a like a biker, a transportation device of sorts, so that he was in a grey zone between bikes and walking. At the time, the cop was convinced enough but did tell Comfrey to look up the law in the library cuz the next time he would give him a ticket and the next time after that throw him in jail. Comfrey has yet sourced the law but soon will. When he does, since I like to report on geeks and the law, I too will report on whether one can roller skate down or up the highway for those that might want to give Roller-Hitching a try.

Many moons ago while doing fieldwork I went to a radical tech activist camp sponsored by The Ruckus Society to give a presentation on Free Software (which I actually still have online in the gaudy orange I so loved. I could only stay 2 days as I had to go to Debconf2 in Toronto for fieldwork but it forever changed my life in pretty significant ways. One remarkable thing about Ruckus was that for the first time I meet a particular kind of geek I had yet to come across: the crunchy and chewy granola/environmentalist/hippie hacker a type of hacker that can be found world over but is likely to be (unsurprisingly) living, sometimes in the trees (literally) in the Pacific Northwest. They are one of my favorite kind of people as I can talk endlessly to them about 2 of my great passions: Free Software and environmental justice. Comfrey, pictured above, was one such hacker from Portland who I met at the Ruckus event and now routinely shows up, usually unannounced to our house at least 1-2x a year. I woke up this morning to find him on our couch, got a bunch of knot-weed to chew on compliments of his foraging, and took the afternoon off to share some food. Among many stories, he told me of a new transportational pursuit of his, Roller-Hitching, which he uses to get around the country. He uses old school roller skates to skate along the road, even highways, until he gets picked up and get where he needs to go. Naturally, these old school states are not just functional in the sense that they are faster than two feet in motion, but since they signify a particular spirit of the 1970s you know, the groovy, dynamite, free love spirit of things, they draw positive attention and apparently when he roller-hitches, he gets picked up frequently (and made it from Minneapolis to Portland in 2 hours and 2 days: not shabby). In California while on the 101 north of Arcata, California, Comfrey got stopped by the highway patrol and basically the cop wanted to kick him off on the grounds the he was a pedestrian (apparently prohibited on this patch of the 101). Comfrey, being a bright fellow, basically noted that roller skating is not really a pedestrian activity, that he was using, much a like a biker, a transportation device of sorts, so that he was in a grey zone between bikes and walking. At the time, the cop was convinced enough but did tell Comfrey to look up the law in the library cuz the next time he would give him a ticket and the next time after that throw him in jail. Comfrey has yet sourced the law but soon will. When he does, since I like to report on geeks and the law, I too will report on whether one can roller skate down or up the highway for those that might want to give Roller-Hitching a try.

When writing a shell script you need to take some care to ensure that it won t run amok. Extra care is needed for shell scripts that run as root, firstly because of the obvious potential for random destruction, and secondly because of the potential for interaction between accounts that can cause problems.

• One possible first step towards avoiding random destruction is to start your script with #/bin/sh -e instead of #/bin/sh , this means that the script will exit on an unexpected error, which is generally better than continuing merrily along to destroy vast swathes of data. Of course sometimes you will expect an error, in which case you can use /usr/local/bin/command-might-fail true to make it not abort on a command that might fail.
• #!/bin/sh -e
  cd /tmp/whatever
  rm -rf * #!/bin/sh
  cd /tmp/whatever exit 1
  rm -rf * Instead of using the -e switch to the shell you can put exit 1 after a command that really should succeed. For example neither of the above scripts is likely to destroy your system, while the following script is very likely to destroy your system: #!/bin/sh
  cd /tmp/whatever
  rm -rf *
• Also consider using absolute paths. rm -rf /tmp/whatever/* is as safe as the above option but also easier to read avoiding confusion tends to improve the reliability of the system. Relative paths are most useful for humans doing typing, when a program is running there is no real down-side to using long absolute paths.
• Shell scripts that cross account boundaries are a potential cause of problems, for example if a script does cd /home/user1 instead of cd ~user1 then if someone in the sysadmin team moves the user s home directory to /home2/user1 (which is not uncommon when disk space runs low) then things can happen that you don t expect and we really don t want unexpected things happening as root! Most shells don t support cd ~$1 , but that doesn t force you to use cd /home/$1 , instead you can use some shell code such as the following: #!/bin/sh
  HOME= grep ^$1 /etc/passwd head -1 cut -f6 -d:
  if [ "$HOME" = "" ]; then
  echo "no home for $1"
  exit 1
  fi
  cd ~ I expect that someone can suggest a better way of doing that. My point is not to try and show the best way of solving the problem, merely to show that hard coding assumptions about paths is not necessary. You don t need to solve a problem in the ideal way, any way that doesn t have a significant probability of making a server unavailable and denying many people the ability to do their jobs will do. Also consider using different tools, zsh supports commands such as cd ~$1 .
• When using a command such as find make sure that you appropriately limit the results, in the case of find that means using options such as -xdev, -type, and -maxdepth. If you mistakenly believe that permission mode 666 is appropriate for all files in a directory then it won t do THAT much harm. But if your find command goes wrong and starts applying such permissions to directories and crosses filesystem boundaries then your users are going to be very unhappy.
• Finally when multiple scripts use the same data consider using a configuration file. If you feel compelled to do something grossly ugly such as writing a dozen expect scripts which use the root password then at least make it an entry in a configuration file so that it can be changed in one place. It seems that every time I get a job working on some systems that other people have maintained there is at least one database, LDAP directory, or Unix root account for which the password can t be changed because no-one knows how many scripts have it hard-coded. It s usually the most important server, database, or directory too.

Please note that nothing in this post is theoretical, it s all from real observations of real systems that have been broken. Also note that this is not an attempt at making an exhaustive list of ways that people may write horrible scripts, merely enough to demonstrate the general problem and encourage people to think about ways to solve the general problems. But please submit your best examples of how scripts have broken systems as comments.

Whew! Is it karma or what? What makes me get involved in two horribly complex, two-week-long conferences, year after year? Of course, both (DebConf and EDUSOL) are great fun to be part of, and both have greatly influenced both my skills and interests. Anyway, this is the fifth year we hold EDUSOL. Tomorrow we will bring the two weeks of activities to an end, hold the last two videoconferences, and finally declare it a done deal. I must anticipate the facts and call it a success, as it clearly will be recognized as such. One of the most visible although we insist, not the core activities of the Encounter are the videoconferences. They are certainly among the most complex. And the videoconferences' value is greatly enhanced because, even if they are naturally a synchronous activity (it takes place at a given point in time), they live on after they are held: I do my best effort to publish them as soon as possible (less than one day off), and they are posted to their node, from where comments can continue. This was the reason, i.e., why we decided to move at the last minute tomorrow's conference: Due to a misunderstanding, Beatriz Busaniche (a good friend of ours and a very reknown Argentinian Free Software promotor, from Via Libre) thought her talk would be held today, and we had programmed her for tomorrow. No worries - We held it today, and it is already online for whoever wants to take part :-) So, I don't want to hold this any longer (I will link to the two conferences that I'm still missing from this same entry). Here is the list of (and links to) videoconferences we have held.

Tuesday 2009-11-17

• Debian-Women, by Margarita Manterola (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (PDF presentation, .ogg file, IRC log)
• Personal networks, by Isidro Maya Jariego (Sevilla, Spain) (.ogg file, IRC log)

Wednesday 2009-11-18

• Social networks, by Sof a Liberman Shklonikoff (Mexico City, Mexico) (PDF presentation, .ogg file, IRC log)
• Open Social Education, by Dolors Reig Hern ndez (Barcelona, Spain) (PDF presentation, .ogg file, IRC log)

Thursday 2009-11-19

• Politics 2.0, by Txopi, Bilbao, Basque Country (ODP presentation, .ogg file, IRC log)
• OpenSocial, by Rodrigo Gallardo (Portland, USA) (.ogg file, IRC log)
• Informatic analfabetization, or why does privative software work towards analfabetization? (.ogg file, IRC log)

Friday 2009-11-20

• Education and cognition from Free Software, by Offray Luna (Bogot , Colombia)< (PDF material, .ogg file, IRC log)/li>
• EDUSOL's state / EDUSOL projects, by the EDUSOL organizer team (which attempts to be distributed ;-) )

As two last notes: Regarding the IRC interaction photos I recently talked about, we did a very kewl thing: Take over 2000 consecutive photos and put them together on a stack. Flip them one at a time. What do you get? But of course A very fun to view and interesting interaction video! We have to hand-update it and it is a bit old right now, but nevertheless, it is very interesting as it is. Finally... I must publicly say I can be quite an asshole. And yes, I know I talked this over privately with the affected people and they hold no grudge against me... But still - yesterday we had an IRC talk about NING Latin American Moodlers, by Luc a Osuna (Venezuela) and Maryel Mendiola (Mexico). One of the points they raised was they were working towards (and promoting) a Moodle certification. And... Yes, I recognize I cannot hear the mention of the certification word without jumping and saying certifications are overrated. Well, but being tired, and not being really thoughtful... I should have known where to stop, where it was enough of a point made. I ended up making Maryel and Luc a feel attacked during their own presentation, and that should have never happened. A public and heartfelt apology to them :-(

[The following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event, just like in Law & Order.] James filed an RC bug on a package, complaining that it attempted to execute an illegal instruction on a Netwinder, running Linux 2.6.xx. This was sort of an ironic hipster tribute to the olden times when buildd admins would actually do their jobs, keeping chroots clean and current, reviewing buildd logs, and filing FTBFS bugs where appropriate, except that he didn't actually do any of those things. 18 minutes later, Aurelien replied, asking for more information in order to debug the problem. Teh-oh said James, but nobody could hear him because he was talking to his Raggedy Ann doll. Stephen suggested that Aurelien contact Vince or Steve to get access to different Netwinders, and Aurelien tried to reproduce the problem on other ARM machines unsuccessfully. Could you tell me the exact kernel version on this Netwinder, and the one on europa, which seems to have the same problem? Aurelien asked James. Aaagh, they're trying to steal my precious bodily fluids! hissed James, but nobody could hear him because he was talking to his inflatable astronut. Also, the contents of /proc/cpuinfo would be nice. Aurelien added. We hates them, Clive Oven! James announced, but nobody could hear him because he was talking to his EASY-BAKE REAL MEAL Oven. The Netwinder you were talking about is europa, wasn't it? Could you tell us the kernel versions on europa and elara? There's no problem on other Netwinders, so it's probably a kernel issue. THE MARTIANS ARE COMING! James cried, but nobody could hear him because he was talking to a small band of subservient deaf-mute milkmen. It's been more than a week since this bug has been filed, and there has been no useful information provided at all. Can anybody help? asked Peter. HELLO. IS THIS THING ON? Could you have the elementary courtesy to follow up to the bugs you report? asked Pierre. Bromeliads.. I'll buy you some bromeliads, James muttered, but no one could hear him because he was talking to his ficus plant. Lo c looked around, slipped into a cave, sprinted through a maze of tunnels, and sped in a small nuclear-powered submarine to James's secret undersea lair. Rapping on the bulkhead three times, he uttered the code phrase and James let him in. After a conversation that took place strictly through pantomime, Lo c departed and James said, For fuck's sake, but no one could hear him because he was talking to a broken sonar antenna. Yo, James is busy, but he said that it's okay to downgrade the bug since it's not a problem with other Netwinders, reported Lo c. I never said that! I don't even know who that guy is! I'm going to convert him into a kangaroo! James sang, but no one could hear him since he was alone on a beach in Normandy. A month later, Riku wrote to Woody, Hey, we have this bug. Could you take a look? Sure, replied Woody, and he gave Aurelien access, and Aurelien debugged the problem in under an hour. Now everyone knows that europa and elara were running Linux 2.6.11. This is a breach of national security! declared James, but nobody could hear him because he was talking to the crushed skull of a kitten who had recently been sunning himself.