I believe that adding blogging technology to bug tracking systems (such as the Debian BTS and the Red Hat Bugzilla) offers significant benefits for users and developers.

It seems that there is only one significant difference between the features offered by blog software and the features required by bug trackers, blog entries are owned by the person making the post (the owner of the blog) and BTS entries are owned by the package owner. This is a minor technical difference, adding the ability for anonymous users (or users who have authenticated via an email address or other method) to create new entries in a blog owned by someone else is a minor feature change. Once the entry is created only comments would be accepted, and comments could be made in the usual manner with moderation etc.

The benefits of using blogging software (or extending current BTS systems) would be to have RSS feeds of bug reports and comments on bugs, include a single feed of all bug reports (IE blog entries) and updates (IE comments on blog entries) for a single blog (IE package) - this functionality doesn't seem to be common in blog software but surely will be soon.

This would allow Planets of recent bug reports in distributions or in areas. EG a SE Linux planet installation could syndicate the bug feeds for packages in Fedora and Debian as well as other sources of SE Linux information. The SE Linux bug feeds could include all bugs with the selinux tag in all blogs on the BTS, thus a single Planet configuration could easily cover all new development and debugging.

Another configuration possibility would be to have a single blog for all bugs in a distribution and to have tags for each package, this would become messy though as tags have to be used for issues that are not specific to packages (EG a "selinux" tag would list bugs in all packages that relate to SE Linux).

Tags could be changed by any user (possibly with some restrictions), and there could be special tags for release-critical bugs or for bugs in different stages of QA (for example the Red Hat Enterprise Linux approval process could be managed by adding certain restricted tags to the bug - this would also allow getting a feed of all bugs that have passed certain approval milestones). This would make it easy to get a list of all bugs in a certain approval category.

Current BTS systems such as the Debian BTS and the Red Hat Bugzilla could be extended to syndicate content. As they already have web interfaces and support automatically sending updates by email it should be easy to add the basic level of such support to them. But it might give a better result to go the other way and modify a multi-user blog system such as Wordpress-MU to have extra features for bug management.

BTS systems typically have bug ID numbers that increase sequentially while blog software typically gives something like http://blog.example.com/YYYY/MM/blog-entry-name.html when it's often more convenient to have something like http://bug.example.com/number. Of course it would not be difficult to have a little database that allows creating sequential numbers to map to arbitrary URLs in a similar manner to tinyurl.com. This could be either integrated into blog software (so that it says "bug #1234 has been created" or be available on demand (click a link to get a sequential number assigned). Incidentally using characters and digits for the short name of the bug (as done by tinyurl.com) would allow four characters to represent 1679616 bugs, this is enough for all bugs in the Debian and Red Hat bug databases combined. With tinyurl type technology there is nothing preventing us from having a single system creating unique IDs for all bugs in all distributions of Linux with a four character index (which is easier to remember than the 6 sigit numbers used in Debian and Red Hat at the moment).

I realise that most blog software will store the entries in a database which has sequential numbers assigned. So doing a database lookup to convert a human-readable URL into a sequential index when we have just done another database lookup to convert a sequential index into a human readable form is inefficient, but that's the way of things, computers do things inefficiently so that humans can work in ways that are efficient for them.

Note that throughout this post I refer to the Planet aggregation system, but really any of the aggregation systems can be used. One of the benefits of this is that people can use mailing lists, Google's reader, Planet, or any other reader they wish with the feeds. RSS feeds can be read by many programs and the user gets to choose which works best for them.

Catching up on blogs, emails and Debian mailing lists I see that nothing really important has happened while I was off-line: the dunc-tank caboodle escalated and died down when the majority voted that it was not worth the commotion, some people got upset at some other people and decided stop working on Debian because of that, Mozilla went even more bonkers about its trademarks. The dunk-tank scandal ended just like I thought it would. As one could imply from my eternal unstable concept, I do not see making releases as a the main thing that Debian contributes to the society - it is more about the integration and cross-empowerment of all the packages that Debian has. In that context, making a release is a not the most important job in Debian, but it need to be done from time to time. Release management combines technical and social challenges - there is not much of novelty in it (I imagine). So, from this perspective, there is nothing bad in money being paid to do this mundane and hard work, if we really, really need to release in a specific time frame (IMHO the only reason to release Debian in 2006, as opposed to 2008, is the Lars tattoo bet). If we return to “release when its ready” paradigm and aim for about one release every 2-3 years (and I see nothing really wrong with that) then paying release manager will not be needed. Money is about getting things done on a schedule. It does not make things good (or bad). It does not make thing important (or not). It make things go by the schedule (unless you pay by the hour). It is the obvious solution to releasing Debian in December. Now two questions need to be answered - will it work? and do we really want to release in December? The second thing - in any group of 1000 people anyone can easily find a lot of people that he would not love/not respect/disagree with/disregard/hate and be unable to work with. It is no reason to stop working on Debian, unless one does it only to be universally loved. It is inevitable that we will need to learn to do what we like to do without paying attention to the irritations. And about the trademarks - in Debconf 5 in Helsinki I was giving a talk at the Debian Day, just after I helped to win the first big fight against software patents in EU, and Branden (who was GPL at the time) asked me what do I think Debian should do about its trademarks. Both then and now I strongly think that trademarks and any other litigation inducing concepts (except enforcement of GPL) have no place whatsoever in free software. I think Debian should lead the way and give up the “Debian” trademark. And Mozilla should follow the lead. So what if there is a pron site “Debian chicks”? You will not solve that with litigation anyway (at least not in a year or two) and why should we really care? So what if some one make a distro and calls it SuperDebian? If someone will really think that it is related to Debian but better (especially despite warnings to the contrary), then that someone will really deserve to get the trojan planted in that distro. And again, against a well prepared criminal, litigation will not help much. So, did I miss anything?

This demo is initiated and backed by a number of organizations in Germany, among others the Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung, Chaos Computer Club e.V., FoeBuD e.V., STOP1984, Attac AG Wissensallmende, Indymedia Germany, and the German Pirate Party. Place: Bielefeld, Germany (exact meeting place)
Time: 15:00 o'clock on Friday, October 20, 2006
Motto: Freiheit statt Angst (Freedom instead of fear) Goals and Demands

• Reduce the pervasive surveillance in Germany!
  No public video surveillance, no automatical face-recognition, no data retention, no RFID and biometry in passports, no "Lauschangriff" etc.
• In-depth investigations of current surveillance laws by independant organizations/experts!
  Find out how effective (or rather not!) currently implemented surveillance laws have been, and what their downsides, problems, and dangers are for democracy in Germany.
• Stop all plans for further surveillance laws!
  Any further surveillance laws, "anti-terror"- or "security"-laws must be halted immediately! Their implications are extremely dangerous for privacy and democracy in Germany!

Materials: Banners, flyers, mottos for transparents and more are available in the wiki of the site. Donations are possible and welcome, too. Demo participants can visit the Big Brother Awards 2006 right after the demo (for free). If you value your privacy and democracy in this country, now is the time to speak up and let the whole world (and especially the German politicians) know! This surveillance-madness has to stop!

There is currently a big debate in progress in Debian. I am not going to mention any specifics because too much of it has already been blogged (maybe in the same syndication in which you read my blog).

I think that the way things are going is more an illustration of the failings of mailing list culture than of failings of Debian. Maybe another mechanism would be more productive in leading towards a solution.

One option that occurred to me is debate via wiki. If each side had a wiki page that they could modify then in a small amount of time we should get a set of two main consensus opinions which would each be explained clearly and summarised well. Then with two options clearly expressed the people who have less strong opinions could decide which option they favor. For this to be a quick solution honorable behaviour would be required from all people involved, if people start trying to sabotage the other group's wiki entries then it would significantly increase the time taken to achieve things.

Another possibility that occurred to me is debate via blog. The quality of blog postings is expected to be a lot higher than that of mailing list discussions as all posts are tied to the author's public image. Writing content-free messages on a mailing list is easy, but every blog entry needs to stand on it's own to a certain extent and anyone who writes flames in most of their blog entries will probably find that the readers like it less than the readers of a typical mailing list.

Maybe when an issue is recognised as highly contentious a few people could blog about it and then form groups to develop wikis to promote their views. A debate might start out with five or more different competing views, some of them would merge until there were only two main opinions being pushed. Then once the two remaining groups had sorted out their positions a vote would be easier to arrange.

What do you think?

All the time since the Debian I18N conference in Extremadura I was moving around, staying in temporary places having temporary accesses to restricted Internet connections. Finally yesterday I got everything back - a permanent place to stay and a good permanent and unrestricted Internet connection there. Now I just need to compensate for the productivity loss that it is causing me P.S. There have been two bugfix releases of SBackup since my last blog post about it - bugs such as “having no regexes skips all files” and “always do incremental upgrades because we can not count” are fixed. Priority of SBackup process is reduced and configuration files are managed explicitly.

The word on the streets (in my comments really) is that Epiphany may be the future of reliable web browsing so I will have to check it out. I also got an excited email today about a firefox plug-in that is for the (academic) gods: zotero… It looks pretty nifty and handy but since I don’t even use a bibliographic program like End Notes, at least I am not missing out on huge functionality, which reminds me, does anyone have opinions on good GUI free software bibliography programs ?

As promised yesterday in my report about the Munich BSP, I'd like to talk some more about LiMux, the project being run within the City of Munich to replace all of their desktop Windows systems with Linux. The team kindly offered us the use of their offices in central Munich as a base for the BSP last weekend, and on Sunday afternoon they gave us a demonstration and answered lots of our questions. The following is from my (known-faulty) memory...

Jan-Marek and Florian talked us through their setup. They're using FAI to automate installation of systems, along with LDAP to store lots of configuration information and GOsa as a user-friendly front-end to that configuration. They've integrated these to enable some very clever management features so that all aspects of the city-wide system can be maintained from one central point. As new machines are introduced onto the network, they can be configured into one class or another: simple desktop clients up to so-called "depot" servers, used as seeds for further clients. Individual user profiles can be tweaked, giving users access to new applications as they are needed. Shared resources like network storage and printers are set up automatically from the LDAP database. Access to USB storage devices can be controlled on a per-device, per-user basis for security. That's quite an impressive feature list. Most of the work has been in configuration and systems work rather than custom packages on the clients themselves - the vast majority of the packages installed come straight from the standard Debian archive, with some backports (like a newer version of KDE). Building on top of standard packages means that they have access to a huge amount of Free Software without having to do all of the work themselves. A small team (10-ish at the moment, growing to 100 or so in the future) can effectively deploy and manage desktops and associated servers for a huge number of users - they're expecting to be supporting on the order of 30,000 systems 2 years from now. The team have just recently made their first stable release and are starting to roll it out across the city, one department at a time. There are the familiar issues involved in the deployment, of course. For example, users don't want to help test pre-release versions to help nail bugs, but then complain loudly when they find bugs in the first release. And in such a large project to migrate from predominantly Windows (NT4!) desktops to KDE on Linux, a major part of the effort needed is in user training. There is quite a bit of support and custom work needed to convert people's MS Office macros over to working on top of OpenOffice. And there are still quite a number of users who will remain using Windows for specific applications that still don't have Linux equivalents yet. Apparently the "Wine Cellar" group will help on that front. *grin* In terms of collaborating with Debian, the LiMux team are expecting to help in a few ways. As bug reports are filed against their applications (apparently very few so far), they'll be pushed upstream along with (hopefully) fixes for them. They will also be devoting some full-time developer effort to security work; it would be good for both sides if this effort can be shared.

It was quite striking to see Tux, the Linux penguin, as a visible logo in local government offices! The team have clearly made some excellent progress on this exciting project, and I'm sure that I can speak for all of Debian in wishing them the best of luck in the future. I'll be watching with interest...

An anti-spam measure that is used by a very small number of people is that of verifying the sender address by connecting to the sending mail server. For example when I send mail from russell@coker.com.au the receiving machine will connect to my mail server and see whether it accepts mail addressed to russell@coker.com.au and will reject my mail if that isn't the case.

The problem with this is that if I try to send mail to someone who has their mail server listed as a SPAM source then their efforts to verify my email address will fail and then my message to them will bounce with a confusing error message. This means that if one of the two mail servers involved in the communication is listed in a DNSBL or RHSBL service then all communication will be impossible. There will not be an option for one person to say "please phone me on this number if you can't send me an email".

This happened recently when someone from Italy asked me a question about SE Linux. So I will answer here (maybe they read my blog). In any case the answer might be of general interest:

Firstly I have to note that I have a B.Sc degree and no post-graduate qualifications, so it is not accurate to address me as Dr. Coker.

The question is: Let's imagine a user acquire root rights. Especially on Fedora Core, which modify su command to map it to sysadm_r role, couldn't he/she simply disable SELinux, delete logs, and so on?

If a user obtains ultimate privileges then they can do all things including deleting logs etc.

One thing to note is that there is no need for any process other than kernel threads to have ultimate privs, it would be useful in some situations to make log files append-only for all processes and the SE Linux policy language supports this.

The nearest any release policy comes to implementing such things is the separation between sysadm_r and secadm_r in the MLS policy in recent versions of Fedora.

Also note that it is possible to configure a SE Linux policy that does not permit any process to request that a new policy be loaded, the policy files be changed on disk, or the use of programs such as debugfs. Using SE Linux to enforce a policy that can not be bypassed by anything less than booting from installation media is quite easy to achieve.

One idea that I had was to have GPG implemented in the system BIOS and have GPG checks performed on the kernel before it's loaded (to verify that the kernel had not been modified). The kernel could be passed a decryption key for the root filesystem by the BIOS, and SE Linux would be enabled as soon as the root filesystem was mounted. Thus nothing less than disassembling the BIOS would allow a hostile person to access the data on the disk. This is all possible with technology that has been common for many years. I almost convincced a BIOS author to implement this in about 2002.

In the game show The Weakest Link competitors get voted off, usually not on whether they are weak but on whether the other contestents consider them to be a threat. It's mildly amusing as a TV game show but not funny at all when carried out on an airline.

Recently a flight from Malaga to Manchester was delayed because two passengers were considered to be suspicious by other passengers (either 6 or 7 passengers refused to get on the plane because of this). The passengers were thought to be speaking Arabic (as if there was anyone on the plane who would recognise Arabic when they heard it) and because they were wearing coats and looking at their watches. The two men in question had been searched twice and found to be clean, but a bunch of idiots on a plane thought they knew better and demanded that the passengers in question be removed.

Lessons to be learned from this for travelling to/from coalition of the willing countries:

1. Avoid the urge to check your watch when your flight is being delayed unless you are white. Non-white people who do what white people do in this situation are considered to be terrorists.
2. When travelling to a cold place (such as Manchester) you want to have a coat to wear when getting off the plane. The airline staff won't allow you enough hand-luggage space to store a coat so you will want to wear it when getting on the plane. This is fine if you are white, but if not white just deal with the fact that you will shiver when disembarking.
3. Learn to speak English for your travels. If you speak another language you will be considered to be a terrorist.
4. Whatever country you visit, stick to major cities as much as possible. Smaller cities have more racists and nationalistically bigoted people, there probably wouldn't have been a problem on a flight to London.
   

Also just avoid the coalition of the willing countries in your travels as much as possible. There are much less problems in this regard when the government doesn't depend on terrorism hysteria to justify going to war on the basis of lies.

Today (well yesterday as of 30 minutes ago) I spoke at the Open Source Symposium in Melbourne. This is an event sponsored by Red Hat. The first day was the business day and the second day was the Red Hat developers day.

I attended both days and spoke on the second day (today). My talk was about designing and implementing a secure system on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 (the Inumbers system for gatewaying SMS to email which is currently in Beta at the time of writing). I covered the issues of designing systems for least privilege via a set of cooperating processes under different UIDs. Secure coding principles, and SE Linux policy design. My presentation notes are HERE (in OpenOffice 2.0 format).

The talk seemed to be well accepted, so I'll probably offer variations of it at other venues in the near future. I'm thinking of making a half-day workshop out of it.

While at the symposium one of the SGI guys mentioned that an XFS expert was in Melbourne temporarily. I suggested that such experts should be encouraged to give a talk about their work when they are in town. As a result of that I arranged a venue for a talk on XFS, I had the venue arranged in about 4 hours, which resulted in about 24 hours notice given to LUV members. I wasn't able to attend the meeting due to prior commitments, so I'm not sure how it went.

In regard to my post yesterday about Planet Debian I received the following response:
James Purser said I'm betting that your feed is an atom feed. We had the same problem on PLOA with Jeff and Pias feeds when they switched to atom. Planet needs to be upgraded.
Well I am using an atom feed, so this probably explains it. Sorry for the inconvenience to the Planet Debian readers, I guess that things will stay the way they are until it is upgraded.

Also when viewing my blog entry in Planet Debian I realised that much of a spam message had got pasted in to the URL field for the Planet Debian link. Oh the irony that I only found this embarassing error because of a bug in the Planet software.

This brings me to another issue, Security Enhanced X. With SE-X (before you ask, I didn't invent the acronym) you can use SE Linux to control communication between windows on an X desktop. With a modification to the clipboard manager (klipper in the case of KDE) every piece of data that's copied from an application will have a security context assigned to it and this context will be checked against the context of an application that is to be the target of a paste operation. Klipper will also have to support relabeling clipboard data. Therefore if I want to cut text from my email client (Kmail) and paste it into Firefox then I would have to relabel it with the appropriate MCS categories. This would permit me to paste text from an email into a web form with a few extra mouse clicks, but would prevent me from accidentally pasting the wrong text. Keeping in mind the fact that there are many more embarassing things that could be accidentally pasted into a blog entry than the contents of a spam this doesn't seem overly difficult.

PS Before anyone jumps to conclusions. When I receive GPG encrypted email or other material that should be kept confidential I try and avoid cutting it, and if I have to do so I clear the clipboard buffer afterwards. Keeping spam a secret is not really a priority to me so I didn't take adequate precautions in this case.

I'm getting sick of blogger. The main thing is that I'm simply not a user. Taking what someone else gives me and just putting up with any failings doesn't suit me at all. I can deal with bugs in things I control (such as Linux distributions) because I can fix the bugs I consider important at any time.

So now I'm looking for a serious blogging program. Wordpress was strongly recommended to me after my previous post on the topic of blogs, but that was in regard to a simple blog program for Intranet use. I am now after a blog program that is designed for Internet use, it must have good security, support multiple users (some of my friends will probably want to use my blog server machine), and not be overly difficult to customise (I am resigned to the fact that I will have to learn another programming language - probably re-learning PHP or Java as that is where web programming is at nowadays).

One thing that I want to do is to have the main web page that displays all recent posts display each post in a frame with a separate Adsense section. The topics of my posts vary a lot so I want to have adverts that match.

Another feature I want is to have multiple RSS feeds with different settings. One use for this is to have tags for each post to specify which channel(s) the post will end up on, another is for Adsense for feeds functionality which I want on for some feeds but off for others. I also want to generate multiple feeds for different syndication services. Ideally a syndication service such as Planet Debian or Planet Linux Australia would use a unique feed for sucking it's own data and also have a unique feed address advertised on it's site for the users (if this isn't supported or desired at the syndication level then I can do tricks in the web server to serve different content for different IP addresses). That way I can track use by the different services, work around bugs in syndication services that matter to me, and change settings for post summaries, etc to suit the syndication service.

In terms of HTML editing I only need the most basic functionality. I would be entirely happy to write blog entries in raw HTML, my friends would probably desire line breaks to be converted to paragraph or break tags and basic linking functionality, but they could probably deal with entering bold and italic tags themselves (the few of my friends who couldn't manage this would probably only want to write plain-text in paragraphs).

I also want to run my own syndication software. I guess I have to consider blog server and syndication server at the same time as there may be some dependencies (EG having them both written in the same language might be handy - I don't want to re-learn BOTH Java and PHP). The syndication software would ideally automatically collect the feeds from other syndication services that I specify (although I'm sure I could write a simple Perl script to scrape them from the Planet web sites). Then I want to provide an RSS feed of that content for anyone who wants it.

Please let me know via email or comments if you have any suggestions about which software to use.

At the start of the year I suffered a minor injury to my left eye. This brought my vision down to slightly below average for my age. A doctor and an ophthalmologist both thought that my vision was good enough at this level and that I don't need glasses. But the ability to use a small font means that I can have more text on screen and thus do my work more effectively. Since about March I have worn glasses all the time. Regardless of what the experts say I want to have good vision all the time and there is a significant difference between my vision while wearing glasses and that without.

It's often recommended that people get their eyes tested about every 2 years from when they are in their late 20's and also get a test done a few months after any eye injury. I strongly support such recommendations for anyone who works in the computer industry. Even if your vision is slightly less than it could be it will make a difference to your work. I have not found glasses to cause me any inconvenience, I'm sure that it would be bad for children to wear glasses but for adults the only potential issue is when playing sport (which is less demanding on your vision than reading an 8 point font on a typical monitor). I am constantly amazed by TV and radio adverts which say "do you wear glasses, if so then you must have considered LASER eye surgery". Glasses are fine (IMHO) and I will not consider having a LASER or other dangerous object pointed at my eyes unless I am in danger of death or blindness!

The testing apparatus that an optometrist uses is interesting to inspect if you like machines. It is a device with a huge selection of levers for inserting different lenses in front of your eyes until they discover the combination that gives you the best vision. If you get your eyes tested make sure you get the optometrist to explain everything, you can learn many interesting things.

Recently, I have had a further eye problem. Recently my central vision went blurry with a shimmering affect for about 40 minutes, but the peripheral vision was OK. An ophthalmologist diagnosed this as a migraine, apparently I got a very mild one with only a minor visual affect but no headache etc. One thing that is apparently possible when experiencing migraine related vision impairments is the ability to act on visual information without consciously knowing it (EG catch a ball without seeing it).

A migraine is a better diagnosis than I had feared. The movie Super Size Me (the topic of tomorrow's blog entry) contains an interview with a main who describes a diabetic vision problem that sounded similar to mine. Migraines don't cause permanent problems while diabetes can, and diabetes requires lots of unpleasant blood tests and injections.

Apparently migraines are often triggered by physical events or food items. If you suffer one then it's recommended that you write down as much information as possible about the previous 24 hours to help track down the cause. If you experience something similar to what I describe then do not take this blog entry as medical advice, instead rely on a doctor and whichever specialist they refer you to. But do write down everything that happened prior to the medical problem (keeping an accurate diary can't do any harm).

The Wikipedia entry on Migraines has a lot more interesting information, but don't take it as medical advice either. One particularly interesting thing in the Wikipedia article is the note that migraines may be caused by not having suitable glasses, or prevented by wearing special glasses.

It seems that Toyota isn't alone in having non-functional web sites. In fact it's better than some, the basic information on the cars is available and it is possible to get contact information for car dealers, also they have a feed-back form on their web site (to which I submitted my previous blog post). Incidentally the Lexus site had much the same problem as the Toyota site (hardly surprising as Lexus is the luxury marque from Toyota). But I expect that if I phoned Lexus to ask about their vehicles I would get a better call-center experience which would make me less inclined to blog about them.

Daihatsu vehicles are sold by Toyota. Their web site doesn't use Flash, but it has so little content that it doesn't count.

I decided to quickly review the web sites of car manufacturers that sell in Australia for a fair comparison. I found three sites worse than Toyota, two sites that were equal (counting Lexus), and six that were better than it.

Holden has the worst site, they don't display any information if you don't have flash, they don't even display a phone number! I wonder how much Adobe pays web programmers to pull this sort of stunt. I can't imagine Holden management saying "if a customer comes to our web site and doesn't have Flash then don't display our phone number or any other contact information, they can use Flash or buy a Ford instead". Obviously some web monkey has run amok and done their own thing without following directions. Probably some people need to be sacked in the Holden web development group.

Volvo Cars has a very bad site. Most of the content is involved with Flash in some way and refuses to load. There is a mailto reference that is broken, and the overview page for the S60 seems to have a JavaScript loop (I aborted the load after it loaded 245 pictures and was still going). The Volvo page for their other business is quite functional although minimal.

Hyundai has a bad site. The front page works OK, but some of the sub-sites to display information on vehicles redirect to sites such as evolveddriving.com.au which are "optimised for 1024x768" and require Flash and Quicktime while others do strange things like changing the size of the browser window. Overall it's a very bad site, but at least I could find the contact details for my nearest dealer, and it has a feedback form.

Subaru has an OK site. The only thing I couldn't access without Flash is information on their AWD (All Wheel Drive) technology. Unfortunately they provide no email address and no form for sending feedback.

The main Ford web page claims that Flash is required, but their site just works without it. In a quick test I was unable to find any functionality on the Ford site that is missing because of not having Flash. Ford have a well designed site.

The Volkswagen site makes no mention of the fact that I don't use Flash, it does however have some strange unused spaces in the middle of the screen. I guess that it recognised that I don't have Flash and made a semi-successful attempt to work around it. I could get all information I wanted including dealer contact details.

The main Mazda web page displays a message about Flash not being installed and offers a link to a non-Flash version of the site. The Flash section is at the center and the buttons at the sides work if you don't have Flash. This seems to be a well implemented site.

Citroen has an OK site, no flash that I noticed (although there were large blank areas on the screen at times indicating that something was missing), the information was all available and browsing was reasonably easy. One thing that annoyed me was that there were movies available but only through some sort of JavaScript that tried to play them in my browser. I have never bothered setting up my web browsing machine for playing movies (among other things it has no speakers) so this is a problem for me.

Peugeot has a good site. No apparent flash and it's reasonably easy to use. It has more pictures than Kia but the JavaScript navigation stuff is fancy. One nice feature is a single page with pricing summaries for all models. If you have $X to spend on a Peugeot you will easily discover which ones you can afford.

Kia has the best site I saw! Not only is there no flash, but it's well designed, easy to navigate and it loads quite quickly. Please review the Kia site as an example of how to do it properly!

Let me know if I've missed any makes and I'll post an update.

I have a request for buying my "vitavonni.de" domain I'm using for my personal homepage and most of my email. I'm not emotionally tied to that domain, and a transition solution for email is likely possible. I don't rely on my good Google rankings for the domain, so I might actually sell it. But what would the domain be worth? It's currently highly ranked with Google (e.g. Rank #2 on "Laserdiode", i.e. semiconductor laser) and others. MSN says 5500 links to the domain. Moving my homepage to a new domain, getting everybody updated with respect to the new email address is a lot of work; so how do I find an appropriate price?

Version 2.6.18 of the kernel contained a small(ish) change to <linux/nbd.h>:

--- nbd.h	2006-10-17 19:53:55.000000000 +0200
+++ /usr/include/linux/nbd.h	2006-09-20 05:42:06.000000000 +0200
@@ -37,19 +37,28 @@
 /* userspace doesn't need the nbd_device structure */
 #ifdef __KERNEL__
 
+#include wait.h>
+#include mutex.h>
+
 /* values for flags field */
 #define NBD_READ_ONLY 0x0001
 #define NBD_WRITE_NOCHK 0x0002
 
+struct request;
+
 struct nbd_device  
 	int flags;
 	int harderror;		/* Code of hard error			*/
 	struct socket * sock;
 	struct file * file; 	/* If == NULL, device is not ready, yet	*/
 	int magic;
+
 	spinlock_t queue_lock;
 	struct list_head queue_head;/* Requests are added here...	*/
-	struct semaphore tx_lock;
+	struct request *active_req;
+	wait_queue_head_t active_wq;
+
+	struct mutex tx_lock;
 	struct gendisk *disk;
 	int blksize;
 	u64 bytesize;
@@ -68,11 +77,11 @@
  * server. All data are in network byte order.
  */
 struct nbd_request  
-	u32 magic;
-	u32 type;	/* == READ   == WRITE 	*/
+	__be32 magic;
+	__be32 type;	/* == READ   == WRITE 	*/
 	char handle[8];
-	u64 from;
-	u32 len;
+	__be64 from;
+	__be32 len;
  
 #ifdef __GNUC__
 	__attribute__ ((packed))
@@ -84,8 +93,8 @@
  * it has completed an I/O request (or an error occurs).
  */
 struct nbd_reply  
-	u32 magic;
-	u32 error;		/* 0 = ok, else error	*/
+	__be32 magic;
+	__be32 error;		/* 0 = ok, else error	*/
 	char handle[8];		/* handle you got from request	*/
  ;
 #endif

Which meant that the userland NBD utilities would not build against that anymore. The Debian packages are unaffected (they ship their own nbd.h since they need to build on non-Linux ports, too), but that doesn't mean we can leave it like that. The first hunk is unimportant, as it's enclosed within an #ifdef __KERNEL__. The others represent an interface change: rather than having u32 and u64, they come with __be32 and __be64. Nothing that can't be fixed with a few #define lines, but still something that had to happen. So today I released nbd versions 2.7.8 (from the outdated 2.7-branch), 2.8.7 (from the current stable and supported 2.8-branch), and 2.9.0-test3 (from the current development branch) to sourceforge, and released version 1:2.8.7-1 to Debian unstable. I'll probably also release 1:2.9.0-test3-1 to Debian experimental "some time soon", but not just yet. Apart from the obvious #define lines, the 2.9.0-test3 release also fixes some issues (in contrast to -test2 which was a bit of a crashing horror, -test3 actually works) and has revamped multi-file support. Most of the changes in -test3 (in fact, most likely all of them apart from the #define lines) were done by Phillip Hellewell, whom I owe a beer if I ever see him. Occasionally, the 2.9 line has some extra code and features that aren't available in 2.8, such as configuration file support and the ability to serve multiple block devices from one nbd-server parent process. Check it out if you have a chance and/or are interested. On top of that, the 1:2.8.7-1 release also contains some fixes in the debconf stuff, that close 3 bugs. Am I cool or what? Nah.

Somebody on desktop-devel-list asked for a “gconf-diff” which should tell them the settings they have in gconf that are different to the defaults. So I wrote it, you can get it in the list archives or by following this link: gconf-diff.py. As well as giving the keys that are different it also gives keys without a matching schema. I think this should also be helpful with troubleshooting upgrades and the like.

I'm excited because we're pretty well along the way to getting cabal-install and friends working nicely. We've got almost 30 packages in the database. Let's imagine something that would be awesome for the Haskell community. A set of Haskell packages which are all known to work together with a particular version of cabal (the one that GHC comes with), and a particular version of GHC. GHC version 6.6 was just released, and I think we should try to make this happen. Currently, we have a set of 27 "unstable" packages. They may or may not work with each-other. I just created an empty directory "testing". I propose that we start testing packages, starting with the Cabal release that'll went into GHC 6.6, and make sure they work nicely together. Once they're known to work, we can migrate them from the "unstable" directory to the "testing" directory. Once we have a sufficient collection of packages, and once ghc 6.6 is released, we can make a snapshot of this directory, call it "stable-6.6" or something. Then if you have ghc 6.6 and cabal-install, you should be able to "cabal-install p" for any package, and it'll definitely work. So what will we need for this to happen?

An installed version of ghc 6.6 on the hackage/darcs server. Maybe in a chroot or something. Maybe from the nightly build tree or the previous snapshot?

Some initial set of packages (maybe just cabal-install) to start off.

Some script that goes through and builds all of the "unstable" packages in dependency order. I think cabal-install can do this already. In fact, it would be ideal if we used cabal-install for this.

The script should also run ./setup haddock and ./setup test. If the packages seem to work w/ 6.6 and the other packages in "testing", it should get migrated from "unstable" to "testing".

A web interface (lemmih is working on it)

A script to upload packages to "unstable" (Paolo is working on it).

Someone to spearhead all of this! We need volunteers. Please email me if you think you can head this up.