Search Results: "Iustin Pop"

29 May 2016

Iustin Pop: Mind versus body: time perception

Mind versus body: time perception Since mid-April I'm playing a new game. It's really awesome, and I learned some surprising things. The game Zwift is quite different from the games I'm usually playing. While it does have all or most of the elements of a game, more precisely an MMO, the main point of the game if physical exercise (in the real world). The in-game performance if the result of the (again, real-world) power output. Playing the game is more or less like many other games: very nice graphics, varied terrain (or not), interaction, or better said competition, with other players, online leader boards, races, gear "upgrade" (only cosmetic AFAIK), etc. The game more or less progresses like usual, but the fact that the main driver is body changes, to my surprise, the time component of the game. For me, with a normal game let's say one of Bioware's Dragon Age games, or one of CD Red's Witcher games a short gaming session is 2-3 hours, a reasonable session 6-8 hours, and longer ones are for "marathon" gaming sessions. Playing a good game for one hour feels like you've been cheated one barely starts and has to stop. On Zwift, things are different. A short session is 20-30 minutes, but this already feels good. A good one is more than one hour, and for me, the longest rides I had were three hours. A three hour session, if done at or near Functional Threshold Power (see here for another article about it), leaves me spent. I just had today such a long ride (at around 85% FTP) and it took me an hour afterwards (and eating) to recover. The interesting part is that, body exertion aside, the brain sees a 3 hour Zwift equivalent to an 8-10 hour gaming session. Both are tiring, and the perception of passed time is the same (long). Same with shorter sessions: if I do a 40 minutes ride, it feels subjectively as rewarding as a 2-3 hour normal gaming session. I wonder what mechanism is that influences this perception. Is it just effort level? But there's no real effort (as in increased heart rate) for computer games. Is it the fact that so much blood is needed for the muscles when cycling that the brain gets comparatively little, so it enters slow-speed mode (hey, who pressed the Turbo button)? In any case, using Zwift results in a much more efficient use of my time when I'm playing just to decompress/relax. Another interesting difference is how much importance a good night sleep has on body performance. With computer games, it makes a difference, but not a huge one, and it usually goes away a couple of hours in the game, at least subjectively. With cycling, a bad night results in persistent lower performance all around (for me at least), and one that you easily feel (e.g. for max 5-second average power). And the last thing I learned, although this shouldn't be a surprise: my FTP is way lower than it's supposed to be (according to the internet). I guess the hundreds of hours I put into pure computer games didn't do anything to my fitness, to my "surprise". I'm curious to see, if I can keep this going on, how things will look like in ~6 months or so.

26 May 2016

Iustin Pop: First run in 2016

Today I finally ran a bit outside, for the first time in 2016. Actually, for even longer the first run since May 2015. I have been only biking in the last year, so this was a very pleasant change of pace (hah), even if just a short run (below 4K). The funny thing is that since I've been biking consistently (and hard) in the last two months, my fitness level is reasonable, so I managed to beat my all-time personal records for 1 Km and 1 mile (I never sprint, so these are just 'best of' segments out of longer runs). It's probably because I only did ~3.8Km, but still, I was very surprised, since I planned and did an easy run. How could I beat my all-time PR, even better than the times back in 2012 when I was doing regular running? Even the average pace over the entire run was better than my last training runs (~5Km) back in April/May 2015, by 15-45s. I guess cross-training does work after all, at least when competing against myself

17 May 2016

Reproducible builds folks: Reproducible builds: week 55 in Stretch cycle

What happened in the Reproducible Builds effort between May 8th and May 14th 2016: Documentation updates Toolchain fixes Packages fixed The following 28 packages have become newly reproducible due to changes in their build dependencies: actor-framework ask asterisk-prompt-fr-armelle asterisk-prompt-fr-proformatique coccinelle cwebx d-itg device-tree-compiler flann fortunes-es idlastro jabref konclude latexdiff libint minlog modplugtools mummer mwrap mxallowd mysql-mmm ocaml-atd ocamlviz postbooks pycorrfit pyscanfcs python-pcs weka The following 9 packages had older versions which were reproducible, and their latest versions are now reproducible again due to changes in their build dependencies: csync2 dune-common dune-localfunctions libcommons-jxpath-java libcommons-logging-java libstax-java libyanfs-java python-daemon yacas The following packages have become newly reproducible after being fixed: The following packages had older versions which were reproducible, and their latest versions are now reproducible again after being fixed: Some uploads have fixed some reproducibility issues, but not all of them: Patches submitted that have not made their way to the archive yet: Package reviews 344 reviews have been added, 125 have been updated and 20 have been removed in this week. 14 FTBFS bugs have been reported by Chris Lamb. tests.reproducible-builds.org Misc. Dan Kegel sent a mail to report about his experiments with a reproducible dpkg PPA for Ubuntu. According to him sudo add-apt-repository ppa:dank/dpkg && sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install dpkg should be enough to get reproducible builds on Ubuntu 16.04. This week's edition was written by Ximin Luo and Holger Levsen and reviewed by a bunch of Reproducible builds folks on IRC.

7 February 2016

Iustin Pop: mt-st project new homepage

A short public notice: mt-st project new homepage at https://github.com/iustin/mt-st. Feel free to forward your distribution-specific patches for upstream integration! Context: a while back I bought a tape unit to help me with backups. Yay, tape! All good, except that I later found out that the Debian package was orphaned, so I took over the maintenance. All good once more, but there were a number of patches in the Debian package that were not Debian-specific, but rather valid for upstream. And there was no actual upstream project homepage, as this was quite an old project, with no (visible) recent activity; the canonical place for the project source code was an ftp site (ibiblio.org). I spoke with Kai M kisara, the original author, and he agreed to let me take over the maintenance of the project (and that's what I intend to do: maintenance mostly, merging of patches, etc. but not significant work). So now there's a github project for it. There was no VCS history for the project, so I did my best to partially recreate the history: I took the debian releases from snapshots.debian.org and used the .orig.tar.gz as bulk import; the versions 0.7, 0.8, 0.9b and 1.1 have separate commits in the tree. I also took the Debian and Fedora patches and applied them, and with a few other cleanups, I've just published the 1.2 release. I'll update the Debian packaging soon as well. So, if you somehow read this and are the maintainer of mt-st in another distribution, feel free to send patches my way for integration; I know this might be late, as some distributions have dropped it (e.g. Arch Linux).

4 February 2016

Iustin Pop: X cursor theme

There's not much to talk about X cursor themes, except when they change behind your back :) A while back, after a firefox upgrade, it and only it showed a different cursor theme: basically double the size, and (IMHO) uglier. Searched for a while, but couldn't figure what makes firefox special, except that it is a GTK application. After another round of dist-upgrades, now everything except xterms were showing the big cursors. This annoyed me to no end as I don't use a high-DPI display, the new cursors are just too damn big. Only to find out two things: Sigh, Gnome.

3 January 2016

Iustin Pop: Orcas Island day trip, June 2015

I just finished going through my last set of pending-review pictures from 2015, so I'm starting 2016 with a post about the past. In June 2015 I travelled to Seattle/Kirkland area for work purposes, and took advantage of a weekend to plan some more outdoors stuff. After looking around on maps, I settled on the San Juan islands, so I started looking at hiking possibilities, and in the end Orcas island looked the best choice - all the others had much lower elevations. So, early in the morning, I started driving from Kirkland to Anacortes ferry terminal. The drive itself is quite nice: after getting past the more populated areas, passing Everett, the the view are very nice, especially in the early morning hours and with very few traffic. At Anacortes, there was already a small queue, fortunately I had a pre-ordered ticket, and there was not much to do until the ferry arrived except to look forward at the day, and hope that the weather will stay nice. On the ferry then, crossing the straits and enjoying the very nice views: Perfect blue Catching the morning wind The ferry stops at Orcas (is it a town or just the terminal), and the next stop is Eastsound town. I pre-planned here a stop to get a second mini-breakfast: however, I misjudged what the portion sizes are and got myself a maxi-cinnamon roll at Caffe Olga: Second breakfast :) At least I knew I wasn't going to be hungry for a while :) Driving on, briefly stopping at Cascade Lake (I also stopped on the way back, the view is nice), then reaching the parking at the Twin Lakes trail on the shore of Mountain Lake. Good think I arrived somewhat early the parking was quite full already. I also got a bit confused on which way the hike starts, since it's not well marked, but after that I started the hike. It's also possible to drive up to Mount Constitution, but that's just lame; hiking from the base it's quite easy, if you find how to start the hike. Anyway: Starting to climb Finished the steepest part At one point, one meets this particular sign: Which way now? Beware the Little Summit is not to be missed! After ~40 minutes of hiking, with some parts a tiny bit strenuous, the view is really breathtaking. It's definitely worth stopping by, as the view is (IMHO) nicer than the view from the top of Mt. Constitution: Wow! The reason I say this is better is because you look towards ocean, whereas later the view is back towards the continent. And looking towards the big ocean is just perfect! Plus, the many small island, fully covered with forest are also nice. Onwards then towards the peak of Mount Constitution. You cross the "ridge" of the island, and your view shifts to the other side. Which means you see back to the Mountain Lake where the hike starts: Loocking back towards the start Here the path is more exposed, not through tall forest like at the beginning: Watching the horizon Right before reaching the peak, you pass through an interesting forest: A different kind of forest And then you're finally reaching the peak. Compared to Switzerland, it's very much not impressive (730m), but nevertheless, being so close to the ocean results in some very nice views: Couldn't have asked for better weather You can go into the small tower, and read through the history of the location, including the personal life of Robert Moran (shipbuilder), who retired in 1905 to Orcas island to live what (his doctors said to be) his last months, and who instead ended living until 1943. Not bad! To be filled under "too much stress is bad, nature is good" heading, I think. After eating a small packed lunch, I started back. At the beginning the forest is similar to the one back at the beginning of the hike, but then, as you reach the level of lakes, it is slightly different. More tall (old?) trees, more moss and ferns: Afternoon sun in the forest I passed briefly by the Twin Lakes, which were interesting (lots of submerged trunks), and then finally on the Twin Lakes trail back to the start. The views of Mountain Lake from here are also nice, especially in the less harsh afternoon sun: Reached Mountain Lake How did those trees get there? And then the hike was over. I still had some time to spend before the ferry I had a ticket on was scheduled, so I drove down to Olga town, as I was curious what was at the end of "Olga Road". Not much, but again nice views, and this very picturesque pier: Nice pier in Olga And then it was back to the ferry, waiting in line, getting on the ferry, and crossing back: Goodbye Orcas! Overall, it was a day well spent, part different, part similar to last year's mostly road trip. Definitely recommended if you're in the area, and there are a couple of other hikes on Orcas Island, plus all the other islands which make up the San Juans. However, traffic on the way back was not that awesome :/ Small price though!

20 December 2015

Iustin Pop: Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6E ED VR tests

So, lately I've been on a telephoto lens learning curve; after the 300mm prime, I said to test a zoom lens. As I found the prime reasonably easy to adapt to (compared to shorter focal length lenses), I thought that a zoom (heavier, bigger) will be the same. Oh, I was wrong. My keeper rate for the first outdoors test was quite bad around 50% only, which (when talking only about focus/sharpness) is much below my standards. I started easy; some close or medium range shots, nothing special: Usual flower picture Lonely snag But then, moving to further distances, things became less straightforward. Shooting two pictures each time meant that usually one of them was sharp, but the other not. I got really confused at this step; the shutter speed was 1/2000s and I also had VR on; either VR was unneeded (i.e. contributing blur instead of helping) or something else was going on. After much head scratching, I think it's a combination of the following factors: So, for such style of shooting, I need to train more both photographic technique and arm strength at the gym In the meantime, it is possible to get such shots reasonably sharp, for example this picture of the (start of the) Alps taken from what is technically still Z rich city: The Alps  viewed from Z rich! I'm happy with the detail (at this distance), however I was not able to correct the colour due to the haze between me and the mountains; note that the trees on the bottom of the distance were not near me, but on the next or after-next hill. This picture confirms that with more practice things will get better. Coming back to shorter distances, and shorter focal lengths, things are looking better. We were passing somewhat near some people playing with RC-controlled planes not near enough to hear them, but near enough to see the plane quickly flying. Switched camera quickly to AF-C and Dynamic-21 focus, and - to my surprise - I was able to capture four good pictures, two so-so and four more clearly out of focus. But, for such a heavy length, hand-held and on the short notice, I was happy; the first picture is one of the so-so ones, but I kept it as I like the way the propeller is seen. All pictures at 290mm plus some cropping, 1/1250s, ISO between 900 and 1800, f/5.6 (i.e wide open): RC plane: continous focus tests RC plane #2 RC plane #3: good results! RC plane #4 RC plane #5: landing? From this exercise, the conclusion is that the lens is OK-ish for tracking, although the not-so good keeper rate tells me that I need to be careful; I'll have to see how a subject moving not left-right, but instead approaching or moving away from the camera would be tracked. But enough pictures of small planes. At 500mm, but still somewhat close, trees: Trees @ 500mm At this step I'm starting to wonder if stopping down a bit would help with the sharpness; I'll have to test that in the future. Walking some more, finally a bird in flight; one of the hopes when I took the camera/lens out was that I'll see some birds, but this was the first. 500mm, heavily cropped, but quite good result for myself (same autofocus settings as before): Bird in flight @ 500mm Bird in flight: difficult light The only problem here is, as always with crows (I think these are crows), is the black bird against the light-blue sky (not even strong blue), which means the picture has a high dynamic range; recovering the shadows on the bird is difficult. But in any case, it's clear the lens can deliver, if the photographer is good. Next, a helicopter was gracious enough to pass by (pretty close): Helicopter: close shot Two minutes later, it was quite far, but since it was going in the direction of the Alps, it gave the opportunity for a nice shot: Helicopter: flying towards the Alps This picture is less sharp, but still I like it due to composition; not successful on small screens though, only if you see it full screen. Light is very difficult though and about 10 seconds earlier would have been even better (more separation between the helicopter and the mountain). And since we're talking about planes, let's see a plane at 500m, directly overhead, and quite high: High-flying plane This picture (@500mm, cropped, 1/2000s) has the most detail of a plane flying high enough to have trails (not sure how to estimate, but at least 5km, maybe more around 7-8 I'd say) that I ever took. So yes, the lens can deliver, but it's not easy. This shot, being shot more or less straight up, had the least distance through low-altitude atmosphere, so it has less problems compared to the mountains pictures. It's still not really sharp (lens wide open), but the amount of detail I'm sold :) And to finish on a more close note: Hunting!! A long focal length lens allows one to get "close" without getting close, which means animals are not disturbed. The first picture with the cat (not shown) had the cat less alert; ears not fully up, although eyes were still seeking; this picture shows it fully alert and concentrated, like it was a wild cat hunting for its survival, and not a city cat, out just for fun. So, summary: All the best to everybody for the coming holidays, and thanks for reading.

17 October 2015

Iustin Pop: Server upgrades and monitoring

Undecided whether the title should be "exercises in Yak shaving" or "paying back technical debt" or "too much complexity for personal systems". Anyway I started hosting my personal website and some other small stuff on a dedicated box (rented from a provider) in early 2008. Even for a relatively cheap box, it worked without issues for a good number of years. A surprising number of years, actually; the only issue was a power supply failure that was solved by the provider automatically and then nothing for many years. Even the harddrive (mechanical) had no issues at all for 7 years (Power_On_Hours: 64380; I probably got it after it had a few months of uptime). I believe it was the longest running harddrive I've ever used (for the record: Seagate Barracuda 7200.10, ST3250310AS). The reason I delayed upgrade for a long time was twofold: first, at the same provider I couldn't get a similar SLA for the same amount of money. I could get better hardware, but with worse SLA and options. This is easily solvable, of course, by just finding a different provider. The other issue was that I never bothered to setup proper configuration management for the host; after all, it was only supposed to run Apache with ikiwiki and some other trivial small other things. The truth was that over time it started pilling up more and more "small things" so actually changing the host is expensive. As the age of the server neared 7 years, I thought to combine upgrade from Wheezy to Jessie with a HW upgrade. Managed to find a different provider that had my desired SLA and HW configuration, got the server and the only thing left was to do the migration. Previous OS upgrades were simple as they were on the same host; i.e. rely on Debian's reliable upgrade and nothing else to, eventually adjust slightly some configs. With a cross-host upgrade (I couldn't just copy the old OS since it was also a 32-to-64 bit change) it's much worse: since there's no previous installation, I had to manually check and port the old configuration for each individual service. This got very tedious, and I realised I have to make it somehow better. "Proper" configuration management aside, I thought that I need proper monitoring first. I already had (for a long while actually) graphing via Munin, but no actual monitoring. Since the host only had few services, this was again supposed to be easy - same mistake again. The problem is that once you have any monitoring system setup, it's very easy to actually add "just one more" host or service to it. First it was only the external box, then it was my firewall, then it was the rest of my home network. Then it was the cloud services that I use for example, checking whether my domain registrar's nameservers still are authoritative for my domain or whether the expiration date it still far in the future. And so on In the end, what was in previous iterations (e.g. Squeeze to Wheezy upgrade) a half-weekend job only, spread out over many weekends (interleaved with other activities, not fully working on it). I had to keep the old machine running for a month more in order to make sure everything was up and running, and I ended up with 80 services monitored across multiple systems; the migrated machine itself has almost half of these. Some of these are light items (e.g. a checking that a single vhost responds) other are aggregates. I still need to add some more checks though, especially more complex (end-to-end) ones. The lesson I learned in all this is that, with or without configuration management in place, having monitoring makes it much easier do to host or service moves, as you know much better when everything is done whether it's "done-done" or just "almost done". The question that remains though: with 80 services for a home network plus external systems (personal use); I'm not sure if I'm doing things right (monitor the stuff I need) or wrong (do I really need these many things)?

24 August 2015

Iustin Pop: Finally, systemd!

Even though Debian has moved to systemd as default a long while ago now, I've stayed with sysv as I have somewhat custom setups (self-built trimmed down kernels, separate /usr not pre-mounted by initrd, etc.). After installing a new system with Jessie and playing a bit with systemd on it a couple of months ago, I said it's finally time to upgrade. Easier said than starting to actually do it . The first system I upgraded was a recent (~1 year old) install. It was a trimmed-down system with Debian's kernel, so everything went smoothly. So smoothly that I soon forgot I made the change, and didn't do any more switches for a while. Systemd was therefore out of my mind until this recent Friday when I got a bug report about mt's rcS init script and shipping a proper systemd unit. The first step should be to actually start using systemd, so I said - let's convert some more things! During the weekend I upgraded one system, still a reasonably small install, but older - probably 6-7 years. First reboot into systemd flagged the fact that I had some forced-load modules which no longer exist, fact that was too easy to ignore with sysv. Nice! The only downside was that there seems to be some race condition between and ntp, as it fails to start on boot (port listen conflict). I'll see if it repeats. Another small issue is that systemd doesn't like duplicate fstab entries (i.e. two devices which both refer to the same mount point), while this works fine for mount itself (when specifying the block device). I said that after that system, I'll wait a while until to upgrade the next. But so it happened that today another system had an issue and I had to reboot it (damn lost uptimes!). The kernel was old so I booted into a newer one (this time compiled with the required systemd options), so I had a though - what if I take the opportunity and also switch to systemd on this system? Caution said to wait, since this was the oldest system - installed sometime during or before 2004. Plus it doesn't use an initrd (long story), and it has a split /usr. Caution excitement caution lost and I proceeded. It turns out that systemd does warn about split /usr but itself has no problems. I learned that I also had very old sysfs entries that no longer exist, and which I didn't know about as sysv doesn't make it obvious. I also had a crypttab entry which was obsolete, and I forgot about it, until I met the nice red moving ASCII bar which fortunately had a timeout. To be honest, I believed I'll have to rescue boot and fix things on this "always-unstable" machine, on which I install and run random things, and which has a hackish /etc/fstab setup. I'm quite surprised it just worked. On unstable. So thanks a lot to the Debian systemd team. It was much simpler than I thought, and now, on to exploring systemd! P.S.: the sad part is that usually I'm a strong proponent of declarative configuration, but for some reason I was reluctant to migrate to systemd also on account on losing the "power" of shell scripts. Humans

17 August 2015

Iustin Pop: A few macro photos

I was walking in the city with my camera and a wide (35mm) lens. I also took in the bag a macro lens, "just in case", although I wasn't sure what would it be useful for, beyond a solitary flower here and there. But as luck would have it, I stumbled upon a floral arrangement which was host to a lot of working bees, bumblebees and ants. Perfect opportunity for some attempts at macro work! Especially as I didn't do many such attempts "outside" before. A few of the photographs turned out "OK". Not good, as there were multiple things fighting against my lack of skills and experience. First, aperture. From normal photography, I thought that f/8 is a small aperture. Turns out that f/8 is not enough to have the entire body of a bee in focus! f/16 is good from the depth-of-field point of view, but then the light is not good enough. Second, wind. Not in the sense of blur - high shutter speed combats wind-induced blur, but the movement of the subject due to wind makes it very hard to focus properly, either automatically or manually, as the depth of field is very thin. In any case, learned something more. The first and last pictures in this set are my favourites; the first one due to the detail in the wings (in stark contrast to the lack of detail in the body), and the last one due to the soft colours. Here they are, or check out the entire set: Mis-focused (bee body is not in focus) but with good results: very nice wings! This turned out much better than I expected, mostly due to the colours.

Iustin Pop: Nikkor 300mm f/4E tests and happy dogs!

I recently got a new lens, which I'm still trying to learn how to properly use . The new lens is the Nikon 300m f/4E PF ED VR (wow, that's a mouthful of acronyms ) and it's as good as I expected, except that it seems that it's too good for the person using it (me). Physically, the lens is indeed very light and very easy to hand-hold; it's barely heavier and longer than the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 zoom, although a bit more bulky. I was fearing something "bigger" and heavier for a fixed-aperture lens, even after hearing all the good reports about it, but it was better than I expected. I was also slightly concerned, this being a prime lens, about finding the subject fast, especially if smaller or far away. It turned out that if the lens is focused at somewhat the right distance (not at the opposite end), it is not a real problem. So, as the first test/learning exercise, I did a couple of hour long walks outdoor, photographing random subjects. First day I used the lens by itself, on the second day I added the Nikon TC-14E(III) tele-converter, for a 420mm focal length. All pictures below except the Huskies are non-cropped, just down-sampled (they have the original field of view); the Husky pictures were cropped. In all cases, camera was set to semi-manual mode, mostly at 1/1000s or 1/2000s, various apertures between f/4 and f/8; this means wide open or stopped down one (when with the tele-converter) or two stops. Semi-manual as auto-ISO was on. Lens focus limiter on, VR either active or sport (to help with the viewfinder image mostly, at this speed), camera set to AF-C and group mode most of the time. Also, all pictures were shot hand-held, with bad technique - until somebody stopped me, turns out he was a photographer, and showed me how to properly hold a telephoto lens; thanks, whoever you were! The "random subjects" parts worked only somewhat, as (at first) the subjects were not too interesting; air-plane flying high above - check, fast focus (although it is easy to focus on a plane in clear sky), or close, static subjects: Airplane in the sky Test of close focusing Birds flying around - almost check, fast focus (both with just the lens and with the TC), although I learned that shooting flying birds while panning needs 1/2000s - my initial attempt at 1/1000s was not enough to eliminate either panning blur or wing-tip blur (both depend on the speed of the respective action); in any case, initial focus acquisition is speedy enough for me. A couple of examples (first without, second with the TC; in the second one, I was unprepared when the I saw the bird from the corner of my eye, and managed to bring up the camera and take exactly one photo before the bird was gone): Not enough speed Too much blur Another attempt was to focus on dogs jumping in the water. Here the problem was different: focusing on the correct object! The splashing around meant that there were lots of water droplets both in front and behind the dog, the dog being partially obscured by them. I don't know what AF settings would have helped here (maybe 3D tracking pre-focused on the black dog)? I had a low success rate on the first attempt, so I'll have to try again. The lens did correctly track the wrong thing, though . Examples: Almost focused Wrong focus Once the dog caught its target, the lens focused well enough, of course, but not perfect; it might need some AF fine-tuning or photographer upgrade : Not quite perfect focus At one point, I was lucky to have a dog running towards me; focus tracking on a subject approaching the camera is a good test for the lens (and camera) auto-focus performance. I was pleasantly surprised, given my failure to track left-to-right flying birds (which should be easier!): Run! Not yet tired! In any case, I was walking and thinking on how to improve on my technique, when I saw in the distance a pair of dogs (Husky's, I believe) which were very active. This case was relatively easy for the camera and lens, since they were moving only left-to-right, instead of forward-backward, so the focus distance was mostly constant, and I just had to pan. Full gallery here, two examples: Jump! Play over, going home These two dogs had an education value beyond the "how is the lens performing"; they were so fast, active (they kept going at it non-stop for a good number of minutes) and playful that they made my day brighter . So, that concludes my first test of this lens and the 1.4 tele-converter. Conclusion: equipment good, need to upgrade the photographer!

4 May 2015

Lunar: Reproducible builds: first week in Stretch cycle

Debian Jessie has been released on April 25th, 2015. This has opened the Stretch development cycle. Reactions to the idea of making Debian build reproducibly have been pretty enthusiastic. As the pace is now likely to be even faster, let's see if we can keep everyone up-to-date on the developments. Before the release of Jessie The story goes back a long way but a formal announcement to the project has only been sent in February 2015. Since then, too much work has happened to make a complete report, but to give some highlights: Lunar did a pretty improvised lightning talk during the Mini-DebConf in Lyon. This past week It seems changes were pilling behind the curtains given the amount of activity that happened in just one week. Toolchain fixes We also rebased the experimental version of debhelper twice to merge the latest set of changes. Lunar submitted a patch to add a -creation-date to genisoimage. Reiner Herrmann opened #783938 to request making -notimestamp the default behavior for javadoc. Juan Picca submitted a patch to add a --use-date flag to texi2html. Packages fixed The following packages became reproducible due to changes of their build dependencies: apport, batctl, cil, commons-math3, devscripts, disruptor, ehcache, ftphs, gtk2hs-buildtools, haskell-abstract-deque, haskell-abstract-par, haskell-acid-state, haskell-adjunctions, haskell-aeson, haskell-aeson-pretty, haskell-alut, haskell-ansi-terminal, haskell-async, haskell-attoparsec, haskell-augeas, haskell-auto-update, haskell-binary-conduit, haskell-hscurses, jsch, ledgersmb, libapache2-mod-auth-mellon, libarchive-tar-wrapper-perl, libbusiness-onlinepayment-payflowpro-perl, libcapture-tiny-perl, libchi-perl, libcommons-codec-java, libconfig-model-itself-perl, libconfig-model-tester-perl, libcpan-perl-releases-perl, libcrypt-unixcrypt-perl, libdatetime-timezone-perl, libdbd-firebird-perl, libdbix-class-resultset-recursiveupdate-perl, libdbix-profile-perl, libdevel-cover-perl, libdevel-ptkdb-perl, libfile-tail-perl, libfinance-quote-perl, libformat-human-bytes-perl, libgtk2-perl, libhibernate-validator-java, libimage-exiftool-perl, libjson-perl, liblinux-prctl-perl, liblog-any-perl, libmail-imapclient-perl, libmocked-perl, libmodule-build-xsutil-perl, libmodule-extractuse-perl, libmodule-signature-perl, libmoosex-simpleconfig-perl, libmoox-handlesvia-perl, libnet-frame-layer-ipv6-perl, libnet-openssh-perl, libnumber-format-perl, libobject-id-perl, libpackage-pkg-perl, libpdf-fdf-simple-perl, libpod-webserver-perl, libpoe-component-pubsub-perl, libregexp-grammars-perl, libreply-perl, libscalar-defer-perl, libsereal-encoder-perl, libspreadsheet-read-perl, libspring-java, libsql-abstract-more-perl, libsvn-class-perl, libtemplate-plugin-gravatar-perl, libterm-progressbar-perl, libterm-shellui-perl, libtest-dir-perl, libtest-log4perl-perl, libtext-context-eitherside-perl, libtime-warp-perl, libtree-simple-perl, libwww-shorten-simple-perl, libwx-perl-processstream-perl, libxml-filter-xslt-perl, libxml-writer-string-perl, libyaml-tiny-perl, mupen64plus-core, nmap, openssl, pkg-perl-tools, quodlibet, r-cran-rjags, r-cran-rjson, r-cran-sn, r-cran-statmod, ruby-nokogiri, sezpoz, skksearch, slurm-llnl, stellarium. The following packages became reproducible after getting fixed: Some uploads fixed some reproducibility issues but not all of them: Patches submitted which did not make their way to the archive yet: Improvements to reproducible.debian.net Mattia Rizzolo has been working on compressing logs using gzip to save disk space. The web server would uncompress them on-the-fly for clients which does not accept gzip content. Mattia Rizzolo worked on a new page listing various breakage: missing or bad debbindiff output, missing build logs, unavailable build dependencies. Holger Levsen added a new execution environment to run debbindiff using dependencies from testing. This is required for packages built with GHC as the compiler only understands interfaces built by the same version. debbindiff development Version 17 has been uploaded to unstable. It now supports comparing ISO9660 images, dictzip files and should compare identical files much faster. Documentation update Various small updates and fixes to the pages about PDF produced by LaTeX, DVI produced by LaTeX, static libraries, Javadoc, PE binaries, and Epydoc. Package reviews Known issues have been tagged when known to be deterministic as some might unfortunately not show up on every single build. For example, two new issues have been identified by building with one timezone in April and one in May. RD and help2man add current month and year to the documentation they are producing. 1162 packages have been removed and 774 have been added in the past week. Most of them are the work of proper automated investigation done by Chris West. Summer of code Finally, we learned that both akira and Dhole were accepted for this Google Summer of Code. Let's welcome them! They have until May 25th before coding officialy begins. Now is the good time to help them feel more comfortable by sharing all these little bits of knowledge on how Debian works.

21 March 2015

Iustin Pop: Effects of a PSU upgrade

Got some unexpected results from a hardware upgrade First, GPU upgrade Old videocard My current video card was getting a bit long in the tooth. I kept delaying the upgrade, because newer Radeon cards are pretty inefficient, energy-wise, and I didn't want to upgrade my PSU as well. My old card had a TDP of 150W, and I was looking for upgrading to something in the same ballpark. While there were more current similar cards, the performance benefit was not that great - to get a real boost, I'd need to upgrade to something 200W+, if not 250W. Additionally, I was focused on AMD-only cards because of Linux open-source support, even though newer AMD cards don't support EXA anymore (plain 2D). Surprised to learn about Nvidia Maxwell While looking at what AMD cards to upgrade to, I happen to learn about the now ~1 year old Nvidia Maxwell architecture, which is - surprisingly - much more energy efficient. So efficient, that I could upgrade to a top-of-the-line card, with around 6 performance on most benchmarks compared to my current card, with only a 25W TDP increase. I couldn't believe I missed this for almost a year, just because I was focused only on AMD cards. I research some more, I try to console myself about going back to Nvidia's binary blobs until Nouveau supports GM20x card well, but in the end the results seem too good to ignore. Upgrade: in-game performance and noise For the card I bought, Nvidia says a PSU with 500W output is the minimum. That matched exactly the PSU I had, and it was a quality producer (Seasonic), so I bought the new videocard and installed it. Performance was, surprisingly, as expected: my new card is faster at maximum settings than my old card was on low settings in two or three games that I tested. So all good from this side. On Linux, moving to the non-free Nvidia driver was a walk in the part, thanks to the maintainers of all things Nvidia: thanks! Last I used an Nvidia card, many years ago, it was a bit more painful. And yes, Nvidia doesn't enable all monitors upon boot, requiring some reshuffling of the outputs for multi-monitor work. Finding that I still had an .nvidia-settings-rc in my homedir from ages ago was fun :) The downside was that the system was noisier under load; slightly noisier in some games, to much more noisier in others. This didn't match my expectations, since the specific version of the card I bought was not overclocked and had extra large fans, and with only a +25W TDP it shouldn't have been significantly noisier. Well, that's it, I said, not all marketing/reviews should be believed. One interesting thing was that I wasn't clearly able to pin-point what was generating the additional noise. PSU upgrade I was thinking anyway about doing a PSU upgrade as well, since my current PSU was even older than my videocard, and was at the limit. Dust So I bought a PSU as well, and spent about half a day installing it. Why half a day? Because the new PSU is modular, and the combination with the case I have means I could redo the cabling inside my case, significantly. In the process, I found a lot of accumulated dust which I cleaned. I also found out that parts of the CPU cooler fins were blocked by dust, so the fan was not as effective as when new. I also realised that one case fan was no longer effective in its position, since I have no HDDs that need cooling (this case is split between MB and HDD/PSU areas), so I could move it in a place that cools better the various PCIe devices. and silence! After all was said and done, the PC booted up just fine. Everything seemed correct, the new position of the fan was drawing in cold air and pushing it over the PCIe cards, so it was time to see if all the cleanup had any effect on the behaviour under load. So I start a game, the card gets slightly noisier compared to idle, and stays there. I go on playing for 10 minutes, which would have been more than enough to heat the whole system enough that it becomes noisy, but nothing, just slightly above the normal "PC is on" noise. Before all the upgrades, my old card was definitely noisier when playing I don't know if there is a single, key factor, or if it's a combination of all of: In any case, I'm happy now. I got much better performance (5-6 is nothing to laugh at) for slight increase in energy consumption at load (~+25W). If I had stopped here, it would have been good enough. But spending 3 hours cleaning and simplifying the cabling means I also got a much quieter PC. The only downside is Linux with binary drivers. Waiting now for Nouveau

1 February 2015

Iustin Pop: Morning snow

Woke up on Sunday morning to see snow! It snowed during the night, such that there were around 5 or 6 centimetres of snow on the ground. The second surprise was that, from my window at least, it seemed the snow on the street and sidewalks was still there! To see snow, uncleaned, after eight in the morning, is a welcome surprise in Switzerland! So I wanted to quickly dress and go for a short run, but I was delayed by a page from work (oncall this weekend) it became a race between me solving the page and the people who ruin the snow by making it safe to walk. So I had to work fast, skip breakfast (I like running on an empty stomach), and a while later I was finally outside, and started my run. The snow right outside was pristine, untouched by anything. Further on, some signs of cleaning (and some people busy at work with shovels). Half of the sidewalks were already cleared, but the other half was mighty fun to run in - reasonably dry snow, and soft, not at all like running on pavement. By the time I was inside, the big and "serious" cleaning machines were out on the streets, ensuring the snow doesn't endanger cars. Sigh, living in a city. But all in all, a good Sunday morning start!

5 December 2014

Iustin Pop: Jump!

Jump!!! What Why At the end of November, we had a team offsite planned, with lots of fun and exciting activities in a somewhat exotic location. I was quite looking forward to it, when - less than two weeks before the event - a colleague asked if anyone is interested in going skydiving as an extra activity. Without thinking too much, I said "yes" immediately, because: a) I've never done it before, and b) it sounded really cool! Other people said yes as well, so we were set up to have a really good time! Of course, as the time counted down and we were approaching the offsite, I was thinking: OK, this sounds cool, but: will I be fine? do I have altitude sickness? All kinds of such, rather logistical, questions. In order to not think too much, I did exactly zero research on the topic (all mentions of Wikipedia above are from post-fact reading). So, we went on the offsite - which was itself cool - and then, on the last day, right before going back, the skydive event! How it went The weather on the day of the jump was nice, the sky not perfectly clear, just a bit of small clouds and some haze. We waited for our turn, got the instruction for what to do (and not to do!), got hooked into the harness, prepared everything, and then boarded the plane; it needed only a very short run before taking off the ground. It took around ten minutes or so to get to the jump altitude, which I spent partially looking forward to it, partially trying to calm the various emotions I had - a very interesting mix. It was actually annoying just having to wait and wait the ten long minutes, I wished that we actually get to the jumping altitude faster. The altimeter on the instructor's hand was showing 4'000, then 4'100, 4'150, then he reminded me again what I need to do (or rather, not to do), and then - people were already jumping from the plane! I was third from our team to jump, and I had the opportunity to see how people were not simply "exiting" the plane, but rather - exiting and then immediately disappearing from view! Finally we were on the edge of the door, a push and then - I'm looking down, more than two and a half miles of nothing between me and the ground. Just air and the thought - "Why did I do this"? - as I start falling. For the first around ten seconds, it's actually a free fall, gaining speed almost at standard acceleration, and the result - Weightlessness - it's the weirdest feeling ever: all your organs floating in your body, no compression or torsion forces. Much more weird a roller-coaster that never ends; then most I had on roller-coasters was around one second of such acceleration, and you still are in contact with the chair or the restraints, whereas this long fall was very confusing for my brain - it felt somewhat like when you're tripping and you need to do something to regain balance, except in sky-diving you can't do anything, of course. There's nothing to grab, nothing to hold on, and you keep falling. After ten long seconds we reached terminal velocity, phase 1 ends, and phase 2 begins, in which - while still falling - the friction with the air compensates exactly the earth's pull and one is falling at a constant speed and it's the most wonderful state ever. Like floating on the air, except that you're actually falling at almost 200kph, and yes, the closest feeling to flying, I guess. It doesn't hurt that you're no longer weightless, which means back to some level of normality. The location of the skydive was very beautiful: the blue ocean beneath, the blue sky above, somewhere to the side the beach, and the air filling the mouth and lungs without any effort is the only sign that I'm moving really fast. The way this whole thing feels is very alien if you never jumped before, but one gets accustomed to it quite fast - and that means I got too comfortable and excited and forgot the correct position to keep my legs in, the instructor reminded me, and as I put my legs back in the correct position, which is (among others) with the soles of the feet pointing up, I felt again the air going strongly into my shoes, and a thought crossed my mind: what if I the air blows off one of my shoes (the right one, more precisely) and I lose it? How do I get to the airport for the trip back? Will I look suspicious at the security check? The banality of this thought, given that I was still up in the air somewhere and travelling quite fast, was so comical that I started laughing And then, an unexpected noise, the chute opens, and I feel like someone is pulling me strongly up. Of course nobody is pulling "up", I'm just slowing down very fast on this final phase (Wikipedia says: 3 to 4g). And then, once at the new terminal velocity, the lack of wind noise and the quietness of everything around gives a different kind of awesome - more majestic and serene this time, rather than the adrenaline-filled moments before. Because one is still up and the beach looks small, you actually feel that you're suspended in the air, almost frozen. Of course, that feeling goes away quickly when the instructor start telling me to pull the strings, and we enter a fast spin - so fast that my body is almost horizontal again - a reminder that we're still in the air, going somewhat fast, and not in "normal" conditions. I'm again reminded of the speed once we get closer to the earth, the people on the beach start to get bigger fast, and now we're gliding over the beach and finally land in the sand. The adventure is over, but I'm still pumped up and my body is still full of adrenaline, and I feel like you've just been in heaven - which is true, for some definitions of . The first thing I realise is that the earth is very solid. And not moving at all. Everything is very very slow which is both good and bad. My body is confused at the very fast sequence of events, and why did everything stop?? Conclusion I learned all about the terminal velocity, how fast you get there, and so on a day later, from Wikipedia and other sources. It helped explain and clarify the things I experienced during the dive, because there in the air I was quite confused (and my body even more so). Knowing this in advance would have spoiled the surprise, but on the other hand would have allowed me to enjoy the experience slightly better. Looking back, I can say a few of things. First, it was really awesome - not what I was expecting, much more awesome (in the real sense of awe) than I thought, but also not as easy or trivial as I believed from just seeing videos of people "floating" during their dive. Yep, worth doing, and hard to actually put in words (I tried to, but I think this rambling is more confusing than helping). Phase one was too long (and a bit scary), phase two was too short (and the best thing), phase three was relaxing (and just the right length). I also wonder how it is to jump alone - without the complicated and heavy harness, without an instructor, just you up there. Oh, and the parachute. And the reserve parachute , of course. Point is, this was awesome, but I was mostly a passive spectator, so I wonder what it feels like to be actually in control (as much as one can be, falling down) and responsible. And finally, as we left the offsite location just a couple of hours after the skydive, and we had a 4 hours flight back, I couldn't believe myself how slow everything was. I never experienced quite such a thing, I was sitting in this normal airplane flying high and fast, but for me everything was going in slow motion and I was bored out of my mind. Adrenaline aftershock or something like that? Also interesting!

1 December 2014

Iustin Pop: SSD adventures

SSD adventures and fun times! TL;DR: Oh boy. Things work now, but I'm not sure exactly what happened :( When it all worked fine almost In June, I bought a new laptop, and a new SSD for it. I used that model of SSD before (Samsung 840 Evo), although not for a long time, so I wasn't expecting anything unusual. Since the laptop is a slower one, I installed Debian as follows: connect SSD to my workstation, do an install on it (via Virtualbox connected to the raw device), disconnect and install in the laptop. First sign of trouble was that the SSD didn't boot reliably. I said - maybe my Virtualbox method (new method) wasn't right - so I reinstalled on the laptop, and everything was mostly OK. Mostly OK because rarely the laptop had issues with seeing the SSD. Maybe not cold booting, requiring a restart, or giving some ATA errors on boot (bot nothing afterwards). I didn't use the laptop too much - I mostly use it when travelling - so I didn't investigate further. Trouble begins Fast forward to two weeks ago: I was preparing to leave on a trip, so I booted the laptop (everything OK), apt-get dist-upgrade, synced my git trees, etc. Everything was fine. The next day, in the airport between two flights, the laptop doesn't boot - doesn't see the SSD at all. I tried rebooting a gazillion times, nothing. I was quite upset - at the hardware, and at me for not paying attention to the unreliability signs before. Once I arrived at the destination, I opened the laptop, tried re-seating the SSD, nothing. I bought a SATA-to-USB bridge, and surprise! Boots from the first, no issues. Diagnosis A: Laptop SATA connector has issues. I work with this SATA-to-USB bridge for a couple of days, but it was quite slow (~20MB/s), so I buy a SATA-to-USB3 cradle, which should be much faster. But the SSD was not visible in this cradle. Not only that, but it was causing the laptop to hang in the POST screen - reliably. Turn the cradle off, the laptop passes POST, turn it on, the laptop took 2 minutes to pass the POST. OK, the cradle is broken. Connect the SSD back to the USB2 thing not booting For about five minutes, it was like "dead". After that, it booted and behaved normally. I didn't know what to think, I just put it aside. So worked for the rest of the week on the USB2 bridge, with no issues (once it the SSD dropped off, but I think that was just USB being USB). So at the end of the week, diagnosis (A) still was the main contender. On the flight back home, I worked from the plane for a good number of hours, again no issue. Laptop/SSD were fully powered off before the flight, powered with no issues, worked fine. At the end of the flight I completely shut down my laptop. Diagnosis A still on top. Real trouble now After getting home and sleeping a bit, I wanted to power up the laptop just to transfer the code I wrote on the plane. But it didn't power up. No problem, I said, now I actually have access to running Linux machines and I can check what's happening. And to my surprise, the SSD was behaving erratically: The looked like this (when connected over SATA):
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: ATA-9: Samsung SSD 840 EVO 500GB, EXT0BB6Q, max UDMA/133
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: 976773168 sectors, multi 1: LBA48 NCQ (depth 31/32), AA
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: configured for UDMA/133
20:22:57 kernel: scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      Samsung SSD 840  EXT0 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
20:22:57 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] 488397168 512-byte logical blocks: (250 GB/232 GiB)
20:22:57 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off
20:22:57 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
20:22:57 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdc] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x2 SErr 0x400001 action 0x6 frozen
20:22:57 kernel: ata2: SError:   RecovData Handshk  
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: failed command: READ FPDMA QUEUED
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: cmd 60/08:08:68:01:00/00:00:00:00:00/40 tag 1 ncq 4096 in
20:22:57 kernel:         res 40/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x4 (timeout)
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: status:   DRDY  
20:22:57 kernel: ata2: hard resetting link
20:22:57 kernel: ata2: SATA link up 6.0 Gbps (SStatus 133 SControl 300)
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: failed to get NCQ Send/Recv Log Emask 0x1
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: failed to get NCQ Send/Recv Log Emask 0x1
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: configured for UDMA/133
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: device reported invalid CHS sector 0
20:22:57 kernel: ata2: EH complete
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x400000 SErr 0x400001 action 0x6
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: irq_stat 0x44000008
20:22:57 kernel: ata2: SError:   RecovData Handshk  
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: failed command: READ FPDMA QUEUED
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: cmd 60/08:b0:08:03:00/00:00:00:00:00/40 tag 22 ncq 4096 in
20:22:57 kernel:         res 41/84:00:08:03:00/00:00:00:00:00/00 Emask 0x410 (ATA bus error) <F>
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: status:   DRDY ERR  
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: error:   ICRC ABRT  
20:22:57 kernel: ata2: hard resetting link
20:22:57 kernel: ata2: SATA link up 6.0 Gbps (SStatus 133 SControl 300)
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: failed to get NCQ Send/Recv Log Emask 0x1
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: failed to get NCQ Send/Recv Log Emask 0x1
20:22:57 kernel: ata2.00: configured for UDMA/133
20:22:57 kernel: ata2: EH complete
Note that all of the messages were in short order (during boot, they show the same timestamp but I don't think it was actually the same second). I tried connecting the SSD over USB2 (partially working), over USB3 (not working!), and directly over SATA (initially not working). I connected another SSD I had around (same model, just smaller capacity) over all three, it worked (so the USB3 bridge was working, at least). Diagnosing (A) was out the door now, and the situation was very clear: SSD dying/dead/almost gone. So I connected both broken SSD and empty SSD to my workstation over SATA, and started copying data (once I managed to boot with the old one being visible and working). During the data copy, I saw that the "broken" SSD behaved erratically indeed: it was copying data off it with either ~40MB/s, ~70MB/s, and ~160MB/s. Not other speed, at least not for long time, just cycling between these three; and this is a very slow speed for this SSD model. And then I remembered that there is, for this model (Samsung 840 Evo), an advisory/firmware fix that old data gets harder to access (slower and slower), due to how TLC cells levels are read/etc. I don't know exactly what "old" means, but since the partition table was written only once, it should be the oldest thing written, which would make it the most susceptible to the slowdown, and could explain the cfdisk slowness. So after the data copy, I tested this: So yes, it is something related to this, probably. Diagnosis B: "just" the Samsung Evo bug. So I proceed to (try to) upgrade the firmware: Uh oh, so it's more than this - the SSD seems to be actually broken. I don't have much experience with SSDs, I used for many years an Intel X25-M and more recently I have a couple of Samsung 840 Pro, but I never had issues until now, so maybe the cheap Evo is just cheap and fast Note that during all this drama, SMART gives good info about SSD, and SMART tests are perfect (short/long). Just a number of UDMA CRC errors so thanks for nothing. I try to the firmware upgrade a few times, I give up. Diagnosis C: SSD is just plain broken. I'll send the SSD for a replacement/fix, so (even though it's encrypted), let's try to erase it first (as I can still read/write to it). And since just dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdX is too common, let's try a builtin (ATA) erase! After fighting with hdparm and the fact that my BIOS does indeed "security freeze" on the drives (so you can't change the security settings nor erase the drives), and finding an article on the net that gives a few workaround, I manage to "unfreeze" it by not only live unplugging the SATA cable, but also the power cable, and plugging them back in. Time to erase. Side-note here: So, especially given the very fast ENHANCED erase, I now believe the SSD is truly broken. Diagnosis C rules. And finally, just confusion After the SSD erase, reading (the zeros) from the SSD is really fast: more than 500MB/s, as expected. I also try once more to upgrade the firmware for the Evo bug, and it works flawlessly this time. Even rebooting the machine many times works without problems, the SSD is seen every single time. I still can't make it work well over the USB3 bridge (but I'm not very convinced that device work well, since Linux does apply quirks when it detects it). But it doesn't give any ATA errors this time, and it works (read and write) consistently fast (as per the Evo specs). I still have to let it go through a long burnin with verification, but a short one works fine, so at this point I'm just very confused as what was (is?) the actual problem with this device, and why it behaves so strange Was the laptop broken? Clearly no. Was the SSD broken, or just impacted by the slowdown issue? Time will tell. I'll put it through the paces, and see. But unless I replace it, I'll keep this just for "fast cache" use cases, and not to hold real data. Yep, computers are fun!

23 November 2014

Iustin Pop: Debian, Debian

Due to some technical issues, I've been without access to my lists subscription email for a bit more than a week. Once I regained access and proceeded to read the batch of emails, I was - once again - shocked. Shocked at the amount of emails spent on the systemd issue, shocked at the number of people resigning, shocked at the amount of mud thrown. I just hope that the GR results finally will mean silence and getting over the last 3-6 months. For the record: However, some of the more recent emails on -private give me more hope, so I'm looking forward to the next 6 months. I wonder how this will all look in two years? (Side-note: emacs-nox shows me the italic word above as italic in text mode: I never saw that before, and didn't know, that it's possible to have italic fonts in xterm! What is this trickery it seems to be related to the font I use, fun!)

Iustin Pop: Debian, Debian

Due to some technical issues, I've been without access to my lists subscription email for a bit more than a week. Once I regained access and proceeded to read the batch of emails, I was - once again - shocked. Shocked at the amount of emails spent on the systemd issue, shocked at the number of people resigning, shocked at the amount of mud thrown. I just hope that the GR results finally will mean silence and getting over the last 3-6 months. For the record: However, some of the more recent emails on -private give me more hope, so I'm looking forward to the next 6 months. I wonder how this will all look in two years? (Side-note: emacs-nox shows me the italic word above as italic in text mode: I never saw that before, and didn't know, that it's possible to have italic fonts in xterm! What is this trickery it seems to be related to the font I use, fun!)

12 October 2014

Iustin Pop: Day trip on the Olympic Peninsula

Day trip on the Olympic Peninsula TL;DR: drove many kilometres on very nice roads, took lots of pictures, saw sunshine and fog and clouds, an angry ocean and a calm one, a quiet lake and lots and lots of trees: a very well spent day. Pictures at http://photos.k1024.org/Daytrips/Olympic-Peninsula-2014/. Sometimes I travel to the US on business, and as such I've been a few times in the Seattle area. Until this summer, when I had my last trip there, I was content to spend any extra days (weekend or such) just visiting Seattle itself, or shopping (I can spend hours in the REI store!), or working on my laptop in the hotel. This summer though, I thought - I should do something a bit different. Not too much, but still - no sense in wasting both days of the weekend. So I thought maybe driving to Mount Rainier, or something like that. On the Wednesday of my first week in Kirkland, as I was preparing my drive to the mountain, I made the mistake of scrolling the map westwards, and I saw for the first time the Olympic Peninsula; furthermore, I was zoomed in enough that I saw there was a small road right up to the north-west corner. Intrigued, I zoomed further and learned about Cape Flattery ( the northwestern-most point of the contiguous United States! ), so after spending a bit time reading about it, I was determined to go there. Easier said than done - from Kirkland, it's a 4h 40m drive (according to Google Maps), so it would be a full day on the road. I was thinking of maybe spending the night somewhere on the peninsula then, in order to actually explore the area a bit, but from Wednesday to Saturday it was a too short notice - all hotels that seemed OK-ish were fully booked. I spent some time trying to find something, even not directly on my way, but I failed to find any room. What I did manage to do though, is to learn a bit about the area, and to realise that there's a nice loop around the whole peninsula - the 104 from Kirkland up to where it meets the 101N on the eastern side, then take the 101 all the way to Port Angeles, Lake Crescent, near Lake Pleasant, then south toward Forks, crossing the Hoh river, down to Ruby Beach, down along the coast, crossing the Queets River, east toward Lake Quinault, south toward Aberdeen, then east towards Olympia and back out of the wilderness, into the highway network and back to Kirkland. This looked like an awesome road trip, but it is as long as it sounds - around 8 hours (continuous) drive, though skipping Cape Flattery. Well, I said to myself, something to keep in mind for a future trip to this area, with a night in between. I was still planning to go just to Cape Flattery and back, without realising at that point that this trip was actually longer (as you drive on smaller, lower-speed roads). Preparing my route, I read about the queues at the Edmonds-Kingston ferry, so I was planning to wake up early on the weekend, go to Cape Flattery, and go right back (maybe stop by Lake Crescent). Saturday comes, I - of course - sleep longer than my trip schedule said, and start the day in a somewhat cloudy weather, driving north from my hotel on Simonds Road, which was quite nicer than the usual East-West or North-South roads in this area. The weather was becoming nicer, however as I was nearing the ferry terminal and the traffic was getting denser, I started suspecting that I'll spend a quite a bit of time waiting to board the ferry. And unfortunately so it was (photo altered to hide some personal information): Waiting for the ferry. The weather at least was nice, so I tried to enjoy it and simply observe the crowd - people were looking forward to a weekend relaxing, so nobody seemed annoyed by the wait. After almost half an hour, time to get on the ferry - my first time on a ferry in US, yay! But it was quite the same as in Europe, just that the ship was much larger. Once I secured the car, I went up deck, and was very surprised to be treated with some excellent views: Harbour view Looking towards the sun   and away from it The crossing was not very short, but it seemed so, because of the view, the sun, the water and the wind. Soon we were nearing the other shore; also, see how well panorama software deals with waves :P! Near the other shore And I was finally on the "real" part of the trip. The road was quite interesting. Taking the 104 North, crossing the "Hood Canal Floating Bridge" (my, what a boring name), then finally joining the 101 North. The environment was quite varied, from bare plains and hills, to wooded areas, to quite dense forests, then into inhabited areas - quite a long stretch of human presence, from the Sequim Bay to Port Angeles. Port Angeles surprised me: it had nice views of the ocean, and an interesting port (a few big ships), but it was much smaller than I expected. The 101 crosses it, and in less than 10 minutes or so it was already over. I expected something nicer, based on the name, but Anyway, onwards! Soon I was at a crossroads and had to decide: I could either follow the 101, crossing the Elwha River and then to Lake Crescent, then go north on the 113/112, or go right off 101 onto 112, and follow it until close to my goal. I took the 112, because on the map it looked "nicer", and closer to the shore. Well, the road itself was nice, but quite narrow and twisty here and there, and there was some annoying traffic, so I didn't enjoy this segment very much. At least it had the very interesting property (to me) that whenever I got closer to the ocean, the sun suddenly disappeared, and I was finding myself in the fog: Foggy road So my plan to drive nicely along the coast failed. At one point, there was even heavy smoke (not fog!), and I wondered for a moment how safe was to drive out there in the wilderness (there were other cars though, so I was not alone). Only quite a bit later, close to Neah Bay, did I finally see the ocean: I saw a small parking spot, stopped, and crossing a small line of trees I found myself in a small cove? bay? In any case, I had the impression I stepped out of the daily life in the city and out into the far far wilderness: Dead trees on the beach Trees growing on a rock Small panorama of the cove There was a couple, sitting on chairs, just enjoying the view. I felt very much intruding, behaving like I did as a tourist: running in, taking pictures, etc., so I tried at least to be quiet . I then quickly moved on, since I still had some road ahead of me. Soon I entered Neah Bay, and was surprised to see once more blue, and even more blue. I'm a sucker for blue, whether sky blue or sea blue , so I took a few more pictures (watch out for the evil fog in the second one): View towards Neah Bay port Sea view from Neah Bay Well, the town had some event, and there were lots of people, so I just drove on, now on the last stretch towards the cape. The road here was also very interesting, yet another environment - I was driving on Cape Flattery Road, which cuts across the tip of the peninsula (quite narrow here) along the Waatch River and through its flooding plains (at least this is how it looked to me). Then it finally starts going up through the dense forest, until it reaches the parking lot, and from there, one goes on foot towards the cape. It's a very easy and nice walk (not a hike), and the sun was shining very nicely through the trees: Sunny forest Sun shinning down Wooden path But as I reached the peak of the walk, and started descending towards the coast, I was surprised, yet again, by fog: Ugly fog again! I realised that probably this means the cape is fully in fog, so I won't have any chance to enjoy the view. Boy, was I wrong! There are three viewpoints on the cape, and at each one I was just "wow" and "aah" at the view. Even thought it was not a sunny summer view, and there was no blue in sight, the combination between the fog (which was hiding the horizon and even the closer islands), the angry ocean which was throwing wave after wave at the shore, making a loud noise, and the fact that even this seemingly inhospitable area was just teeming with life, was both unexpected and awesome. I took here waay to many pictures, here are just a couple inlined: First view at the cape Birds 'enjoying' the weather Foggy shore I spent around half an hour here, just enjoying the rawness of nature. It was so amazing to see life encroaching on each bit of land, even though it was not what I would consider a nice place. Ah, how we see everything through our own eyes! The walk back was through fog again, and at one point it switched over back to sunny. Driving back on the same road was quite different, knowing what lies at its end. On this side, the road had some parking spots, so I managed to stop and take a picture - even though this area was much less wild, it still has that outdoors flavour, at least for me: Waatch River Back in Neah Bay, I stopped to eat. I had a place in mind from TripAdvisor, and indeed - I was able to get a custom order pizza at "Linda's Woodfired Kitchen". Quite good, and I ate without hurry, looking at the people walking outside, as they were coming back from the fair or event that was taking place. While eating, a somewhat disturbing thought was going through my mind. It was still early, around two to half past two, so if I went straight back to Kirkland I would be early at the hotel. But it was also early enough that I could - in theory at least - still do the "big round-trip". I was still rummaging the thought as I left On the drive back I passed once more near Sekiu, Washington, which is a very small place but the map tells me it even has an airport! Fun, and the view was quite nice (a bit of blue before the sea is swallowed by the fog): Sekiu view After passing Sekiu and Clallam Bay, the 112 curves inland and goes on a bit until you are at the crossroads: to the left the 112 continues, back the same way I came; to the right, it's the 113, going south until it meets the 101. I looked left - remembering the not-so-nice road back, I looked south - where a very appealing, early afternoon sun was beckoning - so I said, let's take the long way home! It's just a short stretch on the 113, and then you're on the 101. The 101 is a very nice road, wide enough, and it goes through very very nice areas. Here, west to south-west of the Olympic Mountains, it's a very different atmosphere from the 112/101 that I drove on in the morning; much warmer colours, a bit different tree types (I think), and more flat. I soon passed through Forks, which is one of the places I looked at when searching for hotels. I did so without any knowledge of the town itself (its wikipedia page is quite drab), so imagine my surprise when a month later I learned from a colleague that this is actually a very important place for vampire-book fans. Oh my, and I didn't even stop! This town also had some event, so I just drove on, enjoying the (mostly empty) road. My next planned waypoint was Ruby Beach, and I was looking forward to relaxing a bit under the warm sun - the drive was excellent, weather perfect, so I was watching the distance countdown on my Garmin. At two miles out, the "Near waypoint Ruby Beach" message appeared, and two seconds later the sun went out. What the I was hoping this is something temporary, but as I slowly drove the remaining mile I couldn't believe my eyes that I was, yet again, finding myself in the fog I park the car, thinking that asking for a refund would at least allow me to feel better - but it was I who planned the trip! So I resigned myself, thinking that possibly this beach is another special location that is always in the fog. However, getting near the beach it was clear that it was not so - some people were still in their bathing suits, just getting dressed, so it seems I was just unlucky with regards to timing. However, I the beach itself was nice, even in the fog (I later saw online sunny pictures, and it is quite beautiful), the the lush trees reach almost to the shore, and the way the rocks are sitting on the beach: A lonely dinghy Driftwood  and human construction People on the beach Since the weather was not that nice, I took a few more pictures, then headed back and started driving again. I was soo happy that the weather didn't clear at the 2 mile mark (it was not just Ruby Beach!), but alas - it cleared as soon as the 101 turns left and leaves the shore, as it crosses the Queets river. Driving towards my next planned stop was again a nice drive in the afternoon sun, so I think it simply was not a sunny day on the Pacific shore. Maybe seas and oceans have something to do with fog and clouds ! In Switzerland, I'm very happy when I see fog, since it's a somewhat rare event (and seeing mountains disappearing in the fog is nice, since it gives the impression of a wider space). After this day, I was a bit fed up with fog for a while Along the 101 one reaches Lake Quinault, which seemed pretty nice on the map, and driving a bit along the lake - a local symbol, the "World's largest spruce tree". I don't know what a spruce tree is, but I like trees, so I was planning to go there, weather allowing. And the weather did cooperate, except that the tree was not so imposing as I thought! In any case, I was glad to stretch my legs a bit: Path to largest spruce tree Largest spruce tree, far view Largest spruce tree, closer view Very short path back to the road However, the most interesting thing here in Quinault was not this tree, but rather - the quiet little town and the view on the lake, in the late afternoon sun: Quinault Quinault Lake view The entire town was very very quiet, and the sun shining down on the lake gave an even stronger sense of tranquillity. No wind, not many noises that tell of human presence, just a few, and an overall sense of peace. It was quite the opposite of the Cape Flattery and a very nice way to end the trip. Well, almost end - I still had a bit of driving ahead. Starting from Quinault, driving back and entering the 101, driving down to Aberdeen: Afternoon ride then turning east towards Olympia, and back onto the highways. As to Aberdeen and Olympia, I just drove through, so I couldn't make any impression of them. The old harbour and the rusted things in Aberdeen were a bit interesting, but the day was late so I didn't stop. And since the day shouldn't end without any surprises, during the last profile change between walking and driving in Quinault, my GPS decided to reset its active maps list and I ended up with all maps activated. This usually is not a problem, at least if you follow a pre-calculated route, but I did trigger recalculation as I restarted my driving, so the Montana was trying to decide on which map to route me - between the Garmin North America map and the Open StreeMap one, the result was that it never understood which road I was on. It always said "Drive to I5", even though I was on I5. Anyway, thanks to road signs, and no thanks to "just this evening ramp closures", I was able to arrive safely at my hotel. Overall, a very successful, if long trip: around 725 kilometres, 10h:30m moving, 13h:30m total: Track picture There were many individual good parts, but the overall think about this road trip was that I was able to experience lots of different environments of the peninsula on the same day, and that overall it's a very very nice area. The downside was that I was in a rush, without being able to actually stop and enjoy the locations I visited. And there's still so much to see! A two nights trip sound just about right, with some long hikes in the rain forest, and afternoons spent on a lake somewhere. Another not so optimal part was that I only had my "travel" camera (a Nikon 1 series camera, with a small sensor), which was a bit overwhelmed here and there by the situation. It was fortunate that the light was more or less good, but looking back at the pictures, how I wish that I had my "serious" DSLR So, that means I have two reasons to go back! Not too soon though, since Mount Rainier is also a good location to visit . If the pictures didn't bore you yet, the entire gallery is on my smugmug site. In any case, thanks for reading!

15 June 2014

Iustin Pop: Edge of Tomorrow, book vs. movie

Warning: some spoilers ahead. A few months ago I saw the trailer for Edge of Tomorrow (film). Normally I don't look for trailers, probably this was shared on G+ by someone; but the basic idea behind the trailer was interesting enough I tried to look for more information about the (then upcoming) movie. To my surprise, I learned that this Hollywood movie is based on a Japanese novel - All You Need Is Kill. Since (broadly speaking) Japanese style is quite different from Hollywood style, I became even more interested. So I bought the book, and went through it quite quickly - I liked it a lot, and for the most part is has kept me reading and reading. I would say the book is quite straightforward, with a bitter-sweet ending that is what I (dreaded and) expected from it. Fast forward a few months, and yesterday I saw the movie. I had somewhat lower expectations for it compared to the book, but I was surprised at how they managed to morph the Japanese setting in the book into an European one and give a good introduction into the plot. The downside is that they had to make it somewhat melodramatic here and there, and that they added quite a bit of extra plot to fill in the time; on the other hand, it skipped a lot of background detail that the book brought and which explains the setting of the war. The biggest change however was to the overall plot line: the book is only about a single battle, and makes it clear at the end that the war is far from over. The movie, in grand Hollywood style, solves the entire war in one neat swipe, and has a quite happy ending. Which is not bad per se, but doesn't have the same emotional impact as the book. Oh, and they made the aliens scarier but in a strange way prettier (or better said less alien). Interesting that they felt the need to do it: the aliens in the book were (definitely) scary by their behaviour/abilities, yet they had to make them "look scary" in a way that connects to our visceral feelings, rather to the logical fear that a non-earth-like life form would bring. Speaking about the cast: I would still have preferred the Japanese setting of the book compared to the more western one in the movie, but at least one of the two main characters in the movie had a well-chosen person playing it. Overall, I'd give the book a 4/5 rating, and the movie (still) a 3/5. I enjoyed both, and the main plot idea is, if not new in SF, still appealing.

Next.

Previous.