Long story short: I'm busy. These days are quite busy. I'm working (you know, I need to eat so I've a job), to the point that I have many vacation days to take. So I'll be in holidays and offline from friday for 10 days. I'm still working on awesome developement. Code base is quite good now, so I don't do 30 commits/day anymore, and update are less frequent. It's very nice that the users base is increasing every day, without polluting the mailing list and the BTS with bug reports and request for documentation. That means we at least achieve to do a not-so-bad code with a not-so-bad documentation. The feature requests list is still a bit long, but I think it will decrease in the next weeks. On a human side, that's the biggest project I ever managed and it's very pleasant to have so many users and contributors. I've some more project I'd like to work too. I plan to write a small git stats generator in Python when I'll have some more spare time. I'd also like to do some developement work around LDAP and Python for my servers, but I did not find the courage to do it neither the good library to handle LDAP object correctly (a DB_Object way would be good). I'm always following Debian developement with one eye, so I'm not totally out. I really hope I could to some bug squashing like I did with several Debian buddies 2 years ago for the etch release. Stay tuned.

Since a few days I'm a happy customer of Lichtblick, the biggest electric utility (Stromanbieter) in Germany which provides 100% green energy (or kostrom as it's called in Germany). Why? I was getting tired of all those hypocrites and liars (a.k.a. politicians) who keep on talking about global warming and renewable energy, but fail to produce any real results since many, many years now. So I decided to do my (small) part to help reduce CO₂ emissions, the greenhouse effect, and global warming. After measuring the energy consumption of all my power-sucking devices and replacing or turning off some of them, and after replacing all lightbulbs with highly efficient energy saving lightbulbs, changing the electric utility was the next logical step. First try (failed) As probably almost everyone in Munich, I was a customer of the Stadtwerke M nchen (SWM). According to the last electricity bill I got from them, their sources of energy are: 17% renewable energy, 83% fossil energy sources, 0% nuclear power. Well, at least they don't use nuclear power, that's a big plus IMO, but 83% polluting, fossil crap? Thanks, but no thanks. So I opted to use their kostrom M-Natur tariff, which (they claim) provides 100% renewable energy. They use the so-called Aufpreismodell (sorry, German only), i.e. you pay a few cents extra per kWh, and this extra money is invested in renewable energy sources (mostly small hydropower plants around Munich). As I found out a few hours later (d'oh!) this "Aufpreismodell" is not really ideal (you still pay a conventional electric utility instead of one with 100% renewable energy, for instance). In addition, I stubled over a petition for the city of Munich to stop investing in a new fossil fuel power plant (bituminous coal, to be more precise). Which I promptly signed (and which went to several local parties including the greens, the mayer of Munich, and others).
Now, this is what I call hypocritical behaviour — on the one side they claim/pretend to be environmentally friendly by promoting their "M-Natur" tariff, and at the same time they invest even more money in fossil fuels? WTF? Anyway, it seems the petition did have at least some impact, the aren't allowed to invest more money into that fossil fuel powerplant than they already did. For me that was more than enough reason to immediately revoke my M-Natur tariff, and what's more, I switched to a completely different company now, Lichtblick (see also the respective Wikipedia page). I'm not willing to support such energy policies/politics with my money anymore. Lichblick Lichtblick is an kostromanbieter in Germany, supposedly the biggest one.
Their "energy mix" is 100% renewable energy (which is correct, unlike with SWM, as they do not own any additional fossil fuel plants). 76% of that is hydropower, FWIW. Their prices may be a bit higher than those of conventional electric utilities, but not all that much; you might even pay less, depending on where you live and which tariff you have now. You can use their price calculator to find out. Btw, some other good choices in Germany are Greenpeace energy, Elektrizit tswerke Sch nau, and Naturstrom AG. How the switch went Easy. Grab the respective PDF, print it, fill in the required info, and send it to them. Alternatively, they also offer online registration. It'll take a few weeks until the switch is performed; they have to contact your current electric utility etc. In my case it took ca. 4 weeks. There are no additional costs for switching. There is no "downtime" whatsoever (not even a few seconds), German law requires that you always reliably get your electricity 24/7 (and it indeed worked just fine for me). So, that's that. From now on I'm happily using green energy all day (and night) long. I'm doing my part in Saving The Planet (tm) and I sleep a bit better at night... P.S. No, I'm not getting paid by Lichtblick (or anybody else) to write this.

I previously posted about Interesting Ideas from George Monbiot, one of which was to establish individual emissions trading. Gyros Geier disagrees with this and cites the current emission trading schemes as evidence. There are several fundamental differences between George’s idea and the current implementations of emission trading. The biggest flaw in current emission trading schemes is that the emission credits are assigned to the worst polluters. George is proposing that an equal amount be assigned to all citizens. Assigning credits to the worst polluters is another form of by the polluting industries. The way to solve these problems through emission trading is to start by fairly assigning the credits (and what better way than to equally distribute them among all citizens) and to then reduce the amounts assigned over time. Gyros claims that emission trading which allows people who use little emissions to get large credits will cause people to have resources used in their name which they would not otherwise use. The solution to this is to assign to each citizen in a country a set of credits that is equal to the use by someone on the median income. Note specifically that setting credits equal to average use is not the right thing to do, the vast majority of the population produce significantly less emissions than average. The result of such a policy would be that people who produce median emissions (and most of whom would be close to the median income) would reduce their emissions as much as possible so that they could sell the credits, they would even have an incentive to spend money to reduce their emissions (for example by installing better insulation in their home) as it would be an investment. Then people who produce more emissions than the median would be forced to buy credits to support their extravagant lifestyle. This would give a significant reduction in emissions (the median income is about half the average income and I presume that the emissions produced are in line with income). Gyros also makes the startling claim that emissions trading increases emissions. I can’t imagine that being possible, in fact I can’t imagine how the coal industry could do more damage to the environment if they tried. Finally, taking a positive approach to blogging is a really good idea. I welcome discussion with people who want to claim that my ideas (and the ideas that I quote) are bad, but if you are going to do this please describe something that you consider to be better.

Share This

The Australian has a new Environment writer named Matthew Warren who has a history of doing PR work for the coal industry. This has the potential for insightful articles based on knowledge of what the industry is doing or for PR work for the coal industry masquerading as journalism. Unfortunately it seems like the latter is what we are getting. Matthew’s latest effort is an article claiming a $6.5 billion cost to home-owners because of an “effective ban” on electric hot water systems that Labor might impose. Unfortunately he doesn’t clearly state what an effective ban is, but does note that apartments are exempt. The specific claim that is used as the basis for the article is that solar hot-water systems cost $2,800 more than electric systems, and that after the solar hot-water rebate ($1,000) the additional cost would be $650,000,000 per annum, and that a period of 10 years would be required to replace all hot-water systems thus giving a cost of $6,500,000,000. So I presume that he expects that there would be 650,000,000/1,800 hot water systems installed per year which would be about 361,111. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics there were 6,744,800 households in Australia in 2003. Matthew’s article states that about 40% of homes can have gas hot-water systems fitted that comply with the proposed new regulations, given that and the exemption for apartment buildings let’s assume for the sake of discussion that 50% of homes would require a solar hot-water system. Assuming that each household has a separate hot-water system that means that for these claims to hole we need an average expected lifetime for a hot water system of 6,744,800/2/361,111 = about 9.3 years. If the currently installed hot-water systems are expected to be replaced in 9.3 years then we can expect that hot water systems tend to survive for an average of about 18.6 years. I wonder if that number is correct (some google searching didn’t turn up an answer). One of the disadvantages of old-fashioned media is that they tend not to include calculations or cite sources adequately so we can’t easily verify or disprove their claims, I wonder if this is deliberate… Matthew admits that using a solar hot water system can be expected to save households $300 per annum in electricity expenses, I presume that this is based on current energy prices and that the savings can therefore be expected to increase as energy prices increase (we have a lack of water which is increasing the cost of producing electricity from coal). Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the typical home-owner has a mortgage, the Commonwealth Bank is currently advertising mortgages with a rate of just over 8%, the way things work is that there are various criteria for getting a discount rate which most borrowers can meet so the result will be slightly below 8%. If a solar hot water system costs $1,800 extra to install and the money comes from a mortgage then every year it will cost the home owner about 8% of $1,800 which is about $144 (a saving of $156 per annum). If the solar hot water system saves the home owner $300 per annum then at any interest rate below 300/1800 (16.66%) they will make money. If there was no government subsidy and the entire $2,800 extra was paid by the home owner then at 8% interest it will cost $224 per annum (a saving of $76 per annum) and the interest rate would need to increase to 300/2800 = 10.7% to make it break even. So for solar hot water to not save the home-owner money we need to have a significant increase in interest rates (which incidentally would bankrupt many home owners), AND to have electricity prices remain the same (which would require even more of our tax money to be spent on supporting the coal industry). Finally Matthew complains that the solar hot-water rebate could cost the government $4 billion over the course of the scheme (the next 10 years). This sounds like a lot of money until you think about the 9 billion dollars a year that the government spends on subsidies for the coal, oil, and gas industries! On the current course the government would spend 90 billion dollars of our tax money subsidising polluting industries that cause climate change, but Matthew opposes spending 4 billion subsidising technology that prevents pollution and reduces climate change.

Share This

Thanks for sending me the article and someone also sent me a link to an accessible copy here. And remember, plants work wonders to curb indoor air pollution, which can be as bad or worse than outdoor ones. Here is a list of some of the best polluting fightin’ plants . I used to have many many many plants but when you move nearly every year, you slowly have to get rid of them. last year in Canada we had one and we had to sadly part way with the plant that has been with us for 5 years. But now that I have moved somewhere that will be my home for a bit, I am going to go a little nuts with the plants again. I just love having them. Now I need to find a good greenhouse in NYC that does not charge an arm and a leg.

I am finally catching up with the remarkably thick goulash of email and blogs entries that comes from traveling for well over a month and today I read one in particular When is Open Source not Open Source? that captivated my interest for it compellingly addresses the dangers that follow from diluting, or one might say hijacking, the term open source. When people learn that I study “free software” one of the most common questions I get asked is: why did I chose free software over open source? The answer is quite simple: given that the bread and butter of my research covers ethics, freedom, and liberalism, free software is the obvious path to follow, yet I also feel like a lot of my work is still relevant to the open source camp because of the affinities between the two. I have long maintained that the ideological gulf between open source and free software is not so great nor impassable, but more modest. As most know, both share a certain strong commitment to access and in a strict technical sense they refer to the same set of licenses. Philosophically there is agreement that openness and, especially, non-discrimination are essential for the quality of software and often by close extension, the vibrancy of community responsible for the software. Of course, when pontificating the ramifications and implications of openness, they do part company and enter into different territories. Free software tends to flag rights and freedoms, while open source meanders into a discussion of markets, business, and competition and in this regard they do craft different visions of the social world and human behavior, etc. But the case that Karl Fogel writes about, where OSI is strongly opposing the use of the term open source for licenses that don’t adhere to the definition demonstrates where the two positions join. As Michael Tiemann from the OSI succinctly put it:

The FSF may have got the orthodoxy wrong, and the OSI may have got the interpretation wrong, but we both agree that prohibition of commercial use without special permission is antithetical to both positions.

There is a unmistakable kernel of agreement and it is great to see the OSI taking such a strong stance in this regard. Now, David Richard’s response, who seeks, I think, to essentially dilute the term open source, is as (or perhaps even more) fascinating for in a nut shell, and using a lot of florid religious imagery, it accuses the OSI of being too rigid! In his own words:

I believe the OSI has a wonderful opportunity to continue being relevant and helping to lead the movement forward. If, however, y’all choose to define your denomination of this religion in a way that we don’t fit in, that’s fine. No hard feelings. It’s your choice. You’ll ultimately be excluding a large congregation and we for one will continue trying to build a church made up of others like ourselves.

In response, I would say that the goal of F/OSS is not to be inclusive of anyone who wants to release bits of source code, but to create the conditions under which software, as it has been defined by the community, can be created. Join the church if you would like to make free/open source software as defined and you can go elsewhere (i.e., create a different term) if you are creating something different, even if it is only slightly different. Integrity matters. And again inclusiveness, if it comes at the expense of the main goal, is not a boon but a danger to F/OSS. The OSI will remain relevant by halting the dilution of the term OSI, not by expanding the definition so that it is left with no substance. And in contradistinction to what David Richard maintains, however, there is a great degree of flexibility within this domain but it does not lie in the strict definition of F/OSS but in the realm of interpretation. You are also free, as Mako and I have argued elsewhere to interpret the significance of F/OSS in multiple ways. And I think this is where the political strength of free software lies. There is interplay between a well-defined goal (in this case for creating free software) and a more flexible realm of interpreting the significance of these technical practice. And we wold lose and I might add, a lot if we became flexible about the strict definition of F/OSS and inflexible about its political significance. I get irked with folks like David Richards who would like to bend open source rules to meet their (often commercial) interests and I find it pretty na ve when folks say the political significance of F/OSS is just x (or worse should be x) for in reality its political significance lies in the fact that it has spawned multiple types of political and economic projects. And there is something almost playfully ironic, (or at least it makes me smile) in this fact. Though there is strict definition contained withing F/OSS, this strictness has, at least to some extent, encouraged by an extreme and very healthy form of political proliferation and promiscuity. More than anyone else I know, Mako has most passionately and thoughtfully argued for the importance of what I would call political clarity and integrity. That is, the importance of having a well articulated definition for social movements, for they act, as he says a rallying point to realize a social movement. Urging the Creative Commons to learn from F/OSS and dare to simultaneously narrow and more clearly define their goals, he states it quite nicely in the following terms:

Free software advocates have been able to use the free software definition as the rallying point for a powerful social movement. Free software, like the concept of freedom in any freedom movement, is something that one can demand, something that one can protest for, and something that one can work toward. Working toward these goals, free and open source software movements have created the GNU/Linux operating system and billions of lines of freely available computer code.

In essence, a definition that people can abide by, respect, and perhaps eventually cherish is the condition of possibility to make working political code. And given how hard it is to make social change happen (at least in comparison to build computer code), we should learn from what F/OSS has to offer. And at the same time there is another lesson embedded in F/OSS. The Free Software Definition is well defined; but it must be emphasized, narrowly so. It does not try to do everything and have everyone pledge allegiance to an inordinately complex set of commitments. Clarity, narrowness, and well-defined goals –> these three attributes have powered it far and wide and I hope it remains so. Now, since the term open source is not trademarked, we are left with the problem of how to challenge the current hijacking of the term. For the solution, I will leave you with Karl Fogel, who I think proposes a good solution:

Note that the OSI s objection is not to the Zimbra license per se. The objection is just to Zimbra s calling that license open source . They can use any license they want, but they shouldn t call it open source unless it actually is. Freedom is freedom, and no amount of spin will change that. So what should we do about this? The term open source isn t trademarked. Years ago, the OSI tried to register it, but it was apparently too generic. …But there is public opinion. What Danese and Michael are proposing doing is organizing a lot of open source developers (and I mean open source according to the traditional definition, the one the OSI and I and most other open source developers I know adhere to) to stand up and, basically, say All of us agree on what the definition of open source is, and we reject as non-open source any license that does not comply with the letter and spirit of the Open Source Definition.

The news that James Clark has started blogging has been universally and justifiably well received. I've now added him to Planet XMLhack for your XML-focused viewing pleasure.I'll be following eagerly. Clark has a refreshingly clear and considered viewpoint, free from many of the tribalist undercurrents polluting today's technology blogging. 

I got an enormous amount out of the just-finished European FooCamp, with lots of thoughts sparking off and interesting things to consider. Jon Mountjoy proposed a theory to me that Web 2.0 and the enterprise weren't in fact as far apart as a naive observe might imagine. He reckons that mashups, tagging and the like do happen within the enterprise, and in fact are often solving harder problems than found in the wilds of the web. There is a lot in common between Web 2.0 and SOA (even aside from buzzword compliance factors). This is a theme I'd like to follow through. Who are the hackers on the inside of companies, and what stories do they have to tell? Gavin Starks from Global Cool really opened our eyes again to the problem of the environment, and introduced the interesting position that Global Cool are taking. If you want to do anything real right now to avoid catastrophic consequences, it's too late to wait for government initiatives to bear fruit. Private citizens must act too. And that's the aim of Global Cool: educating and lobbying the individual, not the government. I was struck, as were others, by the unfortunate irony that conferences have a big environmental cost in the travel involved, as we sat there among people from many countries. I want to now investigate how XTech could be better in this regard, through carbon offsetting and similar schemes. I guess being in Paris is already a good start, as trains are apparently only 25% as polluting as planes, though this still seems like a lot! Claus Dahl led an interesting and wide-ranging discussion about Second Life as a prototyping space for real life invention. Too many themes there to summarise neatly, but we did have an entertaining side discussion about Second Life's potential environmental impact due to CPU consumption and data centers. One suggestion was that objects and activities could be annotated in-world with their environmental cost. Simon Willison energetically explained OpenID, a decentralized identity system proposed by SixApart and already live in systems such as LiveJournal. It attempts to solve the problem of a username and password pair for every site you visit, without the controversy of centralisation suffered by projects such as Microsoft's passport. Simon demonstrated a proof of concept that I think will be a very neat answer to site providers who ask "why should I support OpenID?" (Sneak preview: because if you don't, it's going to be astonishingly easy for a middleman to provide it, and you wouldn't want that.) I also took time to learn about something I'd been interested in but not known much about, 3D printing and "fabbing". Simon Wardley led a great overview of current systems for 3D printing and their various attributes, and indicated where the current trends were going. It doesn't seem so unrealistic that there'll soon be affordable 3D printing bureaux similar to walk-in reprographic facilities like Kinkos. Plenty more went on that I've not got time to transcribe, but I think will flavour my thinking over the months to come. I was fortunate to be among some incredibly intelligent and welcoming people. My thanks to O'Reilly for putting this on, and to everyone else who went for being inspiring companions. Oh, one more thing. Belgians are excellent at confectionery.

Sun is worried about compatibility in a world where Java is open source. I can’t say I blame them, and I say this as someone who spends a majority of his time thinking about compatibility in the Linux world, where we’ve managed to hold it together but still have a lot of work to do to match the relative consistency of the Microsoft alternatives (Windows and .NET, among others). After all, a platform is useless if there’s not a single, standard way for developers to target it. Question is: Does open source inherently lead to compatibility problems? Hardly. How many incompatible versions of, say, Apache are there? Or the Ps of the LAMP stack (Perl, PHP, Python)? Or MySQL? GNOME? KDE? BIND? CUPS? The only reason “Linux” and compatibility often come up in the same breath is because the term is used to describe so many different things. Yes, “Linux” has compatibility issues if you’re comparing Red Hat, SUSE, and Debian, but the actual “Linux” used by each of these “Linuxes” (that is, the Linux kernel) have few if any compatibility issues. It’s more the bits around the edges, like slightly different versions of core components with slightly different ABIs or APIs, not to mention the independently developed subsystems for configuration etc., that lead to the compatibility issues. If anything, the fact that the various Linux distributions share so many of the same open source components makes them far more compatible than the various implementations of UNIX ever were. James Gosling, the father of Java, highlights JavaScript as an example of the situation they’re trying to avoid in a recent podcast with Dan Farber. Today, he explains, there are dozens of AJAX toolkits, and the main reason for this is the need to paper over incompatibilities between the various JavaScript implementations. He’s absolutely right. If anything, though, the JavaScript situation is a good example of what might have been if we knew as much about the power of open source in setting standards in the 1990s as we know today. There are numerous JavaScript implementations today because there wasn’t a de facto standard implementation developers could just use when they needed one way back when (like there was with Apache etc. and wasn’t with some of the problematic “Linux” technologies like configuration management). What if there had been an open source JavaScript all along that became a de facto standard like Apache did? Would the AJAX world look any different today? Ironically, then, Java looks a whole lot more fragmented on its current trajectory as the various open source efforts (Apache Harmony, GCJ, GNU Classpath, etc.)—which exist only because the de facto standard implementation isn’t open source—mature and are more tightly integrated into the Linux distributions. So, what lessons does Linux have to offer Sun as it contemplates the future of Java and, more to the point, how to open source it? First of all, far from being a surefire path to turning Java into a veritable tower of babel, open source could actually help promote compatibility in the Java world. For one thing, if Sun’s Java implementation was open source, history shows there would be no need for another implementation. Case in point: Remember the other Harmony project? Secondly, what’s in a name? Absolutely everything. It’s entirely possible to open source Java without diluting the Java brand and the compatibility guarantees that brand promises. Most famously, this strategy has worked very well for Red Hat—Red Hat’s platform is open source, so you can fork it, but you can’t call the result “Red Hat”, which preserves the compatibility guarantee a successful platform requires. It’s not too late, but we’re rapidly approaching a time when it will be. For one thing, the open source implementations are getting better, and once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s damned near impossible to get it back in (see, again, JavaScript). As I said the other day, “open source Java” isn’t so much about licensing as it is about ubiquity, though licensing can get in the way of ubiquity. We’re almost there. Let’s take the final step we need to take to make Linux/Java as well integrated as Windows/.NET.

Rosa Parks died today at the age of 92. For those who were asleep in US History, she made waves by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white person on a segregated bus and being arrested for it.

Putting the impact of her actions into perspective, here's Wikipedia:

On August 30, 1994, aged 81, Rosa Parks was attacked and mugged in her Detroit home by Joseph Skipper. She had a total of $53 stolen from her. The incident created outrage throughout America. Parks said she had asked Skipper "Do you know who I am?" Skipper, an African American himself, was reported to have stated he did know who Rosa Parks was when he beat her, but didn't care. Skipper was arrested, and eventually pleaded guilty to charges of assault and robbery before being sentenced to prison.

I have been avoiding blogs as much as I could ever since they became fashionable. I found them uninteresting. Most of them were slight variations of the everlasting alternation of friends (or children s, or pets ) pictures and reports of how the day before (or yesterday s movie, or life) was great (or sucked, or was utterly boring). I did not read them, but they started invading my life nonetheless, spamming search engines and diluting information. But I could cope with the Google noise and just ignore blogs. Then, blogs started to carry opinions, not just feelings. They are now seen by many as a new kind of journalism, yet most of them suffer from the obvious bias that the entry poster is the same person as the comment moderator. Having been banned countless times from Slashdot for bashing moderators or simply attacking the general groupthink, I was not surprised at all to see a few of my comments removed from many blogs. How could I not hate blogs as a means of communication? In mailing-lists or on Usenet, when people disagree with you, they answer and argue, they don t remove your messages. Blogs have become the most selfish variation of the web bulletin board. But I could still cope with the spread of flawed information and just ignore blogs. Then, blogs started to build communities. You can only be part of the community if you are a blogger. Well, it would prove astonishingly difficult for me to care less about blogger communities (though I might try). If the community is about having a blog, then I am perfectly happy with the numerous communities I am a part of that are not about me having a blog and I can just ignore blogs. But today, I have a problem. Even within tech-savvy communities such as the Debian developers, discussions can occur that are not taking place in the common channels (such as the mailing-lists) but on blogs. There are people who are following Planet Debian but not the debian-devel mailing-list. And the reason can definitely not be that debian-devel is full of noise or flamewars: it is incredibly easy to kill a thread in a mailing-list, whereas it is virtually impossible to filter out the new fucking blog meme that spreads everywhere and about which I do not care. Also, people no longer subscribe to mailing-lists, it seems too tedious. Instead, they prefer to hammer RSS feeds every fucking five seconds to know whether something new just happened. So, here it is, my non-blog. My RSS-feed-without-a-blog. You can subscribe to it if you are too lazy to get informed through the other channels about libcaca releases, my Debian bugs, PWNtcha development, my work on VideoLAN, the next talk I am giving. It appears nowhere on my webpage but you can still subscribe to it.