Search Results: "slashd"

16 March 2013

Andrew Cater: UK Government suggesting the use of FLOSS for some projects.

Seen on Slashdot

https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/making-software/open-source.html

UK Government appearing to suggest a preference for developers that they should use open source where feasible for future UK Government projects for "Digital by Default" deliveries to UK Government and citizens.

This _is_ a beta version, but it is interesting to see this.

18 January 2013

Ingo Juergensmann: Progress of m68k port

A few weeks ago on Christmas Wouter and I blogged about the successful reinstallation of m68k buildds after a very long period of years of inactivity. This even got us mentioned on Slashdot. It's been now roughly 3 weeks since then and we made some sort of progress:

Debian-ports.org shows now that we're from 20% keeping up to about 60% keeping up. The installed packages went from ~1900 to about 3800 and we even triggered 200 packages from BD-uninstallable to Needs-Build:

  wanna-build statistics - Fri Jan 18 06:52:36 CET 2013
  -----------------------------------------------------
Distribution unstable:
---------------------
Installed       :  3868 (buildd_m68k-ara5: 488, buildd_m68k-arrakis: 20,
                         buildd_m68k-elgar: 106, buildd_m68k-vivaldi: 80,
                         tg: 1412, unknown: 1761, wouter: 1)
Needs-Build     :  3500
Building        :    26 (buildd_m68k-ara5: 1, buildd_m68k-elgar: 1,
                         buildd_m68k-vivaldi: 1, tg: 23)
Built           :     0
Uploaded        :     1 (tg: 1)
Failed          :    34 (buildd_m68k-ara5: 17, tg: 17)
Dep-Wait        :     4 (tg: 4)
Reupload-Wait   :     0
Install-Wait    :     0
Failed-Removed  :     0
Dep-Wait-Removed:     0
BD-Uninstallable:  2320
Auto-Not-For-Us :   188
Not-For-Us      :     9
total           :  9975
 38.78% (3868) up-to-date,  38.79% (3869) including uploaded
 35.09% (3500) need building
  0.26% ( 26) currently building
  0.00% (  0) already built, but not uploaded
  0.38% ( 38) failed/dep-wait
  0.00% (  0) old failed/dep-wait
 23.26% (2320) not installable, because of missing build-dep
  1.88% (188) need porting or cause the buildd serious grief (Auto)
  0.09% (  9) need porting or cause the buildd serious grief
So, overall we're performing fine. The mention on Slashdot even brought up new donors of hardware. Someone offered SCSI/SCA disks up to 73 GB in size and another person even offered several Amigas, from which we'll using a Amiga 2000 with Blizzard 2060 accellerator card as a new buildd. This leads me to a medium-sized drawback: we actually have several Amigas with a Blizzard 2060 as buildds. Unfortunately there's no SCSI driver in current kernels for that kind of hardware. This results in the effect that we can't use as many machines as we could. Currently we are using 3 active buildds and some Aranym VMs running on Thorsten Glasers hosts. We could add 4 more buildds when there would be a working SCSI driver. So, if anyone likes to contribute to the m68k port and loves kernel hacking, this would be a great way to help us. :-)
Kategorie:

31 December 2012

Thorsten Glaser: Not just Amigas, editors and errnos

mksh made quite some waves (machine translation of the third article) recently. Let s state it s not just Amigas ara5 is a buildd running the Atari kernel, an emulated though. On the other hand, the bare-metal Ataris used to be the fastest buildds, so I expect we get them back online soonish. I m currently fighting with some buildd software bugfixes, but once they re in, we will make more of them. Oh, and porterboxen! Does anyone want to host a VM with a porterbox? Requirements: wheezy host system (can be emulated), 1 GiB RAM, one CPU core with about 6500 BogoMIPS or more (so the emulated system has decent speed; an AMD Phenom II X4 3.2 GHz does just fine). Oh, and mksh is ported to more and more platforms, like 386BSD 0.0 with GCC 1.39, and QNX 4 with Watcom and more bugfixes are also being worked on. And let s not forget features! jupp got refreshed: it s got a bracketed paste mode, which is even auto-enabled on xterm-xfree86 (though the xterm(1) in MirBSD s a tad too old to know it; will update that later, just imported sendmail(8) 8.14.6 and lynx(1) 2.8.8dev.15 into base, more to come) and will be enhanced later (should disable auto-indent, wordwrap, status line updates, and possibly more), lots of new functions and bindings, now uses mkstemp(3) to create backup files race-free, and more (read the NEWS file). In MirBSD, Benny and I just added a number of errnos, mostly for SUSv4 compliance and being able to compile more software from pkgsrc without needing to patch. This is being tested right now (although I should probably go out and watch fireworks in less than a half-hour), together with the new imports and the bunch of small fixes we accumulate (even though most development in MirBSD is currently in mksh(1) and similar doesn t mean that all is, or worse, we were dead, which we aren t). I ll publish a new snapshot some time in January. The Grml 2012.12 also contains a pretty up-to-date MirBSD, with a boot(8/i386)loader that now ignores GUID partition table entries when deciding what to use for the a slice. If you haven t already done so, read Benjamin Mako Hill s writings!

4 November 2012

Petter Reinholdtsen: The European Central Bank (ECB) take a look at bitcoin

Slashdot just ran a story about the European Central Bank (ECB) releasing a report (PDF) about virtual currencies and bitcoin. It is interesting to see how a member of the bitcoin community receive the report. As for the future, I suspect the central banks and the governments will outlaw bitcoin if it gain any popularity, to avoid competition. My thoughts go to the W rgl experiment with negative inflation on cash which was such a success that it was terminated by the Austrian National Bank in 1933. A successful alternative would be a threat to the current money system and gain powerful forces to work against it. While checking out the current status of bitcoin, I also discovered that the community already seem to have experienced its first pyramid game / Ponzi scheme. Not very surprising, given how members of "small" communities tend to trust each other. I guess enterprising crocks will try again and again, as they do anywhere wealth is available.

20 October 2012

Ian Wienand: Blog format update

7 years, 8 months, 17 days, 22 hours and 25 minutes ago I wrote the first post for this blog, inspired by a talk by Andrew Tridgell at linux.conf.au 2004 on the value of a personal "junkcode" repository. I know this because I've recently gone through considerable effort to change the format of the blog and keeping the timestamps in sync was one challenge. I've now updated to use Pelican, massaged all the old posts into reStructuredText, done a fair bit of HTML and CSS hacking and hopefully redirected all the old URLs to the correct place. Old comments didn't make the cut, but there wasn't much value there and I'm happy to outsouce to Disqus. How things have changed! As I was writing the CSS to round the corners of some elements, I remembered back to cribbing from Slashdot HTML to do the same thing -- except in those days you used a table with blank elements in each corner with 4 different rounded-corner gif files! Yet I'm still writing in emacs, so some things will forever remain the same I guess.

10 August 2012

Craig Small: Australia Data Retention Scheme Stalled

It s been reported in the mainstream media that the Australian Data Retention Scheme has been referred to another committee, effectively delaying it to after the next election. The Scheme was part of a broad review of the various security agencies powers and how to streamline them. The initial paper originally stated that retention would be for up to 2 years for parts of the data set, without really specifying what the data was. There has been various ideas of what this data is, depending who you ask and when. Some documents state it is only the accounting data; that user X used IP address Y at time Z, while others state it is email logs and a third have been the previous two plus web logs. There are many problems with a scheme such as this. 2 years of everyones web-browsing history is a desirable target for both legitimate and illegitimate access to that data. Leaving aside would the access to the agencies get the right level of access; who else would want this data? I m sure that AFACT (Australia s MPAA effectively) would like this data to go trawling. The recent exposure of AAPT s data by Anonymous shows that there may be some other means of obtaining this data. I actually wonder, if the scheme was in, what they would find? Take email for example; my email leaves my computer and directly communicates with the destination mail server. If someone pulled my email records they d show very little information. If it is too hard to run your own mailserver, I m sure the enterprising no-gooders that they are so interested in finding can work out how to buy a remote mailserver somewhere. If that s too hard, there s always gmail with https, or VPNs, or TOR, or.. well there are plenty of options. It probably comes down to how resourceful (if thats the word) people are. By the way, mentioning https reminded me of the great little plug-in called HTTPS Everywhere by EFF. I m glad to see that this legislation is stalled. To me the paperwork I saw appeared to be saying that they got some bad guys with what powers they have so they will catch more with more powers; therefore more powers are good, OK? It s a rather simplistic view of the world. My only worry is its not stopped, just stalled so it might be re-animated in future.

9 June 2012

Petter Reinholdtsen: TV with face recognition, for improved viewer experience

Slashdot got a story about Intel planning a TV with face recognition to recognise the viewer, and it occurred to me that it would be more interesting to turn it around, and do face recognition on the TV image itself. It could let the viewer know who is present on the screen, and perhaps look up their credibility, company affiliation, previous appearances etc for the viewer to better evaluate what is being said and done. That would be a feature I would be willing to pay for. I would not be willing to pay for a TV that point a camera on my household, like the big brother feature apparently proposed by Intel. It is the telescreen idea fetched straight out of the book 1984 by George Orwell.

3 June 2012

Joey Hess: a year of olduse.net

My olduse.net exhibit has now finished replaying the first year of historical Usenet posts from 30 years ago, in real time. That was only twelve thousand messages, probably less than many people get on Facebook in a year.. but if you read along this year, you probably have a much better feel for what early Usenet was like. If you didn't, it's not too early to start, 9 years of Usenet's flowering lie ahead. I don't know how many people followed along. I read .. not every message, but a large fraction of them. I see 40 or so unique NNTP connections per day, and some seem to stick around and read for quite a while, so I'm guessing there might be a few hundred people following on a weekly basis. If you're not one of them, and don't read our olduse.net blog, here are a few of the year's highlights: I will probably be expiring the first year's messages before too long, to have a more uncluttered view. So if you wanted to read them, hurry up!

15 May 2012

John Goerzen: Suspicious Blog Activity any advice?

I ve been noticing a number of odd things happening surrounding my blog lately, and I thought it s about time to figure out what s going on and how to stop it. The first problem is that people are illegally copying my posts, probably using RSS scraping, and putting them up on their own ad-infested sites. It is trivial to find them using Google for any somewhat unique word or phrase in one of my posts. Lately one of them, linux-support.com, actually sends me pingbacks announcing the fact that they ve scraped me! Most of these sites seem to be nothing but content farms for selling ad impressions, and almost none of them have any identifiable names for the owners. (There is an exception: I have specifically set up sites like Planet Debian and Goodreads to copy my blog posts.) I m obviously an advocate of open content, but I do not feel it right that others should be profiting by putting photos and stories about Free Software, or photos of my family, on their ad farms. While I release a great deal of content under GPL or Creative Commons licenses, I have never done so with my blog an intentional decision. What should I do about this? Is it worth fighting a battle over, or is it about as useless as trying to block every spam follower on my twitter account? So that s the first weird thing. The second weird thing just started within the last few weeks. I have been getting a surprising amount (a few a week) of email addressed to me. It does not bear the appearance of being 100% automated spam, though it is possible that it is. It s taken a few forms: The profit motive in all of these is high, and in at least the second and third, so is the sleaze factor. I ve gotten two emails lately of this form:
Hi John, I am curious if you are the administrator for this site: changelog.complete.org/archives/174-house-outlaws-fast-forwarding-senate-pres-next I am a researcher / writer involved with a new project whose mission it is to provide accurate and useful information for those interested in the practice of law, whether as a lawyer or paralegal. I recently produced an article detailing the complex relationship between law and technology and the legal implications on personal privacy and free speech. I would love to share this resource with those who might find it useful and am curious of you are the correct person to contact about such a request? Thank you! All my best,
The details vary the URLs appear to be random (the one cited above was little more than a link to an article), the topics the website claims to discuss range from law to schizophrenia (that one actually came with a link to the site, which again seemed to be a content farm). I am slightly tempted to reply to one of these and ask where the heck people are getting my name. It seems as if somebody has put me into a mailing list they sell containing sleazebag bloggers. Frankly, I am puzzled at this attention. I guess I haven t checked, but I can t imagine that my blog has anything even remotely resembling a high PageRank or anything else. It s not high-traffic, not Slashdot, etc. Either people are desperate, naive, failing to be selective, or maybe working some scam on me that I don t know yet. In any case, I m interested if others have seen this, or any advice you might have.

7 May 2012

Vipin Nair: Introduction

Hi, I am Vipin. I am a generalist in the technology field, interested in everything from algorithm design to data visualization. I am a Free software advocate and only use FOSS tools unless absolutely required, one notable exception being Chrome. I run Debian as my primary(only) operating system and will be contributing to Debian this summer as a Google Summer of Code student. I will be developing a web interface to present the data collected by the Team Activity Metrics project. More on this later :) After a brief stint with tumblr and wordpress I have finally found a good blogging tool where I am in complete control of every minute detail of my blog and which fits in my workflow perfectly. I am not a ruby guy, which is probably one of the reasons why I had not tried Jekyll earlier but when Jaseem started his blog on github, it looked great and I ventured in. The design of this blog is inspired by those of Jaseem Abid and Dustin Curtis and I do recommend that you read them, they have some great articles. If you are getting started with Jekyll, the best way to do so would be by reading some existing open source code, assuming you have a top level overview of how things work. Read the documentation if you can t figure it out yourself. Trust me, the hacker in you will love it :) Blogs are great place to learn new stuff and whenever I am stuck, a quick search does lead me to articles lucidly explaining stuff I am looking for and I do think I can contribute to this learning process by writing articles that could benefit someone. Do share it if you find it good, I certainly do not mind getting slashdotted! Having said that, if you find flaws in my writings please do drop in a line as a comment or reach me on twitter. Do not flame me, educate me. I ll learn something new and your karma gets a boost :) Happy Hacking!

4 March 2012

Craig Small: JFFNMS 0.9.2 Released

JFFNMS version 0.9.2 was released today both as an upstream tar.gz file and a new debian package. This version fixes some bugs including making sure it works with PHP5.4. The biggest change in PHP 5.4 is that you can no longer call by reference. Previously you could call a function like myfunc(&blah); which would send a pointer to blah and not the item itself. Now the function definition needs to define what it wants rather than change it each time.

16 January 2012

Amaya Rodrigo: Life update

I moved 600km away from Madrid, I quit my job because with all the coming and going I was barely making any money, and in order to keep a healthy, active mind, I'll keep working for Debian. I also started occasionally helping kandinski with sysadmin stuff for Barrapunto (the Spanish SlashDot), also for love, and because of incredible timing.

We also now have a new cat (an orange tabby named named gato, not very original nor practical as it's our fifth cat in the household). We also now have a small garden the cats love, even in bad, evil rain. I also now have a bright new horizon where a vegetable garden, civil marriage, quitting smoking, and motherhood will be slowly making it into my life as the dust settles down.

Last, but not least, I'll try to get back in touch with all the people I lost contact with because of, you know me, another one of my falls through the rabbithole I call depression. I missed two Debconfs in a row, this time it was bad. But I found the way out and I am back. So hurry up and drop me a line before three years (that's when i believe the rabbithole will eat me again). At least now I understand the cycles. It still sucks, but helps feel in control. Or something.

Anyway, if you ever show up close to Seville, I am up for keysigning, beers and rl spammer harassing, as always.

14 October 2011

Biella Coleman: Jobs vs Ritchie

Denis! Best said here Let not make the final statement and not a single newspaper cares " into a reality. PS: Do check out Against Nostalgia, a great jab at Jobs.

3 July 2011

Asheesh Laroia: How I feel about Google+ (not thrilled)

Image credit: Lake Shimmer by (nc-sa) cobalt123. The beautiful photo above is what reflections should look like. If you don't like Google's shimmering +1 buttons, try the convenient AdBlock filter Tom Morris wrote. I also block this image.

I have been reading a lot about Google+. I'm sure a lot of people put a lot of hard work into it. Lots of people seem to enjoy using it and appreciate its features. For my part, right now, when I see Google+ mentioned, the smile vanishes from my face. I just have a few thoughts. It's anti-competitive. If you could ask Google, "How much for a shimmering +1 button next to every search result?" you would be laughed out of the room. But they managed to offer themselves that unique marketing opportunity. I know that (1) most regulators who see this anti-competitive behavior won't see it as an anti-trust violation, and (2) the damage is already done, and no retribution in the future can act fast enough to fix the unfair advantage Google gave itself in the Internet-mediated personal communication (and ad sales) markets. The shimmering is distracting, making my online search experience worse. I know that Google is holding nothing back; they are willing to distract me from my intended use of Google in order to branch out their business. (If you haven't seen the shimmering +1 button, it's next to every web search result, and if you mouse over any part of the result, it does a wavy dance.) The most-touted feature is a clone of Diaspora. This by itself is fine; software should help users by having the best features imaginable. But the enthusiasm I've seen within the free software community (like when I read about Google+ on Slashdot and Planet Debian) should at least recognize that Google "circles" are a clone of Diaspora's Aspects. Centralization on the web feels like a personal attack. Corporations on the web are like unstoppable machines rolling us toward a future of corporate eavesdropping, central points of failure, and end-users sold en masse to advertisers. It enables a future of individual "platform owners" who can change the lived experience of untold hundreds of millions with tweaks that benefit their actual customers (the advertisers). There's not much I can do about that. I happen to take this personally: I am part of a small culture of people who run their own mail and web servers and understand the importance of software freedom. This is a part of my identity. I watch as its traces online vanish, replaced by something more efficient and terrifying. It makes me sad. I'm probably going to end up using it despite all these pain points. That's how I know that I am being steamrolled. The reasons I have given above are not reasons to not use Google+. They're just reasons that I'm going to frown all the way to the address bar. In weeks to months to years, the service will grow an enthusiastic userbase. At that point, personally, I'll have to make a choice between connecting with those people on their terms, or not staying in touch with them. Already, professionally, the idea has already come up on #openhatch that Google+ could help us reach people willing to contribute to open source. Are my gripes worth holding OpenHatch back, or worth isolating myself over? Probably not.


8 June 2011

Joey Hess: hmm

I was going to blog about being on hacker news, and slashdot etc, but it doesn't seem interesting enough for my blog. Although last showing 50 thousand logins by "oldusenet" is noteworthy. Happy IPv6 day BTW!

19 April 2011

Craig Small: Passwords in PHP

Category:WikiProject Cryptography participants

Image via Wikipedia

Generally speaking it is a really bad idea to hold passwords in cleartext. I am actually amazed people still do this! The standard way of holding passwords that has been around for years is to encrypt or hash the password and store the result, called a ciphertext. There have been many ways of hashing the password, starting off with plain old crypt with no salt (a random pair of characters) then crypt with salt through to MD5 and SHA. The thing is, each one of these hashing techniques results in a ciphertext in a different length. Now with most languages, this doesn t matter because you know what hash you are using; its simply the name of the function or some flag you set. PHP is different, because all of these methods use the one function called crypt which is a little confusing because it is more than plain old crypt. Around the PHP version 5.3 the developers started putting in the more complex hash algorithms which is good, but the ciphertext has been growing. A lot of applications store this hashed password in a database and the decision needs to be made; how big should this field be? For a long while, 50 characters would be enough and this is what programs like jffnms use. Unfortunately the SHA-512 algorithm needs 98 characters so what you get is half a hash stored. When the user enters their password, the program compares the full hash from that password to the half hash in the database and it always fails. I ve adjusted JFFNMS to use 200 character long fields which is fine for now. The problem is who knows what the future will bring?

28 January 2011

Gunnar Wolf: Echoing Mohammed

For those of you who follow me through anything other than Planet Debian (who will surely tolerate this repetition): Interesting but frightful things are happening in North African countries. We saw what happened in Tunisia some days ago. Now, Egypt is a way larger, way more populous... And, dare I say, way more important country. Also, it is a country which borders Israel, where I lived in for ~18 months, and to which although I am today unaffiliated is very important for me. And what happens in Egypt will surely shape the whole mid-East. So, here goes a copy of Mohammed Sameer's post Not just a link to it, as he might have to take it down. Of course, Mohammed, if you in any way think I should delete this, please please tell me, and I will comply immediately.
Egypt has been fighting for freedom already for 3 days now. The whole country has experienced a large number of street demonstrations and protests within the last 3 days to be continued also on Friday, the 28th of January and afterwards. The protests' main goal is to oust dictator Hosni Mubarak's regime, which has been in power for almost 30 years. We want him out. A massacre has happened in Suez. Police used live ammunition and tear gas. There are unconfirmed rumors that the army might interfere. Even a bigger protest is supposed to take place a few hours from now. After the Prayer on Friday. The internet has been shutdown completely. Egypt is no longer online since Friday, the 28th of January 00:45 AM. Text messages to cell phones have been cut off too and all cell phones services will be following. No one knows exactly the intentions of the regime but it doesn't sound good. Please help us.
Please blog about it in English and in all languages.
Please spread the news everywhere.
Please talk to media.
Please petition your government if that will help. If there's anything that you can do, please do it and help us save the country and the people. More news from twitter #jan25.
...From what I read from Israeli sources, what worries them and many people around the world is that, although Egypt is formally a democratic country, the ruling party has seen towards having basically no oposition Besides the stubborn Islamic Brotherhood (very akin to Hamas). Now, the Islamic Brotherhood (as well as Hamas, and as well as most other Islamic regimes I know off, although I might be way mistaken) have got huge popular support because... They are true to their beliefs. In short, they are not corrupt Something that cannot be said about many political organizations around the globe. They are true to their word. And although many of us shiver at thinking of their word getting more power... It is only the Egyptians who should have a say on who rules Egypt. I honestly hope the Egyptian people get their long-owed self-determination. Of course, I hope Tunisians also get it, and not just a mirage of it. And every people, including us poor Mexicans who have neither had a chance to rule our destiny. And I hope it is a change for good, for tolerance, for peaceful coexistance with the neighbours, even if they are in many ways the rivals. [Update] I just found out that, as expected, the news have reached Slashdot: Egypt shuts off all Internet access. I'm sure you will find lots of more information there.

25 December 2010

Petter Reinholdtsen: Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?

The Digistan definition of a free and open standard reads like this:
The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard as follows:
  1. A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.
  2. The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties.
  3. The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute, and use it freely.
  4. The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
  5. There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of products based on the standard.
For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free and open standard according to this definition. Here is a short writeup of what I have been able to gather so far. I brought up the topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list in July 2009, for those that want to see some background information. According to Ivo Emanuel Gon alves and Monty Montgomery on that list the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition. Free from vendor capture? As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the Ogg Theora specification. It can be argued that the Xiph foundation is such vendor, but given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not obvious that this is a real risk. One issue with the Xiph foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who control the foundation) are not easily available on the web. I've been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor where is is spent in the foundation. It is thus not obvious for an external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the specification. But it seem unlikely. Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation? Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages claim it to be, this point is fulfilled. If Xiph foundation is controlled by a single vendor, it isn't, but I have not found any documentation indicating this. According to a report prepared by Audun Vaaler og B rre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory. Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the report is correct. Specification freely available? The specification for the Ogg container format and both the Vorbis and Theora codeces are available on the web. This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora] specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify specification compliance.
The Ogg container format is specified in IETF RFC 3533, and this is the term:
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an this term seem to be fulfilled. There might be a problem with the missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and thus reuse it in other specifications. Not quite sure if that is a requirement for the Digistan definition. Royalty-free? There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg Theora format. MPEG-LA and Steve Jobs in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe them. Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers without paying any royalties. For now the claims from MPEG-LA and Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec than any real problem with Ogg Theora. No constraints on re-use? I am not aware of any constraints on re-use. Conclusion 3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation. Given the background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify this. It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to see if they are free and open standards.

Petter Reinholdtsen: The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru

A few days ago an article in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version 2.0 of European Interoperability Framework has been successfully lobbied by the proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. Nothing very surprising there, given earlier reports on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of an open standard from version 1 was very good, and something I believe should be used also in the future, alongside the definition from Digistan. Version 2 have removed the open standard definition from its content. Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software in the public sector in Peru. As the text was not available from a few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from my source to ensure it is available also in the future. Some background information about that story is available in an article from Linux Journal in 2002.
Lima, 8th of April, 2002
To: Se or JUAN ALBERTO GONZ LEZ
General Manager of Microsoft Per Dear Sir: First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter. While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyze in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions. With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service. It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:
  • Free access to public information by the citizen.
  • Permanence of public data.
  • Security of the State and citizens.
To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software. To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code. To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*. In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms. In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles. From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
  • the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
  • the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
  • the law does not specify which concrete software to use
  • the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
  • the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
  • What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning. We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill. As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail: Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution." This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limits itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter. The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. by Supreme Decree No. 012-2001-PCM). The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions. It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill. By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved. To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies..." This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding "non-competitive ... practices." Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles. Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement. On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitiveness is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations. It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: "update your software to the new version" (at the user's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider's judgment alone, are "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary). You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favor a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector." I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs. On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software. In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidizing the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money. In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers. It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licenses; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive. With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model. Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties." Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring", without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points. On security: National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or "bugs" (in programmers' slang). But it is also well known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies responsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency. What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors. It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product. In respect of the guarantee: As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software. On Intellectual Property: Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity). You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position." This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (Red Hat, SuSE etc GNU/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, Open Office, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL). Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats. If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State. You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truly beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time." This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero. In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability. You further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries." I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you. On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total. You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (I) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (II) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market." Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely. The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code. You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place." This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software. On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place. You continue by observing that: "10. The bill discourages the creativity of the Peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that encourages the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment." It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point. What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of its authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments. You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry." This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licenses) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad. You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools." In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the Mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That's exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software. You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?" We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector. The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogeneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public. In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes. I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable. Cordially,
    DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NU EZ
    Congressman of the Republic of Per .

    26 November 2010

    Iustin Pop: No gaming: one week left

    Today there's one week left on my self-imposed no-gaming exercise . I like to make this kind of exercise for various things (not eating $foo for this amount of time, not doing $bar, etc.), so by itself the exercise was not a special event. But computer gaming is one of my favourite activities, so it was rather interesting. There were to goals to this: gaming is addictive (can I stop playing for three entire months?) and gaming eats time (how much time do I gain?). Last time I tried such an exercise (for a month), it ended early by me accidentally playing, of all things, nethack: someone told me at work hey, you know we have a nethack server? and before I realised what I was doing I was already playing nethack for half an hour. In an xterm. With no graphics, no sound, but with coloured ASCII chars. In truth, I started the new attempt rather accidentally. I travelled a lot this summer, and so I was already a month without playing games. Realising this, I said to myself: I already didn't play for a month, and it goes fine, let's see if I can make it a three months official no-gaming exercise. So, my Windows partition went away, my save games were put aside, my few Android games were uninstalled, and I was ready. How did it go? Very interesting. After two weeks, I was having lots of free time. Long-delayed tasks were finally taken care of, unread books were getting attention, and in general I had time on my hands. A month into the exercise, somehow my free time was creeping away. I took on some new (periodic) tasks, I was reading more, and by one and a half months I was back to zero on free time advantage. Lesson 1: people expand their schedule until it eats all their free time. After about two months, I was still doing fine, but I had a few times the classical addiction dreams: you dream you visit someone, and they're playing a new game, and ask you Don't you want to play? , or someone tells you about a nethack server, and without realising, you ruined your exercise. I had this kind of dreams while giving up other things, so it was definitely a withdrawal symptom. Lesson 2: you might have given something up, but your brain didn't (yet). With three weeks left, I said: it's time for me to start building a new gaming machine, so that when I'm done with the exercise, I can start playing right away. And this is where the problems started. For until then, I was not thinking about games at all. But once you install your new Win7, the graphics drivers, you start to wonder what new games were launched, what new expansions were released, and suddenly you realise you skipped many games, and how can you not play them? A week later, my Steam and GOG wish lists have increased greatly, and another week later I was already with many newly-bought games. Lesson 3: giving up computer games for a just few months is only partially a time saver: while the backlog of non-played games doesn't contain all games that you skipped, it's still a significant backlog. Such an exercise is rather more useful to shift free time around, than an absolute time saver. At this point, I was talking with colleagues about all the new games, the expected launches during the holiday season, etc. like I didn't stop playing games. The funny part was that in the second half of November, Slashdot had not one but two articles about people not being so much interested in games anymore. Believe me, if you cannot play games for a period while your friends very much talk about how awesome hot new game X is after a while you won't have this lack of interest problem anymore (of course, I'm extrapolating from my experience, etc. etc.). On top of that, on Planet Debian was another blog post about what game to play . All these were like a general reminder about playing games :) This moment (two weeks left) was also the hardest moment, with the sweetest temptations: machine installed, games installed, all set, just need to press New game. Lesson 4: abstaining from a thing is much harder if said thing is readily available, or in your face . Quite obvious in hindsight So here I am, with just one week left. It was an interesting thing to do, and it was definitely worth the effort, if not for time gained but for learning about oneself. Only one question remains: next week, which game shall I play first? ;-)

    Next.

    Previous.