ceb and I are members of the Derril Water Solar Park cooperative. We were recently invited to vote on whether the coop should bid for a Contract for Difference, in a government green electricity auction. We ve voted No.

• Green electricity from your mainstream supplier is a lie
• Ripple
• Contracts for Difference
• Ripple and CfD
• Voting No

Green electricity from your mainstream supplier is a lie For a while ceb and I have wanted to contribute directly to green energy provision. This isn t really possible in the mainstream consumer electricy market. Mainstream electricity suppliers 100% green energy tariffs are pure greenwashing. In a capitalist boondoogle, they basically divvy up the electricity so that customers on the (typically more expensive) green tariff get the green electricity, and the other customers get whatever is left. (Of course the electricity is actually all mixed up by the National Grid.) There are fewer people signed up for these tariffs than there is green power generated, so this basically means signing up for a green tariff has no effect whatsoever, other than giving evil people more money. Ripple About a year ago we heard about Ripple. The structure is a little complicated, but the basic upshot is: Ripple promote and manage renewable energy schemes. The schemes themselves are each an individual company; the company is largely owned by a co-operative. The co-op is owned by consumers of electricity in the UK., To stop the co-operative being an purely financial investment scheme, shares ownership is limited according to your electricity usage. The electricity is be sold on the open market, and the profits are used to offset members electricity bills. (One gotcha from all of this is that for this to work your electricity billing provider has to be signed up with Ripple, but ours, Octopus, is.) It seemed to us that this was a way for us to directly cause (and pay for!) the actual generation of green electricity. So, we bought shares in one these co-operatives: we are co-owners of the Derril Water Solar Farm. We signed up for the maximum: funding generating capacity corresponding to 120% of our current electricity usage. We paid a little over 5000 for our shares. Contracts for Difference The UK has a renewable energy subsidy scheme, which goes by the name of Contracts for Difference. The idea is that a renewable energy generation company bids in advance, saying that they ll sell their electricity at Y price, for the duration of the contract (15 years in the current round). The lowest bids win. All the electricity from the participating infrastructure is sold on the open market, but if the market price is low the government makes up the difference, and if the price is high, the government takes the winnings. This is supposedly good for giving a stable investment environment, since the price the developer is going to get now doesn t depends on the electricity market over the next 15 years. The CfD system is supposed to encourage development, so you can only apply before you ve commissioned your generation infrastructure. Ripple and CfD Ripple recently invited us to agree that the Derril Water co-operative should bid in the current round of CfDs. If this goes ahead, and we are one of the auction s winners, the result would be that, instead of selling our electricity at the market price, we ll sell it at the fixed CfD price. This would mean that our return on our investment (which show up as savings on our electricity bills) would be decoupled from market electricity prices, and be much more predictable. They can t tell us the price they d want to bid at, and future electricity prices are rather hard to predict, but it s clear from the accompanying projections that they think we d be better off on average with a CfD. The documentation is very full of financial projections and graphs; other factors aren t really discussed in any detail. The rules of the co-op didn t require them to hold a vote, but very sensibly, for such a fundamental change in the model, they decided to treat it roughly the same way as for a rules change: they re hoping to get 75% Yes votes. Voting No The reason we re in this co-op at all is because we want to directly fund renewable electricity. Participating in the CfD auction would involve us competing with capitalist energy companies for government subsidies. Subsidies which are supposed to encourage the provision of green electricity. It seems to us that participating in this auction would remove most of the difference between what we hoped to do by investing in Derril Water, and just participating in the normal consumer electricity market. In particular, if we do win in the auction, that s probably directly removing the funding and investment support model for other, market-investor-funded, projects. In other words, our buying into Derril Water ceases to be an additional green energy project, changing (in its minor way) the UK s electricity mix. It becomes a financial transaction much more tenously connected (if connected at all) to helping mitigate the climate emergency. So our conclusion was that we must vote against.

comments

Dear Debianites This morning I decided to just start writing Bits from DPL and send whatever I have by 18:00 local time. Here it is, barely proof read, along with all it's warts and grammar mistakes! It's slightly long and doesn't contain any critical information, so if you're not in the mood, don't feel compelled to read it! Get ready for a new DPL! Soon, the voting period will start to elect our next DPL, and my time as DPL will come to an end. Reading the questions posted to the new candidates on debian-vote, it takes quite a bit of restraint to not answer all of them myself, I think I can see how that aspect contributed to me being reeled in to running for DPL! In total I've done so 5 times (the first time I ran, Sam was elected!). Good luck to both Andreas and Sruthi, our current DPL candidates! I've already started working on preparing handover, and there's multiple request from teams that have came in recently that will have to wait for the new term, so I hope they're both ready to hit the ground running! Things that I wish could have gone better Communication Recently, I saw a t-shirt that read:

Adulthood is saying, 'But after this week things will slow down a bit' over and over until you die.

I can relate! With every task, crisis or deadline that appears, I think that once this is over, I'll have some more breathing space to get back to non-urgent, but important tasks. "Bits from the DPL" was something I really wanted to get right this last term, and clearly failed spectacularly. I have two long Bits from the DPL drafts that I never finished, I tend to have prioritised problems of the day over communication. With all the hindsight I have, I'm not sure which is better to prioritise, I do rate communication and transparency very highly and this is really the top thing that I wish I could've done better over the last four years. On that note, thanks to people who provided me with some kind words when I've mentioned this to them before. They pointed out that there are many other ways to communicate and be in touch with the community, and they mentioned that they thought that I did a good job with that. Since I'm still on communication, I think we can all learn to be more effective at it, since it's really so important for the project. Every time I publicly spoke about us spending more money, we got more donations. People out there really like to see how we invest funds in to Debian, instead of just making it heap up. DSA just spent a nice chunk on money on hardware, but we don't have very good visibility on it. It's one thing having it on a public line item in SPI's reporting, but it would be much more exciting if DSA could provide a write-up on all the cool hardware they're buying and what impact it would have on developers, and post it somewhere prominent like debian-devel-announce, Planet Debian or Bits from Debian (from the publicity team). I don't want to single out DSA there, it's difficult and affects many other teams. The Salsa CI team also spent a lot of resources (time and money wise) to extend testing on AMD GPUs and other AMD hardware. It's fantastic and interesting work, and really more people within the project and in the outside world should know about it! I'm not going to push my agendas to the next DPL, but I hope that they continue to encourage people to write about their work, and hopefully at some point we'll build enough excitement in doing so that it becomes a more normal part of our daily work. Founding Debian as a standalone entity This was my number one goal for the project this last term, which was a carried over item from my previous terms. I'm tempted to write everything out here, including the problem statement and our current predicaments, what kind of ground work needs to happen, likely constitutional changes that need to happen, and the nature of the GR that would be needed to make such a thing happen, but if I start with that, I might not finish this mail. In short, I 100% believe that this is still a very high ranking issue for Debian, and perhaps after my term I'd be in a better position to spend more time on this (hmm, is this an instance of "The grass is always better on the other side", or "Next week will go better until I die?"). Anyway, I'm willing to work with any future DPL on this, and perhaps it can in itself be a delegation tasked to properly explore all the options, and write up a report for the project that can lead to a GR. Overall, I'd rather have us take another few years and do this properly, rather than rush into something that is again difficult to change afterwards. So while I very much wish this could've been achieved in the last term, I can't say that I have any regrets here either. My terms in a nutshell COVID-19 and Debian 11 era My first term in 2020 started just as the COVID-19 pandemic became known to spread globally. It was a tough year for everyone, and Debian wasn't immune against its effects either. Many of our contributors got sick, some have lost loved ones (my father passed away in March 2020 just after I became DPL), some have lost their jobs (or other earners in their household have) and the effects of social distancing took a mental and even physical health toll on many. In Debian, we tend to do really well when we get together in person to solve problems, and when DebConf20 got cancelled in person, we understood that that was necessary, but it was still more bad news in a year we had too much of it already. I can't remember if there was ever any kind of formal choice or discussion about this at any time, but the DebConf video team just kind of organically and spontaneously became the orga team for an online DebConf, and that lead to our first ever completely online DebConf. This was great on so many levels. We got to see each other's faces again, even though it was on screen. We had some teams talk to each other face to face for the first time in years, even though it was just on a Jitsi call. It had a lasting cultural change in Debian, some teams still have video meetings now, where they didn't do that before, and I think it's a good supplement to our other methods of communication. We also had a few online Mini-DebConfs that was fun, but DebConf21 was also online, and by then we all developed an online conference fatigue, and while it was another good online event overall, it did start to feel a bit like a zombieconf and after that, we had some really nice events from the Brazillians, but no big global online community events again. In my opinion online MiniDebConfs can be a great way to develop our community and we should spend some further energy into this, but hey! This isn't a platform so let me back out of talking about the future as I see it... Despite all the adversity that we faced together, the Debian 11 release ended up being quite good. It happened about a month or so later than what we ideally would've liked, but it was a solid release nonetheless. It turns out that for quite a few people, staying inside for a few months to focus on Debian bugs was quite productive, and Debian 11 ended up being a very polished release. During this time period we also had to deal with a previous Debian Developer that was expelled for his poor behaviour in Debian, who continued to harass members of the Debian project and in other free software communities after his expulsion. This ended up being quite a lot of work since we had to take legal action to protect our community, and eventually also get the police involved. I'm not going to give him the satisfaction by spending too much time talking about him, but you can read our official statement regarding Daniel Pocock here: https://www.debian.org/News/2021/20211117 In late 2021 and early 2022 we also discussed our general resolution process, and had two consequent votes to address some issues that have affected past votes:

• https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
• https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001

In my first term I addressed our delegations that were a bit behind, by the end of my last term all delegation requests are up to date. There's still some work to do, but I'm feeling good that I get to hand this over to the next DPL in a very decent state. Delegation updates can be very deceiving, sometimes a delegation is completely re-written and it was just 1 or 2 hours of work. Other times, a delegation updated can contain one line that has changed or a change in one team member that was the result of days worth of discussion and hashing out differences. I also received quite a few requests either to host a service, or to pay a third-party directly for hosting. This was quite an admin nightmare, it either meant we had to manually do monthly reimbursements to someone, or have our TOs create accounts/agreements at the multiple providers that people use. So, after talking to a few people about this, we founded the DebianNet team (we could've admittedly chosen a better name, but that can happen later on) for providing hosting at two different hosting providers that we have agreement with so that people who host things under debian.net have an easy way to host it, and then at the same time Debian also has more control if a site maintainer goes MIA. More info: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianNet You might notice some Openstack mentioned there, we had some intention to set up a Debian cloud for hosting these things, that could also be used for other additional Debiany things like archive rebuilds, but these have so far fallen through. We still consider it a good idea and hopefully it will work out some other time (if you're a large company who can sponsor few racks and servers, please get in touch!) DebConf22 and Debian 12 era DebConf22 was the first time we returned to an in-person DebConf. It was a bit smaller than our usual DebConf - understandably so, considering that there were still COVID risks and people who were at high risk or who had family with high risk factors did the sensible thing and stayed home. After watching many MiniDebConfs online, I also attended my first ever MiniDebConf in Hamburg. It still feels odd typing that, it feels like I should've been at one before, but my location makes attending them difficult (on a side-note, a few of us are working on bootstrapping a South African Debian community and hopefully we can pull off MiniDebConf in South Africa later this year). While I was at the MiniDebConf, I gave a talk where I covered the evolution of firmware, from the simple e-proms that you'd find in old printers to the complicated firmware in modern GPUs that basically contain complete operating systems- complete with drivers for the device their running on. I also showed my shiny new laptop, and explained that it's impossible to install that laptop without non-free firmware (you'd get a black display on d-i or Debian live). Also that you couldn't even use an accessibility mode with audio since even that depends on non-free firmware these days. Steve, from the image building team, has said for a while that we need to do a GR to vote for this, and after more discussion at DebConf, I kept nudging him to propose the GR, and we ended up voting in favour of it. I do believe that someone out there should be campaigning for more free firmware (unfortunately in Debian we just don't have the resources for this), but, I'm glad that we have the firmware included. In the end, the choice comes down to whether we still want Debian to be installable on mainstream bare-metal hardware. At this point, I'd like to give a special thanks to the ftpmasters, image building team and the installer team who worked really hard to get the changes done that were needed in order to make this happen for Debian 12, and for being really proactive for remaining niggles that was solved by the time Debian 12.1 was released. The included firmware contributed to Debian 12 being a huge success, but it wasn't the only factor. I had a list of personal peeves, and as the hard freeze hit, I lost hope that these would be fixed and made peace with the fact that Debian 12 would release with those bugs. I'm glad that lots of people proved me wrong and also proved that it's never to late to fix bugs, everything on my list got eliminated by the time final freeze hit, which was great! We usually aim to have a release ready about 2 years after the previous release, sometimes there are complications during a freeze and it can take a bit longer. But due to the excellent co-ordination of the release team and heavy lifting from many DDs, the Debian 12 release happened 21 months and 3 weeks after the Debian 11 release. I hope the work from the release team continues to pay off so that we can achieve their goals of having shorter and less painful freezes in the future! Even though many things were going well, the ongoing usr-merge effort highlighted some social problems within our processes. I started typing out the whole history of usrmerge here, but it's going to be too long for the purpose of this mail. Important questions that did come out of this is, should core Debian packages be team maintained? And also about how far the CTTE should really be able to override a maintainer. We had lots of discussion about this at DebConf22, but didn't make much concrete progress. I think that at some point we'll probably have a GR about package maintenance. Also, thank you to Guillem who very patiently explained a few things to me (after probably having have to done so many times to others before already) and to Helmut who have done the same during the MiniDebConf in Hamburg. I think all the technical and social issues here are fixable, it will just take some time and patience and I have lots of confidence in everyone involved. UsrMerge wiki page: https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge DebConf 23 and Debian 13 era DebConf23 took place in Kochi, India. At the end of my Bits from the DPL talk there, someone asked me what the most difficult thing I had to do was during my terms as DPL. I answered that nothing particular stood out, and even the most difficult tasks ended up being rewarding to work on. Little did I know that my most difficult period of being DPL was just about to follow. During the day trip, one of our contributors, Abraham Raji, passed away in a tragic accident. There's really not anything anyone could've done to predict or stop it, but it was devastating to many of us, especially the people closest to him. Quite a number of DebConf attendees went to his funeral, wearing the DebConf t-shirts he designed as a tribute. It still haunts me when I saw his mother scream "He was my everything! He was my everything!", this was by a large margin the hardest day I've ever had in Debian, and I really wasn't ok for even a few weeks after that and I think the hurt will be with many of us for some time to come. So, a plea again to everyone, please take care of yourself! There's probably more people that love you than you realise. A special thanks to the DebConf23 team, who did a really good job despite all the uphills they faced (and there were many!). As DPL, I think that planning for a DebConf is near to impossible, all you can do is show up and just jump into things. I planned to work with Enrico to finish up something that will hopefully save future DPLs some time, and that is a web-based DD certificate creator instead of having the DPL do so manually using LaTeX. It already mostly works, you can see the work so far by visiting https://nm.debian.org/person/ACCOUNTNAME/certificate/ and replacing ACCOUNTNAME with your Debian account name, and if you're a DD, you should see your certificate. It still needs a few minor changes and a DPL signature, but at this point I think that will be finished up when the new DPL start. Thanks to Enrico for working on this! Since my first term, I've been trying to find ways to improve all our accounting/finance issues. Tracking what we spend on things, and getting an annual overview is hard, especially over 3 trusted organisations. The reimbursement process can also be really tedious, especially when you have to provide files in a certain order and combine them into a PDF. So, at DebConf22 we had a meeting along with the treasurer team and Stefano Rivera who said that it might be possible for him to work on a new system as part of his Freexian work. It worked out, and Freexian funded the development of the system since then, and after DebConf23 we handled the reimbursements for the conference via the new reimbursements site: https://reimbursements.debian.net/ It's still early days, but over time it should be linked to all our TOs and we'll use the same category codes across the board. So, overall, our reimbursement process becomes a lot simpler, and also we'll be able to get information like how much money we've spent on any category in any period. It will also help us to track how much money we have available or how much we spend on recurring costs. Right now that needs manual polling from our TOs. So I'm really glad that this is a big long-standing problem in the project that is being fixed. For Debian 13, we're waving goodbye to the KFreeBSD and mipsel ports. But we're also gaining riscv64 and loongarch64 as release architectures! I have 3 different RISC-V based machines on my desk here that I haven't had much time to work with yet, you can expect some blog posts about them soon after my DPL term ends! As Debian is a unix-like system, we're affected by the Year 2038 problem, where systems that uses 32 bit time in seconds since 1970 run out of available time and will wrap back to 1970 or have other undefined behaviour. A detailed wiki page explains how this works in Debian, and currently we're going through a rather large transition to make this possible. I believe this is the right time for Debian to be addressing this, we're still a bit more than a year away for the Debian 13 release, and this provides enough time to test the implementation before 2038 rolls along. Of course, big complicated transitions with dependency loops that causes chaos for everyone would still be too easy, so this past weekend (which is a holiday period in most of the west due to Easter weekend) has been filled with dealing with an upstream bug in xz-utils, where a backdoor was placed in this key piece of software. An Ars Technica covers it quite well, so I won't go into all the details here. I mention it because I want to give yet another special thanks to everyone involved in dealing with this on the Debian side. Everyone involved, from the ftpmasters to security team and others involved were super calm and professional and made quick, high quality decisions. This also lead to the archive being frozen on Saturday, this is the first time I've seen this happen since I've been a DD, but I'm sure next week will go better! Looking forward It's really been an honour for me to serve as DPL. It might well be my biggest achievement in my life. Previous DPLs range from prominent software engineers to game developers, or people who have done things like complete Iron Man, run other huge open source projects and are part of big consortiums. Ian Jackson even authored dpkg and is now working on the very interesting tag2upload service! I'm a relative nobody, just someone who grew up as a poor kid in South Africa, who just really cares about Debian a lot. And, above all, I'm really thankful that I didn't do anything major to screw up Debian for good. Not unlike learning how to use Debian, and also becoming a Debian Developer, I've learned a lot from this and it's been a really valuable growth experience for me. I know I can't possible give all the thanks to everyone who deserves it, so here's a big big thanks to everyone who have worked so hard and who have put in many, many hours to making Debian better, I consider you all heroes! -Jonathan

tl;dr: Don t just apt install rustc cargo. Either do that and make sure to use only Rust libraries from your distro (with the tiresome config runes below); or, just use rustup.

• Don t do the obvious thing; it s never what you want
  • Q. Download and run whatever code from the internet?
• Option 1: WTF, no I don t want curl bash
• Option 2: Biting the curl bash bullet
  • Privilege separation
• OMG what a mess

Don t do the obvious thing; it s never what you want Debian ships a Rust compiler, and a large number of Rust libraries. But if you just do things the obvious default way, with apt install rustc cargo, you will end up using Debian s compiler but upstream libraries, directly and uncurated from crates.io. This is not what you want. There are about two reasonable things to do, depending on your preferences. Q. Download and run whatever code from the internet? The key question is this: Are you comfortable downloading code, directly from hundreds of upstream Rust package maintainers, and running it ? That s what cargo does. It s one of the main things it s for. Debian s cargo behaves, in this respect, just like upstream s. Let me say that again: Debian s cargo promiscuously downloads code from crates.io just like upstream cargo. So if you use Debian s cargo in the most obvious way, you are still downloading and running all those random libraries. The only thing you re avoiding downloading is the Rust compiler itself, which is precisely the part that is most carefully maintained, and of least concern. Debian s cargo can even download from crates.io when you re building official Debian source packages written in Rust: if you run dpkg-buildpackage, the downloading is suppressed; but a plain cargo build will try to obtain and use dependencies from the upstream ecosystem. ( Happily , if you do this, it s quite likely to bail out early due to version mismatches, before actually downloading anything.) Option 1: WTF, no I don t want curl bash OK, but then you must limit yourself to libraries available within Debian. Each Debian release provides a curated set. It may or may not be sufficient for your needs. Many capable programs can be written using the packages in Debian. But any upstream Rust project that you encounter is likely to be a pain to get working, unless their maintainers specifically intend to support this. (This is fairly rare, and the Rust tooling doesn t make it easy.) To go with this plan, apt install rustc cargo and put this in your configuration, in $HOME/.cargo/config.toml:

[source.debian-packages]
directory = "/usr/share/cargo/registry"
[source.crates-io]
replace-with = "debian-packages"

This causes cargo to look in /usr/share for dependencies, rather than downloading them from crates.io. You must then install the librust-FOO-dev packages for each of your dependencies, with apt. This will allow you to write your own program in Rust, and build it using cargo build. Option 2: Biting the curl bash bullet If you want to build software that isn t specifically targeted at Debian s Rust you will probably need to use packages from crates.io, not from Debian. If you re doing to do that, there is little point not using rustup to get the latest compiler. rustup s install rune is alarming, but cargo will be doing exactly the same kind of thing, only worse (because it trusts many more people) and more hidden. So in this case: do run the curl bash install rune. Hopefully the Rust project you are trying to build have shipped a Cargo.lock; that contains hashes of all the dependencies that they last used and tested. If you run cargo build --locked, cargo will only use those versions, which are hopefully OK. And you can run cargo audit to see if there are any reported vulnerabilities or problems. But you ll have to bootstrap this with cargo install --locked cargo-audit; cargo-audit is from the RUSTSEC folks who do care about these kind of things, so hopefully running their code (and their dependencies) is fine. Note the --locked which is needed because cargo s default behaviour is wrong. Privilege separation This approach is rather alarming. For my personal use, I wrote a privsep tool which allows me to run all this upstream Rust code as a separate user. That tool is nailing-cargo. It s not particularly well productised, or tested, but it does work for at least one person besides me. You may wish to try it out, or consider alternative arrangements. Bug reports and patches welcome. OMG what a mess Indeed. There are large number of technical and social factors at play. cargo itself is deeply troubling, both in principle, and in detail. I often find myself severely disappointed with its maintainers decisions. In mitigation, much of the wider Rust upstream community does takes this kind of thing very seriously, and often makes good choices. RUSTSEC is one of the results. Debian s technical arrangements for Rust packaging are quite dysfunctional, too: IMO the scheme is based on fundamentally wrong design principles. But, the Debian Rust packaging team is dynamic, constantly working the update treadmills; and the team is generally welcoming and helpful. Sadly last time I explored the possibility, the Debian Rust Team didn t have the appetite for more fundamental changes to the workflow (including, for example, changes to dependency version handling). Significant improvements to upstream cargo s approach seem unlikely, too; we can only hope that eventually someone might manage to supplant it.

edited 2024-03-21 21:49 to add a cut tag

comments

I recently had the most astonishingly bad experience with UPS, the courier company. They severely damaged my parcels, and were very bad about UK import VAT, ultimately ending up harassing me on autopilot. The only thing that got their attention was my draft Particulars of Claim for intended legal action. Surprisingly, I got them to admit in writing that the disbursement fee they charge recipients alongside the actual VAT, is just something they made up with no legal basis. What happened Autumn last year I ordered some furniture from a company in Germany. This was to be shipped by them to me by courier. The supplier chose UPS. UPS misrouted one of the three parcels to Denmark. When everything arrived, it had been sat on by elephants. The supplier had to replace most of it, with considerable inconvenience and delay to me, and of course a loss to the supplier. But this post isn t mostly about that. This post is about VAT. You see, import VAT was due, because of fucking Brexit. UPS made a complete hash of collecting that VAT. Their computers can t issue coherent documents, their email helpdesk is completely useless, and their automated debt collection systems run along uninfluenced by any external input. The crazy, including legal threats and escalating late payment fees, continued even after I paid the VAT discrepancy (which I did despite them not yet having provided any coherent calculation for it). This kind of behaviour is a very small and mild version of the kind of things British Gas did to Lisa Ferguson, who eventually won substantial damages for harassment, plus 10K of costs. Having tried asking nicely, and sending stiff letters, I too threatened litigation. I would have actually started a court claim, but it would have included a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act. Those have to be filed under the Part 8 procedure , which involves sending all of the written evidence you re going to use along with the claim form. Collating all that would be a good deal of work, especially since UPS and ControlAccount didn t engage with me at all, so I had no idea which things they might actually dispute. So I decided that before issuing proceedings, I d send them a copy of my draft Particulars of Claim, along with an offer to settle if they would pay me a modest sum and stop being evil robots at me. Rather than me typing the whole tale in again, you can read the full gory details in the PDF of my draft Particulars of Claim. (I ve redacted the reference numbers). Outcome The draft Particulars finally got their attention. UPS sent me an offer: they agreed to pay me 50, in full and final settlement. That was close enough to my offer that I accepted it. I mostly wanted them to stop, and they do seem to have done so. And I ve received the 50. VAT calculation They also finally included an actual explanation of the VAT calculation. It s absurd, but it s not UPS s absurd:

The clearance was entered initially with estimated import charges of 400.03, consisting of 387.83 VAT, and 12.20 disbursement fee. This original entry regrettably did not include the freight cost for calculating the VAT, and as such when submitted for final entry the VAT value was adjusted to include this and an amended invoice was issued for an additional 39.84. HMRC calculate the amount against which VAT is raised using the value of goods, insurance and freight, however they also may apply a VAT adjustment figure. The VAT Adjustment is based on many factors (Incidental costs in regards to a shipment), which includes charge for currency conversion if the invoice does not list values in Sterling, but the main is due to the inland freight from airport of destination to the final delivery point, as this charge varies, for example, from EMA to Edinburgh would be 150, from EMA to Derby would be 1, so each year UPS must supply HMRC with all values incurred for entry build up and they give an average which UPS have to use on the entry build up as the VAT Adjustment. The correct calculation for the import charges is therefore as follows: Goods value divided by exchange rate 2,489.53 EUR / 1.1683 = 2,130.89 GBP Duty: Goods value plus freight (%) 2,130.89 GBP + 5% = 2,237.43 GBP. That total times the duty rate. X 0 % = 0 GBP VAT: Goods value plus freight (100%) 2,130.89 GBP + 0 = 2,130.89 GBP That total plus duty and VAT adjustment 2,130.89 GBP + 0 GBP + 7.49 GBP = 2,348.08 GBP. That total times 20% VAT = 427.67 GBP As detailed above we must confirm that the final VAT charges applied to the shipment were correct, and that no refund of this is therefore due.

This looks very like HMRC-originated nonsense. If only they had put it on the original bills! It s completely ridiculous that it took four months and near-litigation to obtain it. Disbursement fee One more thing. UPS billed me a 12 disbursement fee . When you import something, there s often tax to pay. The courier company pays that to the government, and the consignee pays it to the courier. Usually the courier demands it before final delivery, since otherwise they end up having to chase it as a debt. It is common for parcel companies to add a random fee of their own. As I note in my Particulars, there isn t any legal basis for this. In my own offer of settlement I proposed that UPS should:

State under what principle of English law (such as, what enactment or principle of Common Law), you levy the disbursement fee (or refund it).

To my surprise they actually responded to this in their own settlement letter. (They didn t, for example, mention the harassment at all.) They said (emphasis mine):

A disbursement fee is a fee for amounts paid or processed on behalf of a client. It is an established category of charge used by legal firms, amongst other companies, for billing of various ancillary costs which may be incurred in completion of service. Disbursement fees are not covered by a specific law, nor are they legally prohibited. Regarding UPS disbursement fee this is an administrative charge levied for the use of UPS deferment account to prepay import charges for clearance through CDS. This charge would therefore be billed to the party that is responsible for the import charges, normally the consignee or receiver of the shipment in question. The disbursement fee as applied is legitimate, and as you have stated is a commonly used and recognised charge throughout the courier industry, and I can confirm that this was charged correctly in this instance.

On UPS s analysis, they can just make up whatever fee they like. That is clearly not right (and I don t even need to refer to consumer protection law, which would also make it obviously unlawful). And, that everyone does it doesn t make it lawful. There are so many things that are ubiquitous but unlawful, especially nowadays when much of the legal system - especially consumer protection regulators - has been underfunded to beyond the point of collapse. Next time this comes up I might have a go at getting the fee back. (Obviously I ll have to pay it first, to get my parcel.) ParcelForce and Royal Mail I think this analysis doesn t apply to ParcelForce and (probably) Royal Mail. I looked into this in 2009, and I found that Parcelforce had been given the ability to write their own private laws: Schemes made under section 89 of the Postal Services Act 2000. This is obviously ridiculous but I think it was the law in 2009. I doubt the intervening governments have fixed it. Furniture Oh, yes, the actual furniture. The replacements arrived intact and are great :-).

comments

It was 2013, and I was on a break from work between Christmas and New Year of 2013. I had been working at Linaro for well over a year, on the LAVA project. I was living and breathing automated testing infrastructure, mostly for testing low-level components such as kernels and bootloaders, on real hardware. At this point I was also a Debian contributor for quite some years, and had become an official project members two years prior. Most of my involvement was in the Ruby team, where we were already consistently running upstream test suites during package builds. During that break, I put these two contexts together, and came to the conclusion that Debian needed a dedicated service that would test the contents of the Debian archive. I was aware of the existance of autopkgtest, and started working on a very simple service that would later become Debian CI. In January 2014, debci was initially announced on that month's Misc Developer News, and later uploaded to Debian. It's been continuously developed for the last 10 years, evolved from a single shell script running tests in a loop into a distributed system with 47 geographically-distributed machines as of writing this piece, became part of the official Debian release process gating migrations to testing, had 5 Summer of Code and Outrechy interns working on it, and processed beyond 40 million test runs. In there years, Debian CI has received contributions from a lot of people, but I would like to give special credits to the following:

• Ian Jackson - created autopkgtest.
• Martin Pitt - was the maintainer of autopkgtest when Debian CI launched and helped a lot for some time.
• Paul Gevers - decided that he wanted Debian CI test runs to control testing migration. While at it, became a member of the Debian Release Team and the other half of the permanent Debian CI team together with me.
• Lucas Kanashiro - Google Summer of Code intern, 2014.
• Brandon Fairchild - Google Summer of Code intern, 2014.
• Candy Tsai - Outreachy intern, 2019.
• Pavit Kaur - Google Summer of Code intern, 2021
• Abiola Ajadi - Outreachy intern, December 2021-2022.

tl;dr: If you are a Debian user who knows git, don t work with Debian source packages. Don t use apt source, or dpkg-source. Instead, use dgit and work in git. Also, don t use: VCS links on official Debian web pages, debcheckout, or Debian s (semi-)official gitlab, Salsa. These are suitable for Debian experts only; for most people they can be beartraps. Instead, use dgit.

• Struggling with Debian source packages?
• Just use dgit
• Objections
  • But I don t want to learn yet another tool
  • Shouldn t I be using official Debian git repos?
  • Gosh, is Debian really this bad?
  • I m a Debian maintainer. You tell me dgit is something totally different!

> Struggling with Debian source packages? A friend of mine recently asked for help on IRC. They re an experienced Debian administrator and user, and were trying to: make a change to a Debian package; build and install and run binary packages from it; and record that change for their future self, and their colleagues. They ended up trying to comprehend quilt. quilt is an ancient utility for managing sets of source code patches, from well before the era of modern version control. It has many strange behaviours and footguns. Debian s ancient and obsolete tarballs-and-patches source package format (which I designed the initial version of in 1993) nowadays uses quilt, at least for most packages. You don t want to deal with any of this nonsense. You don t want to learn quilt, and suffer its misbehaviours. You don t want to learn about Debian source packages and wrestle dpkg-source. Happily, you don t need to. Just use dgit One of dgit s main objectives is to minimise the amount of Debian craziness you need to learn. dgit aims to empower you to make changes to the software you re running, conveniently and with a minimum of fuss. You can use dgit to get the source code to a Debian package, as a git tree, with dgit clone (and dgit fetch). The git tree can be made into a binary package directly. The only things you really need to know are:

1. By default dgit fetches from Debian unstable, the main work-in-progress branch. You may want something like dgit clone PACKAGE bookworm,-security (yes, with a comma).
2. You probably want to edit debian/changelog to make your packages have a different version number.
3. To build binaries, run dpkg-buildpackage -uc -b.
4. Debian package builds are often disastrously messsy: builds might modify source files; and the official debian/rules clean can be inadequate, or crazy. Always commit before building, and use git clean and git reset --hard instead of running clean rules from the package.

Don t try to make a Debian source package. (Don t read the dpkg-source manual!) Instead, to preserve and share your work, use the git branch. dgit pull or dgit fetch can be used to get updates. There is a more comprehensive tutorial, with example runes, in the dgit-user(7) manpage. (There is of course complete reference documentation, but you don t need to bother reading it.) Objections But I don t want to learn yet another tool One of dgit s main goals is to save people from learning things you don t need to. It aims to be straightforward, convenient, and (so far as Debian permits) unsurprising. So: don t learn dgit. Just run it and it will be fine :-). Shouldn t I be using official Debian git repos? Absolutely not. Unless you are a Debian expert, these can be terrible beartraps. One possible outcome is that you might build an apparently working program but without the security patches. Yikes! I discussed this in more detail in 2021 in another blog post plugging dgit. Gosh, is Debian really this bad? Yes. On behalf of the Debian Project, I apologise. Debian is a very conservative institution. Change usually comes very slowly. (And when rapid or radical change has been forced through, the results haven t always been pretty, either technically or socially.) Sadly this means that sometimes much needed change can take a very long time, if it happens at all. But this tendency also provides the stability and reliability that people have come to rely on Debian for. I m a Debian maintainer. You tell me dgit is something totally different! dgit is, in fact, a general bidirectional gateway between the Debian archive and git. So yes, dgit is also a tool for Debian uploaders. You should use it to do your uploads, whenever you can. It s more convenient and more reliable than git-buildpackage and dput runes, and produces better output for users. You too can start to forget how to deal with source packages! A full treatment of this is beyond the scope of this blog post.

comments

The Long Now has an insightful article about air quality [1]. Every country needs food labelling laws like Mexico has [2]. Also we need to abolish the investor state tribunals, companies should just accept local laws and obey them or be treated in the same way as pirates on the high seas. Ian Jackson wrote a good post about conference policies regarding Covid19 [3]. We really need to do more about this, conservatives like to imagine that it s gone away but people are still getting sick and dying of it. John Goerzen wrote an informative article about air gaps and ways they can be part of a useful and usable security system [4]. This YouTube video has a good introduction to LLMs (Large Languge Models) for machine learning [5]. This eye tracker is interesting technology [6]. The video shows it being used for MS Flight Simulator but it can be used for other things. Unfortunately the price of about $550 Australian puts it out of range of a lot of free software work. I think this would be good for tracking the user FOR THEIR BENEFIT so that notifications won t be delivered when the user is concentrating. This ABC article about the risk of a past Covid19 infection exacerbating or accelerating Parkinson s or Alzheimer s is a worry [7]. Sam Hartman wrote an insightful blog post about AI safety, consent, and discussions of sex [8].

• [1] https://longnow.org/ideas/commodification-of-air/
• [2] https://tinyurl.com/yl3wcfzs
• [3] https://diziet.dreamwidth.org/16518.html
• [4] https://www.complete.org/how-gapped-is-your-air/
• [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkBMFhNj_g
• [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dmXyM7Q3nc
• [7] https://tinyurl.com/ykvor9sm
• [8] https://hartmans.dreamwidth.org/101223.html

I hacked my coffee machine to let me turn it on from upstairs in bed :-). Read on for explanation, circuit diagrams, 3D models, firmware source code, and pictures.

• Background: the Morphy Richards filter coffee machine
• Planning
• Inside the Morphy Richards filter coffee machine
• Unexpected electrical hazard
• Design approach
• Implementation - hardware
• Implementation - software
• Results
• Epilogue
• Bonus pictures

Background: the Morphy Richards filter coffee machine I have a Morphy Richards filter coffee machine. It makes very good coffee. But the display and firmware are quite annoying:

• After it has finished making the coffee, it will keep the coffee warm using its hotplate, but only for 25 minutes. If you want to make a batch and drink it over the course of the morning that s far too short.
• It has a timer function. But it only has a 12 hour clock! You can t retire upstairs on a Friday night, having programmed the coffee machine to make you coffee at a suitable post-lie-in time. If you try, you are greeted with apparently-inexplicably-cold coffee.
• The buttons and UI are very confusing. For example, if it s just sitting there keeping the coffee warm, and you pour the last, you want to turn it off. So you press the power button. Then the display lights up as if you ve just turned it on! (The power LED is in the power button, which your finger is on.) If you know this you can get used to it, but it can confuse guests.

Also, I m lazy and wanted to be able to cause coffee to exist from upstairs in bed, without having to make a special trip down just to turn the machine on. Planning My original feeling was I can t be bothered dealing with the coffee machine innards so I thought I would make a mechanical contraption to physically press the coffee machine s on button. I could have my contraption press the button to turn the machine on (timed, or triggered remotely), and then periodically in pairs to reset the 25-minute keep-warm timer. But a friend pointed me at a blog post by Andy Bradford, where Andy recounts modifying his coffee machine, adding an ESP8266 and connecting it to his MQTT-based Home Assistant setup. I looked at the pictures and they looked very similar to my machine. I decided to take a look inside. Inside the Morphy Richards filter coffee machine My coffee machine seemed to be very similar to Andy s. His disassembly report was very helpful. Inside I found the high-voltage parts with the heating elements, and the front panel with the display and buttons. I spent a while poking about, masuring things, and so on. Unexpected electrical hazard At one point I wanted to use my storage oscilloscope to capture the duration and amplitude of the beep signal. I needed to connect the scope ground to the UI board s ground plane, but then when I switched the coffee machine on at the wall socket, it tripped the house s RCD. It turns out that the low voltage UI board is coupled to the mains. In my setting, there s an offset of about 8V between the UI board ground plane, and true earth. (In my house the neutral is about 2-3V away from true earth.) This alarmed me rather. To me, this means that my modifications needed to still properly electrically isolate everything connected to the UI board from anything external to the coffee machine s housing. In Andy s design, I think the internal UI board ground plane is directly brought out to an external USB-A connector. This means that if there were a neutral fault, the USB-A connector would be at live potential, possibly creating an electrocution or fire hazard. I made a comment in Andy Bradford s blog, reporting this issue, but it doesn t seem to have appeared. This is all quite alarming. I hope Andy is OK! Design approach I don t have an MQTT setup at home, or an installation of Home Assistant. I didn t feel like adding a lot of complicated software to my life, if I could avoid it. Nor did I feel like writing a web UI myself. I ve done that before, but I m lazy and in this case my requirements were quite modest. Also, the need for electrical isolation would further complicate any attempt to do something sophisticated (that could, for example, sense the state of the coffee machine). I already had a Tasmota-based cloud-free smart plug, which controls the fairy lights on our gazebo. We just operate that through its web UI. So, I decided I would add a small and stupid microcontroller. The microcontroller would be powered via a smart plug and an off-the-shelf USB power supply. The microcontroller would have no inputs. It would simply simulate an on button press once at startup, and thereafter two presses every 24 minutes. After the 4th double press the microcontroller would stop, leaving the coffee machine to time out itself, after a total period of about 2h. Implementation - hardware I used a DigiSpark board with an ATTiny85. One of the GPIOs is connected to an optoisolator, whose output transistor is wired across the UI board s on button. (click for diagram scans as pdfs). The DigiSpark has just a USB tongue, which is very wobbly in a normal USB socket. I designed a 3D printed case which also had an approximation of the rest of the USB A plug. The plug is out of spec; our printer won t go fine enough - and anyway, the shield is supposed to be metal, not fragile plastic. But it fit in the USB PSU I was using, satisfactorily if a bit stiffly, and also into the connector for programming via my laptop. Inside the coffee machine, there s the boundary between the original, coupled to mains, UI board, and the isolated low voltage of the microcontroller. I used a reasonably substantial cable to bring out the low voltage connection, past all the other hazardous innards, to make sure it stays isolated. I added a drain power supply resistor on another of the GPIOs. This is enabled, with a draw of about 30mA, when the microcontroller is soon going to off / on cycle the coffee machine. That reduces the risk that the user will turn off the smart plug, and turn off the machine, but that the microcontroller turns the coffee machine back on again using the remaining power from USB PSU. Empirically in my setup it reduces the time from smart plug off to microcontroller stops from about 2-3s to more like 1s. Optoisolator board (inside coffee machine) pictures (Click through for full size images.) Microcontroller board (in USB-plug-ish housing) pictures Implementation - software I originally used the Arduino IDE, writing my program in C. I had a bad time with that and rewrote it in Rust. The firmware is in a repository on Debian s gitlab Results I can now cause the coffee to start, from my phone. It can be programmed more than 12h in advance. And it stays warm until we ve drunk it. UI is worse There s one aspect of the original Morphy Richards machine that I haven t improved: the user interface is still poor. Indeed, it s now even worse: To turn the machine on, you probably want to turn on the smart plug instead. Unhappily, the power button for that is invisible in its installed location. In particular, in the usual case, if you want to turn it off, you should ideally turn off both the smart plug (which can be done with the button on it) and the coffee machine itself. If you forget to turn off the smart plug, the machine can end up being turned on, very briefly, a handful of times, over the next hour or two. Epilogue We had used the new features a handful of times when one morning the coffee machine just wouldn t make coffee. The UI showed it turning on, but it wouldn t get hot, so no coffee. I thought oh no, I ve broken it! But, on investigation, I found that the machine s heating element was open circuit (ie, completely broken). I didn t mess with that part. So, hooray! Not my fault. Probably, just being inverted a number of times and generally lightly jostled, had precipitated a latent fault. The machine was a number of years old. Happily I found a replacement, identical, machine, online. I ve transplanted my modification and now it all works well. Bonus pictures (Click through for full size images.)

edited 2023-11-26 14:59 UTC in an attempt to fix TOC links

comments

A great talk on SteamOS progress to effective boot loaders for atomic OS updates.How to produce something that will allow instant updates and instant fallbacks when updating a whole OS image - lots of explanation - and it's good when three or four people who are directly interested in problems and solutions round, for example, Secure Boot are in the room.Jessica Clarke on CHERI, Morello and security protections in hardware, software and programming hardware which has verifiable pointers and routines. A couple of flourishes which had the room breaking out in applause.Roberto Sanchez and Santiago Rincon on suggestions for LTS and ways forward. The presentation very clearly set out what LTS is, is not, and maybe should be.Last presentation of the day was from Ian Jackson on a potential change to git based working and tagging. Then lots of chasing around to get people out of the building. Thanks very much to the Arm personnel, especially the security staff who have been helpful throughout the day with getting us all in and out

Thanks to all involved with Arm, Codethink and Pexip for hosting and sponsorship without which this would not have been possible.

Recently I completed a small project, including an embedded microcontroller. For me, using the popular Arduino IDE, and C, was a mistake. The experience with Rust was better, but still very exciting, and not in a good way. Here follows the rant.

• Introduction
• Arduino IDE
• Writing C again
• Rust on the DigiSpark
• RIIR (Rewrite It In Rust)
• An offer of help
• Conclusions

Introduction In a recent project (I ll write about the purpose, and the hardware in another post) I chose to use a DigiSpark board. This is a small board with a USB-A tongue (but not a proper plug), and an ATTiny85 microcontroller, This chip has 8 pins and is quite small really, but it was plenty for my application. By choosing something popular, I hoped for convenient hardware, and an uncomplicated experience. Convenient hardware, I got. Arduino IDE The usual way to program these boards is via an IDE. I thought I d go with the flow and try that. I knew these were closely related to actual Arduinos and saw that the IDE package arduino was in Debian. But it turns out that the Debian package s version doesn t support the DigiSpark. (AFAICT from the list it offered me, I m not sure it supports any ATTiny85 board.) Also, disturbingly, its board manager seemed to be offering to install board support, suggesting it would download stuff from the internet and run it. That wouldn t be acceptable for my main laptop. I didn t expect to be doing much programming or debugging, and the project didn t have significant security requirements: the chip, in my circuit, has only a very narrow ability do anything to the real world, and no network connection of any kind. So I thought it would be tolerable to do the project on my low-security video laptop . That s the machine where I m prepared to say yes to installing random software off the internet. So I went to the upstream Arduino site and downloaded a tarball containing the Arduino IDE. After unpacking that in /opt it ran and produced a pointy-clicky IDE, as expected. I had already found a 3rd-party tutorial saying I needed to add a magic URL (from the DigiSpark s vendor) in the preferences. That indeed allowed it to download a whole pile of stuff. Compilers, bootloader clients, god knows what. However, my tiny test program didn t make it to the board. Half-buried in a too-small window was an error message about the board s bootloader ( Micronucleus ) being too new. The boards I had came pre-flashed with micronucleus 2.2. Which is hardly new, But even so the official Arduino IDE (or maybe the DigiSpark s board package?) still contains an old version. So now we have all the downsides of curl bash-ware, but we re lacking the it s up to date and it just works upsides. Further digging found some random forum posts which suggested simply downloading a newer micronucleus and manually stuffing it into the right place: one overwrites a specific file, in the middle the heaps of stuff that the Arduino IDE s board support downloader squirrels away in your home directory. (In my case, the home directory of the untrusted shared user on the video laptop,) So, whatever . I did that. And it worked! Having demo d my ability to run code on the board, I set about writing my program. Writing C again The programming language offered via the Arduino IDE is C. It s been a little while since I started a new thing in C. After having spent so much of the last several years writing Rust. C s primitiveness quickly started to grate, and the program couldn t easily be as DRY as I wanted (Don t Repeat Yourself, see Wilson et al, 2012, 4, p.6). But, I carried on; after all, this was going to be quite a small job. Soon enough I had a program that looked right and compiled. Before testing it in circuit, I wanted to do some QA. So I wrote a simulator harness that #included my Arduino source file, and provided imitations of the few Arduino library calls my program used. As an side advantage, I could build and run the simulation on my main machine, in my normal development environment (Emacs, make, etc.). The simulator runs confirmed the correct behaviour. (Perhaps there would have been some more faithful simulation tool, but the Arduino IDE didn t seem to offer it, and I wasn t inclined to go further down that kind of path.) So I got the video laptop out, and used the Arduino IDE to flash the program. It didn t run properly. It hung almost immediately. Some very ad-hoc debugging via led-blinking (like printf debugging, only much worse) convinced me that my problem was as follows: Arduino C has 16-bit ints. My test harness was on my 64-bit Linux machine. C was autoconverting things (when building for the micrcocontroller). The way the Arduino IDE ran the compiler didn t pass the warning options necessary to spot narrowing implicit conversions. Those warnings aren t the default in C in general because C compilers hate us all for compatibility reasons. I don t know why those warnings are not the default in the Arduino IDE, but my guess is that they didn t want to bother poor novice programmers with messages from the compiler explaining how their program is quite possibly wrong. After all, users don t like error messages so we shouldn t report errors. And novice programmers are especially fazed by error messages so it s better to just let them struggle themselves with the arcane mysteries of undefined behaviour in C? The Arduino IDE does offer a dropdown for compiler warnings . The default is None. Setting it to All didn t produce anything about my integer overflow bugs. And, the output was very hard to find anyway because the log window has a constant stream of strange messages from javax.jmdns, with hex DNS packet dumps. WTF. Other things that were vexing about the Arduino IDE: it has fairly fixed notions (which don t seem to be documented) about how your files and directories ought to be laid out, and magical machinery for finding things you put nearby its sketch (as it calls them) and sticking them in its ear, causing lossage. It has a tendency to become confused if you edit files under its feet (e.g. with git checkout). It wasn t really very suited to a workflow where principal development occurs elsewhere. And, important settings such as the project s clock speed, or even the target board, or the compiler warning settings to use weren t stored in the project directory along with the actual code. I didn t look too hard, but I presume they must be in a dotfile somewhere. This is madness. Apparently there is an Arduino CLI too. But I was already quite exasperated, and I didn t like the idea of going so far off the beaten path, when the whole point of using all this was to stay with popular tooling and share fate with others. (How do these others cope? I have no idea.) As for the integer overflow bug: I didn t seriously consider trying to figure out how to control in detail the C compiler options passed by the Arduino IDE. (Perhaps this is possible, but not really documented?) I did consider trying to run a cross-compiler myself from the command line, with appropriate warning options, but that would have involved providing (or stubbing, again) the Arduino/DigiSpark libraries (and bugs could easily lurk at that interface). Instead, I thought, if only I had written the thing in Rust . But that wasn t possible, was it? Does Rust even support this board? Rust on the DigiSpark I did a cursory web search and found a very useful blog post by Dylan Garrett. This encouraged me to think it might be a workable strategy. I looked at the instructions there. It seemed like I could run them via the privsep arrangement I use to protect myself when developing using upstream cargo packages from crates.io. I got surprisingly far surprisingly quickly. It did, rather startlingly, cause my rustup to download a random recent Nightly Rust, but I have six of those already for other Reasons. Very quickly I got the trinket LED blink example, referenced by Dylan s blog post, to compile. Manually copying the file to the video laptop allowed me to run the previously-downloaded micronucleus executable and successfully run the blink example on my board! I thought a more principled approach to the bootloader client might allow a more convenient workflow. I found the upstream Micronucleus git releases and tags, and had a look over its source code, release dates, etc. It seemed plausible, so I compiled v2.6 from source. That was a success: now I could build and install a Rust program onto my board, from the command line, on my main machine. No more pratting about with the video laptop. I had got further, more quickly, with Rust, than with the Arduino IDE, and the outcome and workflow was superior. So, basking in my success, I copied the directory containing the example into my own project, renamed it, and adjusted the path references. That didn t work. Now it didn t build. Even after I copied about .cargo/config.toml and rust-toolchain.toml it didn t build, producing a variety of exciting messages, depending what precisely I tried. I don t have detailed logs of my flailing: the instructions say to build it by cd ing to the subdirectory, and, given that what I was trying to do was to not follow those instructions, it didn t seem sensible to try to prepare a proper repro so I could file a ticket. I wasn t optimistic about investigating it more deeply myself: I have some experience of fighting cargo, and it s not usually fun. Looking at some of the build control files, things seemed quite complicated. Additionally, not all of the crates are on crates.io. I have no idea why not. So, I would need to supply local copies of them anyway. I decided to just git subtree add the avr-hal git tree. (That seemed better than the approach taken by the avr-hal project s cargo template, since that template involve a cargo dependency on a foreign git repository. Perhaps it would be possible to turn them into path dependencies, but given that I had evidence of file-location-sensitive behaviour, which I didn t feel like I wanted to spend time investigating, using that seems like it would possibly have invited more trouble. Also, I don t like package templates very much. They re a form of clone-and-hack: you end up stuck with whatever bugs or oddities exist in the version of the template which was current when you started.) Since I couldn t get things to build outside avr-hal, I edited the example, within avr-hal, to refer to my (one) program.rs file outside avr-hal, with a #[path] instruction. That s not pretty, but it worked. I also had to write a nasty shell script to work around the lack of good support in my nailing-cargo privsep tool for builds where cargo must be invoked in a deep subdirectory, and/or Cargo.lock isn t where it expects, and/or the target directory containing build products is in a weird place. It also has to filter the output from cargo to adjust the pathnames in the error messages. Otherwise, running both cd A; cargo build and cd B; cargo build from a Makefile produces confusing sets of error messages, some of which contain filenames relative to A and some relative to B, making it impossible for my Emacs to reliably find the right file. RIIR (Rewrite It In Rust) Having got my build tooling sorted out I could go back to my actual program. I translated the main program, and the simulator, from C to Rust, more or less line-by-line. I made the Rust version of the simulator produce the same output format as the C one. That let me check that the two programs had the same (simulated) behaviour. Which they did (after fixing a few glitches in the simulator log formatting). Emboldened, I flashed the Rust version of my program to the DigiSpark. It worked right away! RIIR had caused the bug to vanish. Of course, to rewrite the program in Rust, and get it to compile, it was necessary to be careful about the types of all the various integers, so that s not so surprising. Indeed, it was the point. I was then able to refactor the program to be a bit more natural and DRY, and improve some internal interfaces. Rust s greater power, compared to C, made those cleanups easier, so making them worthwhile. However, when doing real-world testing I found a weird problem: my timings were off. Measured, the real program was too fast by a factor of slightly more than 2. A bit of searching (and searching my memory) revealed the cause: I was using a board template for an Adafruit Trinket. The Trinket has a clock speed of 8MHz. But the DigiSpark runs at 16.5MHz. (This is discussed in a ticket against one of the C/C++ libraries supporting the ATTiny85 chip.) The Arduino IDE had offered me a choice of clock speeds. I have no idea how that dropdown menu took effect; I suspect it was adding prelude code to adjust the clock prescaler. But my attempts to mess with the CPU clock prescaler register by hand at the start of my Rust program didn t bear fruit. So instead, I adopted a bodge: since my code has (for code structure reasons, amongst others) only one place where it dealt with the underlying hardware s notion of time, I simply changed my delay function to adjust the passed-in delay values, compensating for the wrong clock speed. There was probably a more principled way. For example I could have (re)based my work on either of the two unmerged open MRs which added proper support for the DigiSpark board, rather than abusing the Adafruit Trinket definition. But, having a nearly-working setup, and an explanation for the behaviour, I preferred the narrower fix to reopening any cans of worms. An offer of help As will be obvious from this posting, I m not an expert in dev tools for embedded systems. Far from it. This area seems like quite a deep swamp, and I m probably not the person to help drain it. (Frankly, much of the improvement work ought to be done, and paid for, by hardware vendors.) But, as a full Member of the Debian Project, I have considerable gatekeeping authority there. I also have much experience of software packaging, build systems, and release management. If anyone wants to try to improve the situation with embedded tooling in Debian, and is willing to do the actual packaging work. I would be happy to advise, and to review and sponsor your contributions. An obvious candidate: it seems to me that micronucleus could easily be in Debian. Possibly a DigiSpark board definition could be provided to go with the arduino package. Unfortunately, IMO Debian s Rust packaging tooling and workflows are very poor, and the first of my suggestions for improvement wasn t well received. So if you need help with improving Rust packages in Debian, please talk to the Debian Rust Team yourself. Conclusions Embedded programming is still rather a mess and probably always will be. Embedded build systems can be bizarre. Documentation is scant. You re often expected to download board support packages full of mystery binaries, from the board vendor (or others). Dev tooling is maddening, especially if aimed at novice programmers. You want version control? Hermetic tracking of your project s build and install configuration? Actually to be told by the compiler when you write obvious bugs? You re way off the beaten track. As ever, Free Software is under-resourced and the maintainers are often busy, or (reasonably) have other things to do with their lives. All is not lost Rust can be a significantly better bet than C for embedded software: The Rust compiler will catch a good proportion of programming errors, and an experienced Rust programmer can arrange (by suitable internal architecture) to catch nearly all of them. When writing for a chip in the middle of some circuit, where debugging involves staring an LED or a multimeter, that s precisely what you want. Rust embedded dev tooling was, in this case, considerably better. Still quite chaotic and strange, and less mature, perhaps. But: significantly fewer mystery downloads, and significantly less crazy deviations from the language s normal build system. Overall, less bad software supply chain integrity. The ATTiny85 chip, and the DigiSpark board, served my hardware needs very well. (More about the hardware aspects of this project in a future posting.)

comments

If you are an email system administrator, you are probably using DKIM to sign your outgoing emails. You should be rotating the key regularly and automatically, and publishing old private keys. I have just released dkim-rotate 1.0; dkim-rotate is a tool to do this key rotation and publication. If you are an email user, your email provider ought to be doing this. If this is not done, your emails are non-repudiable , meaning that if they are leaked, anyone (eg, journalists, haters) can verify that they are authentic, and prove that to others. This is not desirable (for you). Non-repudiation of emails is undesirable This problem was described at some length in Matthew Green s article Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys. Avoiding non-repudiation sounds a bit like lying. After all, I m advising creating a situation where some people can t verify that something is true, even though it is. So I m advocating casting doubt. Crucially, though, it s doubt about facts that ought to be private. When you send an email, that s between you and the recipient. Normally you don t intend for anyone, anywhere, who happens to get a copy, to be able to verify that it was really you that sent it. In practical terms, this verifiability has already been used by journalists to verify stolen emails. Associated Press provide a verification tool. Advice for all email users As a user, you probably don t want your emails to be non-repudiable. (Other people might want to be able to prove you sent some email, but your email system ought to serve your interests, not theirs.) So, your email provider ought to be rotating their DKIM keys, and publishing their old ones. At a rough guess, your provider probably isn t :-(. How to tell by looking at email headers A quick and dirty way to guess is to have a friend look at the email headers of a message you sent. (It is important that the friend uses a different email provider, since often DKIM signatures are not applied within a single email system.) If your friend sees a DKIM-Signature header then the message is DKIM signed. If they don t, then it wasn t. Most email traversing the public internet is DKIM signed nowadays; so if they don t see the header probably they re not looking using the right tools, or they re actually on the same email system as you. In messages signed by a system running dkim-rotate, there will also be a header about the key rotation, to notify potential verifiers of the situation. Other systems that avoid non-repudiation-through-DKIM might do something similar. dkim-rotate s header looks like this:

DKIM-Signature-Warning: NOTE REGARDING DKIM KEY COMPROMISE
 https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/dkim-rotate/README.txt
 https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/dkim-rotate/ae/aeb689c2066c5b3fee673355309fe1c7.pem

But an email system might do half of the job of dkim-rotate: regularly rotating the key would cause the signatures of old emails to fail to verify, which is a good start. In that case there probably won t be such a header. Testing verification of new and old messages You can also try verifying the signatures. This isn t entirely straightforward, especially if you don t have access to low-level mail tooling. Your friend will need to be able to save emails as raw whole headers and body, un-decoded, un-rendered. If your friend is using a traditional Unix mail program, they should save the message as an mbox file. Otherwise, ProPublica have instructions for attaching and transferring and obtaining the raw email. (Scroll down to How to Check DKIM and ARC .) Checking that recent emails are verifiable Firstly, have your friend test that they can in fact verify a DKIM signature. This will demonstrate that the next test, where the verification is supposed to fail, is working properly and fails for the right reasons. Send your friend a test email now, and have them do this on a Linux system:

    # save the message as test-email.mbox
    apt install libmail-dkim-perl # or equivalent on another distro
    dkimproxy-verify <test-email.mbox

You should see output containing something like this:

    originator address: ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk
    signature identity: @chiark.greenend.org.uk
    verify result: pass
    ...

If the output ontains verify result: fail (body has been altered) then probably your friend didn t manage to faithfully save the unalterered raw message. Checking old emails cannot be verified When you both have that working, have your friend find an older email of yours, from (say) month ago. Perform the same steps. Hopefully they will see something like this:

    originator address: ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk
    signature identity: @chiark.greenend.org.uk
    verify result: fail (bad RSA signature)

or maybe

    verify result: invalid (public key: not available)

This indicates that this old email can no longer be verified. That s good: it means that anyone who steals a copy, can t verify it either. If it s leaked, the journalist who receives it won t know it s genuine and unmodified; they should then be suspicious. If your friend sees verify result: pass, then they have verified that that old email of yours is genuine. Anyone who had a copy of the mail can do that. This is good for email thieves, but not for you. For email admins: announcing dkim-rotate 1.0 I have been running dkim-rotate 0.4 on my infrastructure, since last August. and I had entirely forgotten about it: it has run flawlessly for a year. I was reminded of the topic by seeing DKIM in other blog posts. Obviously, it is time to decreee that dkim-rotate is 1.0. If you re a mail system administrator, your users are best served if you use something like dkim-rotate. The package is available in Debian stable, and supports Exim out of the box, but other MTAs should be easy to support too, via some simple ad-hoc scripting. Limitation of this approach Even with this key rotation approach, emails remain nonrepudiable for a short period after they re sent - typically, a few days. Someone who obtains a leaked email very promptly, and shows it to the journalist (for example) right away, can still convince the journalist. This is not great, but at least it doesn t apply to the vast bulk of your email archive. There are possible email protocol improvements which might help, but they re quite out of scope for this article.

Edited 2023-10-01 00:20 +01:00 to fix some grammar

comments

Interesting article in Wired about adversarial attacks on ML systems to get them to do things that they are explicitely programmed not to do such as describe how to make illegal drugs [1]. The most interesting part of this is that the attacks work on most GPT systems which is probably due to the similar data used to train them. Vice has an interesting article about the Danish Synthetic Party , a political partyled by an AI [2]. Citizens can vote for candidates who will try to get laws passed that match the AI generated goals, there is no option of voting for an AI character. The policies they are advocating for are designed to appeal to the 20% of Danes who don t vote. They are also trying to inspire similar parties in other countries. I think this has the potential to improve democracy. Vice reports that in 2021 a man tried to assasinate the Queen of England with inspiration from Star Wars and an AI chat bot [3]. While someone who wants to be a real-life Sith is probably going to end up doing something bad we still don t want to have chat bots encourage it. Bruce Schneier wrote an interesting article about milestones for AI involvement in the political process [4]. Sam Varghese wrote an interesting article about the allegations that India is following the example of Saudi Arabia and assasinating people in other countries who disagree with their government [5]. We need to stop this. Ian Jackson wrote an interesting blog post advocating that DKIM PRIVATE keys be rotated and PUBLISHED [6]. The idea is that if a hostile party gets access to the mailbox of someone who received private email from you then in the normal DKIM setup of keys never changing they can prove that the email is authentic when they leak it. While if you mail server publishes the old keys as Ian advocates then the hostile party can t prove that you sent the email in question as anyone could have forged a signature. Anything that involves publishing a private key gets an immediate negative reaction but I can t fault the logic here.

• [1] https://www.wired.com/story/ai-adversarial-attacks/
• [2] https://tinyurl.com/2jz8qf6z
• [3] https://tinyurl.com/ykhcjfw8
• [4] https://tinyurl.com/2y8j9rbv
• [5] https://tinyurl.com/25k3qmgu
• [6] https://diziet.dreamwidth.org/16025.html

Many people seem to be pretending that the pandemic is over. It isn t. People are still getting Covid, becoming sick, and even in some cases becoming disabled. People s plans are still being disrupted. Vulnerable people are still hiding. Conference organisers: please make robust Covid policies, publish them early, and enforce them. And, clearly set expectations for your attendees. Attendees: please don t be the superspreader. Two conferences This year I have attended a number of in-person events. For Eastercon I chose to participate online, remotely. This turns out to have been a very good decision. At least a quarter of attendees got Covid. At BiCon we had about 300 attendees. I m not aware of any Covid cases. Part of the difference between the two may have been in the policies. BiCon s policy was rather more robust. Unlike Eastercon s it had a much better refund policy for people who got Covid and therefore shouldn t come; also BiCon asked attendees to actually show evidence of a negative test. Another part of the difference will have been the venue. The NTU buildings we used at BiCon were modern and well ventilated. But, I think the biggest difference was attendees' attitudes. BiCon attendees are disproportionately likely (compared to society at large) to have long term medical conditions. And the cultural norms are to value and protect those people. Conversely, in my experience, a larger proportion of Eastercon attendees don t always have the same level of consideration. I don t want to give details, but I have reliable reports of quite reprehensible behaviour by some attendees - even members of the convention volunteer staff. Policies Your conference should IMO at the very least:

• Require everyone to show evidence of a negative test, on arrival.
• Have a good refund policy that allows an attendee who would be a risk to others, to cancel without penalty.
• Require everyone to provide proof of vaccination (or medical exemption).
• Clearly state that a negative LFT is not an all clear
• Instruct people not to attend, or to isolate if already on-site, if:
  • they have new symptoms of respiratory illness
  • they are a contact of known a positive case; or
  • they have any other reason to suspect they ll be bringing Covid to the event.

The rules should be published very early, so that people can see them, and decide if they want to go, before they have to book anything. Don t recommend that people don t spread disease Most of the things that attendees can do to about Covid primarily protect others, rather than themselves. Making those things recommendations or advice is grossly unfair. You re setting up an arsehole filter: nice people will want to protect others, but less public spirited people will tell themselves it s only a recommendation. Make the rules mandatory. But won t we be driving people away ? If you don t have a robust Covid policy, you are already driving people away. And the people who won t come because of reasonable measures like I ve asked for above, are dickheads. You don t want them putting your other attendees at risk. And probably they re annoying in other ways too. Example of something that is not OK Yesterday (2023-08-30 13:44 UTC), less than two weeks before the conference, Debconf 23 s Covid policy still looked like you see below. Today there is a policy, but it is still weak.

Edited 2023-09-01 00:58 +01:00 to fix the link to the Debconf policy.

comments

This last weekend I completed a bike rides project I started during the first Covid lockdown in 2020: I ve cycled to every settlement (and radio observatory) within 20km of my house, in alphabetical order. Stir crazy In early 2020, during the first lockdown, I was going a bit stir crazy. Clare said you re going very strange, you have to go out and get some exercise . After a bit of discussion, we came up with this plan: I d visit all the local villages, in alphabetical order. Choosing the radius I decided that I would pick a round number of kilometers, as the crow flies, from my house. 20km seemed about right. 25km would have included Ely, which would have been nice, but it would have added a great many places, all of them quite distant. Software I wrote a short Rust program to process OSM data into a list of places to visit, and their distances and bearings. You can download a tarball of the alphabetical villages scanner. (I haven t published the git history because it has my house s GPS coordinates in it, and because I committed the output files from which that location can be derived.) The Rides I set off on my first ride, to Aldreth, on Sunday the 31st of May 2020. The final ride collected Yelling, on Saturday the 19th of August 2023. I did quite a few rides in June and July 2020 - more than one a week. (I d read the lockdown rules, and although some of the government messaging said you should stay near your house, that wasn t in the legislation. Of course I didn t go into any buildings or anything.) I m not much of a morning person, so I often set off after lunch. For the longer rides I would usually pack a picnic. Almost all of the rides I did just by myself. There were a handful where I had friends along: Dry Drayton, which I collected with Clare, at night. I held my bike up so the light shone at the village sign, so we could take a photo of it. Madingley, Melbourn and Meldreth, which was quite an expedition with my friend Ben. We went out as far as Royston and nearby Barley (both outside my radius and not on my list) mostly just so that my project would have visited Hertfordshire. The Hemingfords, where I had my friend Matthew along, and we had a very nice pub lunch. Girton and Wilburton, where I visited friends. Indeed, I stopped off in Wilburton on one or two other occasions. And, of course, Yelling, for which there were four of us, again with a nice lunch (in Eltisley). I had relatively little mechanical trouble. My worst ride for this was Exning: I got three punctures that day. Luckily the last one was close to home. I often would stop to take lots of photos en-route. My mum in particular appreciated all the pretty pictures. Rules I decided on these rules: I would cycle to each destination, in order, and it would count as collected if I rode both there and back. I allowed collecting multiple villages in the same outing, provided I did them in the right order. (And obviously I was allowed to pass through places out of order, without counting them.) I tried to get a picture of the village sign, where there was one. Failing that, I got a picture of something in the village with the village s name on it. I think the only one I didn t manage this for was Westley Bottom; I had to make do with the word Westley on some railway level crossing equipment. In Barway I had to make do with a planning application, stuck to a pole. I tried not to enter and leave a village by the same road, if possible. Edge cases I had to make some decisions: I decided that I would consider the project complete if I visited everywhere whose centre was within my radius. But the centre of a settlement is rather hard to define. I needed a hard criterion for my OpenStreetMap data mining: a place counted if there was any node, way or relation, with the relevant place tag, any part of which was within my ambit. That included some places that probably oughtn t to have counted, but, fine. I also decided that I wouldn t visit suburbs of Cambridge, separately from Cambridge itself. I don t consider them separate settlements, at least, not if they re conurbated with Cambridge. So that excluded Trumpington, for example. But I decided that Girton and Fen Ditton were (just) separable. Although the place where I consider Girton and Cambridge to nearly touch, is administratively well inside Girton, I chose to look at land use (on the ground, and in OSM data), rather than administrative boundaries. But I did visit both Histon and Impington, and all each of the Shelfords and Stapleford, as separate entries in my list. Mostly because otherwise I d have to decide whether to skip (say) Impington, or Histon. Whereas skipping suburbs of Cambridge in favour of Cambridge itself was an easy decision, and it also got rid of a bunch of what would have been quite short, boring, urban expeditions. I sorted all the Greats and Littles under G and L, rather than (say) Shelford, Great , which seemed like it would be cheating because then I would be able to do Shelford, Great and Shelford, Little in one go. Northstowe turned from mostly a building site into something that was arguably a settlement, during my project. It wasn t included in the output of my original data mining. Of course it s conurbated with Oakington - but happily, Northstowe inserts right before Oakington in the alphabetical list, so I decided to add it, visiting both the old and new in the same day. There are a bunch of other minor edge cases. Some villages have an outlying hamlet. Mostly I included these. There are some individual farms, which I generally didn t count. Some stats I visited 150 villages plus the Lords Bridge radio observatory. The project took 3 years and 3 months to complete. There were 96 rides, totalling about 4900km. So my mean distance was around 51km. The median distance per ride was a little higher, at around 52 km, and the median duration (including stoppages) was about 2h40. The total duration, if you add them all up, including stoppages, was about 275h, giving a mean speed including photo stops, lunches and all, of 18kph. The longest ride was 89.8km, collecting Scotland Farm, Shepreth, and Six Mile Bottom, so riding across the Cam valley. The shortest ride was 7.9km, collecting Cambridge (obviously); and I think that s the only one I did on my Brompton. The rest were all on my trusty Thorn Audax. My fastest ride (ranking by distance divided by time spent in motion) was to collect Haddenham, where I covered 46.3km in 1h39, giving an average speed in motion of 28.0kph. The most I collected in one day was 5 places: West Wickham, West Wratting, Westley Bottom, Westley Waterless, and Weston Colville. That was the day of the Wests. (There s only one East: East Hatley.) Map Here is a pretty picture of all of my tracklogs:

Edited 2023-08-25 01:32 BST to correct a slip.

comments

I have started to make private posts, accessible only to my Dreamwidth access list. If you re a friend of mine and would like to be on that list, please contact me with your Dreamwidth username (or your OpenID).

comments

Instructions

1. Get the official installation image from the usual locations. I got the netinst CD image via BitTorrent.
2. Boot from the image and go through the installation in the normal way.
   1. You may want to select an alternative desktop environment (and unselect GNOME). These steps have been tested with MATE.
   2. Stop when you are asked to remove the installation media and reboot.
3. Press Alt + Right arrow to switch to the text VC. Hit return to activate the console and run the following commands (answering yes as appropriate):

chroot /target bash
apt-get install sysvinit-core elogind ntp dbus-x11
apt-get autoremove
exit

4. Observe the output from the apt-get install. If your disk arrangements are unusual, that may generate some error messages from update-initramfs.
5. Go back to the installer VC with Alt + Left arrow. If there were no error messages above, you may tell it to reboot.
6. If there were error messages (for example, I found that if there was disk encryption, alarming messages were printed), tell the installer to go Back . Then ask it to Install GRUB bootloader (again). After that has completed, you may reboot.
7. Enjoy your Debian system without systemd.

Discussion This is pleasingly straightforward, albeit with an ugly wart. This recipe was not formally developed and tested; it s just what happened when I tried to actually perform this task. The official installation guide has similar instructions although they don t seem to have the initramfs workaround. update-initramfs The need to go back and have the installer reinstall grub is because if your storage is not very straightforward, the update-initramfs caused by apt-get install apparently doesn t have all the right context. I haven t investigated this at all; indeed, I don t even really know that the initramfs generated in step 3 above was broken, although the messages did suggest to me that important pieces or config might have been omitted. Instead, I simply chose to bet that it might be broken, but that the installer would know what to do. So I used the installer s install GRUB bootloader option, which does regenerate the initramfs. So, I don t know that step 6 is necessary. In principle it would be better to do the switch from systemd to sysvinit earlier in the installation process, and under the control of the installer. But by default the installer goes straight from the early setup questions through to the set the time or reboot questions, without stopping. One could use the expert mode, or modify the command line, or something, but all of those things are, in practice, a lot more typing and/or interaction. And as far as I m aware the installer doesn t have an option for avoiding systemd . The apt-get install line sysvinit-core is the principal part of the sysvinit init system. Asking to install that causes the deinstallation of systemd s init and ancillary packages. systemd refuses to allow itself to be deinstalled, if it is already running, so if you boot into the systemd system you can t then switch init system. This is why the switch is best done at install time. If you re too late, there are instructions for changing init system post-installation. elogind is a forked version of some of systemd s user desktop session functionality. In practice modern desktop environments need this; without it, apt will want to remove things you probably want to keep. Even if you force it, you may find that your desktop environment can t adjust the audio volume, etc. ntp is needed because nowadays the default network time client is systemd-timesyncd (which is a bad idea even on systems with systemd as init). We need to specify it because the package dependencies don t automatically give you any replacement for systemd-timesyncd. dbus-x11 is a glue component. In theory it ought to be installed automatically. However, there have been problems with the dependencies that meant that (for example) asking for emacs would try to switch the init system. Specifying dbus-x11 explicitly is a workaround for that, which I nowadays adopt out of caution. Perhaps it is no longer needed. (On existing systems, it may be necessary to manually install orphan-sysvinit-scripts, which exists as a suboptimal technical workaround for the sociopolitical problems of hostile package maintainers and Debian s governance failures. The recipe above seems to install this package automatically.) usrmerge This recipe results in a system which has merged-/usr via symlinks. This configuration is a bad one. Ideally usrmerge-via-symlinks would be avoided. The un-merged system is declared not officially supported by Debian and key packages try very hard to force it on users. However, merged-/usr-via-symlinks is full of bugs (mostly affecting package management) which are far too hard to fix (a project by some folks to try to do so has given up). I suspect un-merged systems will suffer from fewer bugs in practice. But I don t know how to persuade d-i to make one. Installer images I think there is room in the market for an unofficial installer image which installs without systemd and perhaps without usrmerge. I don t have the effort for making such a thing myself. Conclusion Installing Debian without systemd is fairly straightforward. Operating Debian without systemd is a pleasure and every time one of my friends has some systemd-induced lossage I get to feel smug.

comments

tl;dr The Rust Foundation s proposed new trademark policy is far too restrictive, and will cause (more) drama unless it is substantially revised.

• Process
• Substance
• Values
• Next steps
• Echoes of a dispute from 2006

Process Rust is a trademark owned by the Foundation. The Rust Foundation still seems to be finding its feet. Evidently, one of the items on its backlog was to update the trademark policy. Apparently they have been working on this for some time, in an informal working group. In August, there was a survey. (I saw it in This Week In Rust, the community-curated newsletter where most important stuff appears, and responded.) I don t think the results of this survey have been published anywhere. Last week (12th April) the Foundation published an official Inside Rust blog post linking to a draft. They included a link to a feedback survey, closing on the 17th of April i.e., it was open for 5 days. This is far too short a period for formal feedback on such a draft. Especially given that this process has apparently already been generating significant controversy within parts of the Rust community. Substance Overall, this policy is poor. It is far too restrictive. It is likely to lead to (further) controversy and argument, including conflicts with Rust s downstreams. It does not serve the needs of the Rust community. In particular, the Rust community does not need the trademark to:

• Maintain the quality of software called Rust.
• Prevent people distributing badly-modified versions of its software, even called Rust , provided that users know what they are getting.

The community does need the trademark to:

• Prevent people impersonating the Rust Project (for example by registering competing domain names).
• Prevent people economically exploiting the value of the brand by holding shabby or vacuous conferences etc. (so requiring approval for e.g. conferences makes sense).

It might be useful to use the trademark to strengthen licensing or CoC compliance. For example, good faith redistributions of a modified Rust, as Rust , would be Free Software, even though the copyright licence permits proprietary derivatives; so use of the Rust trademark should probably require use of a Free licence. There should be a series of blanket permissions to use the word Rust in for example:

• Free Software distributions derived from official Rust software, provided it s recognisably similar. (I.e., you must change its name if you make other big changes too.)
• Free Software libraries written in Rust, or interfacing to Rust, in non-Rust-specific software repositories (including source hosting systems like gitlab, distro package managers e.g. Debian apt, and package managers for other languages e.g. npm).

Currently there aren t. For example the current Debian practice of calling Rust libraries rust-<name-of-crate> is probably in violation. There are a number of more detailed problems with the wording. Values The policy has all the hallmarks of excessive influence from traditional trademark lawyers and not enough influence from the Free Software community. I would like to remind the Free Software activists on the inside of this process that the lawyers are there to serve you and the community. The values embodied in trademark law often conflict with the values of the Free Software community. The Rust Project should adopt a trademark policy which follows the community s values - even if that might weaken our ability to sue evildoers. Next steps The Foundation should take a step back and pause the process. Then, the Foundation should restart the process from a much earlier stage, with much wider publicity. Each stage should be widely advertised to the whole community, with opportunities for feedback. This should include publishing the results of the August 2022 survey. The Foundation should publish a sketch of the legal advice they have received, publicly say what the plausible options are and what their consequences might be (for the community, for downstreams, and for the Foundation s enforcement ability). (Some of this will no doubt repeat the work that has been done in the informal trademark working group. That work wasn t widely enough advertised.) Echoes of a dispute from 2006 Mozilla made a very similar mistake with Firefox in 2006. The official policy stated that no-one was allowed to distribute Firefox with any patches, unless those patches had been pre-approved by Mozilla. Debian is committed to Software Freedom. This must includes the freedom to modify the software as one sees fit, even if the original authors don t agree. Now, overly-restrictive trademark policies are hardly new. Debian often takes the practical view that usually the upstream with such a policy doesn t really mean it. But Mozilla decided they did mean it. They contacted Debian asking for Debian to get their patches approved. Since that wasn t acceptable to Debian, they stopped using the word Firefox . For a decade, Debian s Firefox browser was called Iceweasel . We don t want something similar happening to Rust .

comments

tl;dr git submodules are always the wrong solution. Yes, even the to the problem they were specifically invented to solve.

• What is wrong with git submodules
• Better alternatives to git submodules
  • Use git subtree
  • Just have a monorepo
  • Use a package management system, and explicit dependencies
  • Use the multiple repository tool mr
  • Have your build expect to find the dependency in .., its parent dir
  • Provide an ad-hoc in-tree script to download the dependency

( Read more... )

comments

tl;dr Have you ever wished that you could that could write a new derive macro without having to mess with procedural macros? Now you can! derive-adhoc lets you write a #[derive] macro, using a template syntax which looks a lot like macro_rules!. It s still 0.x - so unstable, and maybe with sharp edges. We want feedback! And, the documentation is still very terse. It is doesn t omit anything, but, it is severely lacking in examples, motivation, and so on. It will suit readers who enjoy dense reference material. ( Read more... )

comments

Recently, we managed to get secnet and hippotat into Debian. They are on track to go into Debian bookworm. This completes in Debian the set of VPN/networking tools I (and other Greenend) folks have been using for many years. The Sinister Greenend Organisation s suite of network access tools consists mainly of:

• secnet - VPN.
• hippotat - IP-over-HTTP (workaround for bad networks)
• userv ipif - user-created network interfaces

secnet secnet is our very mature VPN system. Its basic protocol idea is similar to that in Wireguard, but it s much older. Differences from Wireguard include:

• Comes with some (rather clumsy) provisioning tooling, supporting almost any desired virtual network topology. In the SGO we have a complete mesh of fixed sites (servers), and a number of roaming hosts (clients), each of which can have one or more sites as its home.
• No special kernel drivers required. Everything is userspace.
• An exciting polypath mode where packets are sent via multiple underlying networks in parallel, offering increased reliability for roaming hosts.
• Portable to non-Linux platforms.
• A much older, and less well audited, codebase.
• Very flexible configuration arrangements, but things are also under-documented and to an extent under-productised.
• Hasn t been ported to phones/tablets.

secnet was originally written by Stephen Early, starting in 1996 or so. I inherited it some years ago and have been maintaining it since. It s mostly written in C. Hippotat Hippotat is best described by copying the intro from the docs:

Hippotat is a system to allow you to use your normal VPN, ssh, and other applications, even in broken network environments that are only ever tested with web stuff . Packets are parcelled up into HTTP POST requests, resembling form submissions (or JavaScript XMLHttpRequest traffic), and the returned packets arrive via the HTTP response bodies.

It doesn t rely on TLS tunnelling so can work even if the local network is trying to intercept TLS. I recently rewrote Hippotat in Rust. userv ipif userv ipif is one of the userv utilities. It allows safe delegation of network routing to unprivileged users. The delegation is of a specific address range, so different ranges can be delegated to different users, and the authorised user cannot interfere with other traffic. This is used in the default configuration of hippotat packages, so that an ordinary user can start up the hippotat client as needed. On chiark userv-ipif is used to delegate networking to users, including administrators of allied VPN realms. So chiark actually runs at least 4 VPN-ish systems in production: secnet, hippotat, Mark Wooding s Tripe, and still a few links managed by the now-superseded udptunnel system. userv userv ipif is a userv service. That is, it is a facility which uses userv to bridge a privilege boundary. userv is perhaps my most under-appreciated program. userv can be used to straightforwardly bridge (local) privilege boundaries on Unix systems. So for example it can:

• Allow a sysadmin to provide a shell script to be called by unprivileged users, but which will run as root. sudo can do this too but it has quite a few gotchas, and you have to be quite careful how you use it - and its security record isn t great either.
• Form the internal boundary in a privilege-separated system service. So, for example, the hippotat client is a program you can run from the command line as a normal user, if the relevant network addresses have been delegated to you. On chiark, CGI programs run as the providing user - not using suexec (which I don t trust), but via userv.

userv services can be defined by the called user, not only by the system administrator. This allows a user to reconfigure or divert a system-provided default implementation, and even allows users to define and implement ad-hoc services of their own. (Although, the system administrator can override user config.) Acknowledgements Thanks for the help I had in this effort. In particular, thanks to Sean Whitton for encouragement, and the ftpmaster review; and to the Debian Rust Team for their help navigating the complexities of handling Rust packages within the Debian Rust Team workflow.

comments